The GOP War on Women, by Michael Davis – Straight No Chaser #264 | @MDWorld
April 13, 2012 Michael Davis 2 Comments
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin quietly repealed a Wisconsin law that made it easier for victims of wage discrimination to sue.
In other words if you are a woman and you are getting paid less for doing the exact same job as a man the law that was on the books made it easier for you to have your day in court and to fight against the injustice of being a second class citizen.
Well, Walker decided he didn’t like that so he repealed it.
This is just the latest in a long line of GOP actions taken against women. If the GOP is NOT waging war against women then WHY on earth would a GOP Governor repeal a law that’s SOLE intent was to make sure people are treated equally?
I’ll tell you why-because the GOP doesn’t think women are equal. Nor do they think Black, Jews, Gays, Mexicans and a slew of other minorities are either.
This is not my opinion-this is a fact. The facts are that the GOP makes it a point to make discrimination a policy and the law of the land.
I won’t list the many examples of GOP policy making, which are anti Gay, Black, etc..
I’ll just ask someone, anyone on the Right to explain to me how repealing a law that was set in place to make sure women are paid the same amount for doing the same job as a man is problematic and had to be repealed?
HOW is striking down that law NOT anti women?
Don’t bring up some bullshit about Obama and how he’s the reason Jesus was killed or some other deflection.
Just answer this ONE question-
HOW is striking down that law NOT anti women?
Don’t bring up that Obama was born on the moon.
Just answer this ONE question-
HOW is striking down that law NOT anti women?
Don’t bring up that George W. Bush really killed Osama..
Just answer this ONE question-
HOW is striking down that law NOT anti women?
Don’t bring up that because of Obama gas prices will be ten dollars a gallon.
Just answer this ONE question-
HOW is striking down that law NOT anti women?
After you answer, that’s ANSWER the question then you can go back to calling Obama a Muslim.
Don’t deflect.
Don’t pivot.
Don’t change the subject.
Don’t LIE.
AFTER you answer THAT question then you can go back to calling Obama a socialist.
Until you can answer that question know this, the GOP has a real problem with women, white women in particular. That means you have a real problem in November because everyone knows white women love Black men.
Oh and Ed-shut the fuck up, bitch.
Rene
April 13, 2012 - 4:49 am
Okay, I’m not a right-winger, but let me take a guess at how they will rationalize that one.
That law was bad, because free market is magic, awesome, spectacular, cure-all, do-all, fantastic and makes your dick grow several extra inches.
Any law that restricts or regulates wages and the god-given right of any employer to make any arrangement with an employee is bad, horrible, socialist attrocity. Because the state must be kept as far away from the workplace as possible.
Am I doing good so far?
Damon
April 13, 2012 - 6:57 am
I have not researched this a lot, but I would guess it’s because there were already laws on the books protecting those rights. Let me guess, these laws went into effect when there was a democrat majority that tried to pander to women’s rights by passing pointless legislation that “improves women’s rights!”, because we all know that passing a law solves problems.
I have not seen more than a brief amount of research into this . . .but I’m guessing the objection to this law was the same as those who might oppose “hate crimes” legislation, mainly that it’s a law that says something is illegal that is already illegal. It’s pointless.
There, see I managed that without any reference to free markets or penis enlargements.
Doug Abramson
April 13, 2012 - 7:48 am
Because…um…ah… Just because. Obama, Obama, Muslim, fascist, socialist, communist, liberul, blah, blah, blah!!!!!!
Doug Abramson
April 13, 2012 - 7:56 am
If the laws on the books that imply that unequal pay is illegal are not enforced by the state or the courts, which does happen, then more explicit laws are needed to force enforcement. Its sad that all employers, or the courts, can’t be trusted to do the right thing on their own; but what should society do, ignore it and hope it goes away?
Damon
April 13, 2012 - 8:27 am
With that logic, we should have passed a “Arrest George Zimmerman” bill instead of simply arresting him. By all means, let’s pass a new law every time the existing one is not enforced.
