R. Crumb’s take, from tumblr
h/t: Gregory James
Women voting Republican
October 26, 2012 • 3:34 am
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
The picture speaks for itself!
Right? Why do they do that?
Sixty percent of registered voters are women. Think about it.
Doesn’t this apply to everyone other than rich white men voting Republican?
Rich theocrats, unlike simply rich.
(From the outside the two main federal US parties look like the plutocratic party and the theocratic plutocratic party.)
Which makes me wonder, all the more, why women stand as Repugnant, sorry, Republican candidates?
Not just women. Never mind Black Republicans like Hermann Cain, never mind all the Tea Partiers hell-bent on getting rid of the Medicaid and other social benefits they’d die without…
…I present to you, for your consideration: the Log Cabin Republicans.
Cheers,
b&
Indoctrination.
sub
More correct than you realise.
I think it’s a fifty shades thing. I know women who physically tremble with the pleasure of the humiliation that Catholicism blesses them with.
Makes them feel ‘special.’
Well a significant portion of women are Catholics and fundi Christians so they fully believe that abortion should be illegal, many think a woman should be submissive to a man and a smaller amount of devout Catholics believe that all forms of birth control should be illegal. Add all of those things together and you have a group of women who proudly vote for a man to tell them what to do.
Another thing which gets me is why more Christians don’t vote for laws which help the poor and needy, I mean those two things were the bed rock of Jesus’s preaching (and the Hebrew prophets), instead you get the fundi legalistic ones.
Because it is impossible to extract a single consistent moral message from the founding documents of religion. Any position can be justified by some bit here or there. What we have are a lot of authoritarian-inclined people justifying their selfish worldview by banging on bibles. Nothing more than that. It is a mistake to expect consistency from religion.
The current christian gods hath decreed that It helps those that help themselves. Rather amazing how that works too as it is no longer a sin to be rich. Just means that their gods have helped them more, they is mo righteous and they don’t want to deprive others of a chance to receive riches from the christian gods. So they must force themselves to allow the poor and needy to help themselves – though love.
I’m not a christian, but I’m amazed by their hypocrisy and complete lack of actually reading the bible for themselves (although if they did we’d see a decrease in the number of fundi christians). They often quote things like “god helps those they help themselves” then they’re shocked and think I”m lying when I point out that its not in the bible. I love listening to their new ways to prove that Jesus was super rich.
But in gbjames is right, its possible to get almost any message out of the bible.
My mother is a Catholic as was my Grandmother who told me I was “baptized a Democrat.” My mother has voted Democrat all her life and it is the treatment of the poor that keep her doing so. She has no real qualms with birth control but never used any herself. She does believe that abortion is murder. and increasingly she hears about it in church. Still, she can never bring herself to pull the lever for the candidate who wants to take away school lunches, Head Start and welfare that allows people to get an education and feed and care for their children.
As for the larger Catholic community