Geoffrey L. Garfield
April 13, 2012 - 8:40 am
Who’s Ed and why should he STFU?
Rick Oliver
April 13, 2012 - 9:28 am
So the Muslims killed Jesus? It was probably those secular atheist radical Islamists that Newt was talking about.
MOTU
April 13, 2012 - 10:37 am
STILL waiting for someone to tell me WHY this law is NOT anti-women.
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
MOTU
April 13, 2012 - 10:40 am
G,
Ed is a once respected artist who can now shut the fuck up. long story-I’ll tell you in person. I’m having a good day after having a fantastic week so why spoil it?
MOTU
April 13, 2012 - 10:43 am
I meant I’m STILL waiting for someone to tell me WHY repealing this law is NOT anti-
Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Mitt? Newt? Rush? Rick?
MOTU
April 13, 2012 - 10:44 am
I meant I’m STILL waiting for someone to tell me WHY repealing this law is NOT anti-WOMEN!!
S H I T !!!!!!
George Haberberger
April 13, 2012 - 11:48 am
Well since you asked so nicely, but Damon already answered you and he is correct.
The law that was repealed was redundant. The Wisconsin Fair Employment Law has listed gender as a protected class since 1961.
From Scott Walker:
“Individuals subject to discrimination will continue to be able to seek these damages in federal court and are eligible for back pay, reinstatement, court costs, and attorney fees just as they were under prior law. 2011 Wisconsin Act 219 removes a duplicative and unnecessarily costly process related to seeking punitive and compensatory damages in state court, allowing trial lawyers to raise their payouts. It does not single out any group of individuals. All individuals in Wisconsin will be treated the same as they have been for decades. Wisconsin has and will continue to have some of the strongest workplace protections in the nation.”
I know Michael Davis likes to use hyperbolic verbiage to make his point but all that hyperbole seems to just be camouflage and padding when there is really no point to be made. Why all those ridiculous straw men questions? Nobody who thinks Obama was born not he moon is reading this.
The Republican Party is not anti-women. The Democrats however… Hilary Rosen anyone? There are 29 Republican governors, 4 of them are women for an average of 13.7%. There are 20 Democratic governors, (Rhode Island’s governor is an independent), and 2 of them are women, for an average of 10%.
Thank you for giving me permission to call the president a socialist, but i respectively decline.
Martha Thomses
April 13, 2012 - 12:16 pm
What job was HilarynOsn elected to? In my opinion, she is the worst kind of corporatist. Her previous gig was head of the RIAA, where she devoted all her time to prosecuting music downloaded (because they were stealing money from record companies) and surprisingly little time making sure musicians got paid.
R. Maheras
April 13, 2012 - 12:21 pm
MOTU — There is so much spin on this story from the left, it actually took me almost two full minutes of Googling to drill down through all of the anti-Republican hype to find someone who actually cited the governor’s rationale — which appears to be that the law, as George just pointed out above, was redundant, and whose primary benefactor was not Joe or Jane Doe, but claims lawyers, who would get bigger payouts.
For a non-histrionic news story about the whole deal, see http://wearegreenbay.com/fulltext?nxd_id=121522
In short, this appears to me to be a tempest in a teapot.
Rick Oliver
April 13, 2012 - 12:43 pm
George: I was sort of with you until your reference to Hilary Rosen and your meaningless statistics. Regarding the latter, the difference is not even close to being statistically significant (partially because of the small sample size). In fact, there’s a better than 50% chance that you could get this result from entirely random data. And I’ll see your 4 to 2 governors and raise you 12 to 5 senators.
As for Hilary Rosen, she’s not an elected official, and her statements could hardly be called “anti-women” although they were certainly anti-non-working mother”, which is indeed a legitimate source of criticism.
MOTU
April 13, 2012 - 1:47 pm
Redundant people? The Republican Party is not anti-women?
Fact: In Four Months, Republicans Introduced 916 Bills Against Women’s Right To Choose when they ran on jobs jobs jobs also:
1) Republicans not only want to reduce women’s access to abortion care, they’re actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven’t yet. Shocker.
2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to “accuser.” But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain “victims.”
3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)
4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.
5) In Congress, Republicans have a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.
6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids’ preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.
7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.
8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.
9) Congress just voted for a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.
10) And if that wasn’t enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can’t make this stuff up).
But all THAT aside-no ONE has still told me HOW repealing that law is NOT anti-women?
It being redundant does NOT answer the question. Other laws that say the same thing does NOT answer the question.
Rick Oliver
April 13, 2012 - 2:35 pm
The Republicans are just trying to level the playing field. God clearly gives women an unfair advantage. They have lower death rates at all age levels, including infant mortality.
Vinnie Bartilucci
April 13, 2012 - 2:38 pm
I don’t care if a dozen other laws do the same thing as this law. You can’t possibly strike down a law whose sole purpose is to make sure women equal pay and NOT expect to get pilloried.
Fine, it’s redundant, and should be removed so the one law can work right. That puts it on the list of old and antiquated laws you can repeal when everything else is done. When you’re down to finally killing the law that bans women from wearing crinoline petticoats in the town square on Sundays, THEN you can talk about killing this one. If there are other more important things to do, it waits.
Surely the actual Republicans have gone somewhere. The guys who want less taxes and less government. The ones that were against giving control to the religious fringe. The guys like Goldwater and Reagan, who knew not to give control people who don’t know how to cooperate, cause they know God wants it this way.
They probably just vacated the party when all the religious nuts moved in. Right Flight, if you will.
If I knew where they went, I’d go there.
Until then, I have to keep calling myself a republican, and hastily follow up with “but not one of THOSE republicans”.
George Haberberger
April 13, 2012 - 2:44 pm
“It being redundant does NOT answer the question. Other laws that say the same thing does NOT answer the question.”
Repealing this law is not anti-woman because passing it was not pro-woman. It was pro-pandering for votes. From the article that R. Maheras referrenced above: “In the 2 1/2 years the law has been in place, it has never been applied in any cases.”
Passing yet another law that pertains to something already illegal is our government being stupid. There is a proposal in Missouri to make it illegal to text and drive. Why?? Careless and imprudent driving is already illegal.
MOTU
April 13, 2012 - 3:01 pm
George,
I’ll bite-
“There is a proposal in Missouri to make it illegal to text and drive. Why?? Careless and imprudent driving is already illegal.”
In my eyes making it illegal to text and drive even though there is already a law making imprudent driving illegal-makes sense. They are in affect doubleing down to make it crystal clear DO NOT DRIVE like an idiot. It also makes it CRYSTAL clear NOT to text and drive.
Clearly many assholes would say that texting and driving is NOT Careless and imprudent driving so having a law that makes its a crime to do so is a pretty good way to keep those assholes from saying what they were doing was not hazardous.
Repealing a law that strengthens an existing law weakens the law that is still on the books. The end result-reapeling that law is anti women. Repealing the law hurts women, leaving the law intact helps and if there are 20 more laws that say the same thing then so be it.
MOTU
April 13, 2012 - 3:31 pm
Steve,
‘Now, who wants to discuss the American Nazi Party having a lobbyist?”
WHO are they lobbying?
MOTU
April 13, 2012 - 7:07 pm
Open to working with all members of Congress???
To do WHAT-kill some fags, Jews and niggers???
Rick Oliver
April 14, 2012 - 9:02 am
Wisconsin state senator Glen Grothman said, “You could argue that money is more important for men. I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious.”
Nope. No anti-women bias there.
And if the law “has never been applied in any cases” it would almost certainly have been cheaper to leave it on the books. So this was clearly intended to send some kind of message — although the one they sent was probably not the one they intended, probably because they really just don’t get it.
Jonathan (the other one)
April 14, 2012 - 10:14 am
Riding the Hillary Rosen derail a bit further, her original statement was neither anti-woman nor anti-working-woman. Her statement was simply that Mrs. Romney, being the longtime wife of a man hardly hurting for money, and never having actually worked for a paycheck, is hardly the person who’s going to know the most about the economic concerns of the average American woman (who does earn a paycheck, and isn’t part of the fabled 1%).
Of course, that statement could hardly be argued on its merits, so it had to be twisted all out of shape into an offense against women in general so Mitt could try to wrest some minimal political advantage out of the situation.
Rene
April 14, 2012 - 10:23 am
MOTU –
I answered the question. Republicans see the Free Market as the shining source of everything good. In their view, less regulation in the workplace will benefit everybody in society, and since women are part of society, it will benefit them too. Somehow. So the law is not anti-woman.
MOTU
April 14, 2012 - 12:30 pm
Rene,
You point is well made…BUT…the fact that the GOP may think it’s not anti-women does not make it not anti-women to women.
Ask one.
According to the GOP banning Gay marriage is not anti-Gay.
MOTU
April 14, 2012 - 12:43 pm
What gets me Hillary Rosen bullshit is this-the statement was TRUE.
Now we can’t tell the truth without somebody making it a ‘this just in moment’ on FOX?
Truth-we went to WAR with TWO countries that did NOT attack us.
Truth-we went to war with one of those countries because we were told they had weapons of mass destruction.
Truth-there were NO weapons of mass destruction.
Truth-that makes the Bush Administration LIARS or IDIOTS
Fact-if Obama said what I just said, all of which is TRUE, the Right would try and paint him as anti-American.
Truth-If Obama had a son he WOULD look like Trayvon…see above.
On a side but related note-I’ve actually found the weapon of mass destruction it was George W. Bush.
Rene
April 14, 2012 - 1:10 pm
I’m with you. I’m not a free market acolyte. But that would be one of the ways a right-winger would answer your question.
I think some conservatives are more or less honest about their admiration of the free market and their belief that they’re blind to gender and race. They despise the “nanny state”, they think women and blacks are “ruined” by affirmative action, that any law that supposedly protects your rights in the workplace is only a set of training wheels that stops you from ever learning how the ride a bike without the wheels.
Some of them.
Others are just social conservative assholes that think a woman’s place is at home taking care of the children, so let’s strike this law.
As for being anti-gay, that is a little different. Right-wingers are a bit more honest about disapproving of gays. Homophobia is still less condemned than sexism that is still less condemned than racism by its turn.
George Haberberger
April 14, 2012 - 1:49 pm
“In my eyes making it illegal to text and drive even though there is already a law making imprudent driving illegal-makes sense. They are in affect doubleing down to make it crystal clear DO NOT DRIVE like an idiot. It also makes it CRYSTAL clear NOT to text and drive.
Clearly many assholes would say that texting and driving is NOT Careless and imprudent driving so having a law that makes its a crime to do so is a pretty good way to keep those assholes from saying what they were doing was not hazardous.”
MOTU, I feel very confident that if a case in which someone was charged with careless and imprudent driving but their defense was that they were not driving carelessly or imprudently, only texting and driving, and you were on the jury, that that argument would not hold and you would vote guilty. I know I would, and I believe you to be similarly logical in your thought processes. At least you are when you are not claiming some people believe Obama was born on the moon.
MOTU
April 14, 2012 - 2:30 pm
“At least you are when you are not claiming some people believe Obama was born on the moon.
That almost made me spit coffee on my lap top.
No one and I mean no one is allowed to be funnier that me on my site!!
MOTU
April 14, 2012 - 2:36 pm
Rene,
“Right-wingers are a bit more honest about disapproving of gays.”
Not when they are a Congressman trying to get some good old bathroom sex from a under cover policeman…OR…when they are a senator and they are sending sexual texts to young boys who are congressional pages…OR when they are busted doing meth and hiring male hookers while in charge of a Right wing church…OR…etc,etc,etc…
Rene
April 14, 2012 - 3:23 pm
Yeah, yeah, I know.
With Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann’s husband, Tim Tebow, all giving off those huge gay vibes, I sometimes wonder if there are any conservatives that are straight?
It’s easier now to understand their obsession with puritanical Christianity. You can tell your wife that you don’t want to have sex with her for pleasure, only for reproduction, so we already have two kids, can we please stop now?
Rick Oliver
April 14, 2012 - 11:07 pm
A great deal of Christian theology is based on Paul’s letters, and Paul is pretty clear on being anti-sex, but then he’s also basically anti-marriage since he thought that anything that got in the way of worshiping God was bad, and having a family to take care of would certainly be a distraction from the all important business of worshiping. Paul essentially said don’t get involved in relations with the opposite sex, but if you absolutely can’t avoid it, get married. If more early Christians had taken Paul’s advice, maybe there wouldn’t be enough of them left today to cause problems.
Bill Mulligan
April 15, 2012 - 6:08 pm
If Hilary Rosen’s statement was true, does that mean the condemnation that statement by virtually ALL of the members of the Presidents team–including the first lady–were lies?
Defending Rosen’s foolishness will leave you pretty much alone with Bill Maher. Even Ms. Rosen has issued two apologies, one the usual mealie-mouthed nonalgy and the latest a good deal more sincere in that “my job is on the line” way.
And, like Martha, I can work up little tears for an RIAA shill. And why are we even arguing bout what, as others have pointed out, is an unelected individual? As opposed to, say, Rush Limbaugh, right?
Neil C.
April 16, 2012 - 6:33 am
How many people hang on Hilary Rosen’s every word, Bill? Yet with Rush, there are people who will believe anything as long as he says it. I have one of those types in my building.
Rick Oliver
April 16, 2012 - 7:27 am
I don’t pay attention to what Rush or Sean or Glenn have to say. I only find out about it when they act particularly stupid and they become “news”. I don’t worry about the effect they may have on their listeners. Their listeners are either dumb as rocks or just want to hear someone validate their preconceived opinions.
Bill Mulligan
April 16, 2012 - 10:36 am
Neil, no question about it, Limbaugh is more influential than Ms. Rosen will ever dream of being, but my point was that it is silly to dismiss her as of no consequence due to her unelected condition if one is going to try to make Limbaugh more than a 1 day story. I’m sure there are those who let Limbaugh do their thinking for them; hell SOMEBODY thought hiring Olbermann was a good idea. The world is full of foolish people.
But if people are going to make a big show out of being offended by every stupid thing someone says they will probably end up in a position where they will either have to show the same level of shock and outrage at one of their own loudmouths or twist into pretzel logic to explain why some outrageous statements are just poorly worded while others call for nuclear retaliation.
Jonathan (the other one)
April 16, 2012 - 10:38 am
I pay close attention to Rush. They’ve got a new album, Clockwork Angels, coming out next month, and the first single drops later this week!
Oh, you mean that Limbaugh turkey? Is he still around?
Reg
April 16, 2012 - 9:29 pm
Rick said…”A great deal of Christian theology is based on Paul’s letters, and Paul is pretty clear on being anti-sex, but then he’s also basically anti-marriage since he thought that anything that got in the way of worshiping God was bad, and having a family to take care of would certainly be a distraction from the all important business of worshiping.”
Although I fully realize that no theological argument I would present in rebuttal to the above would have any persuasive impact upon your worldview I am nevertheless compelled to respond as succinctly (with no snark attached)as possible…
FAIL.
sharksbreath
April 21, 2012 - 7:50 pm
Rene
Republicans see the Free Market as the shining source of everything good.
—
No matter how many facts that are presented to dispute that belief.
See the housing crash.
Heck. See the entire Bush presidency. The Republicans put everyone of their idiotic beliefs in action and they turned a surplus to a depression.
Deficits don’t matter and the surplus is bad. Right along with the free market is God that is what Republicans believed.
Not only should you be ran out of office you should actually be checked for a mental illness because your ignoring basic math for your beliefs.
There was a study. It wanted to know that if someone was presented with facts if they would change their belief.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/
Nope.
It really explains the Republican party to a tee. It’s kinda like a mental illness.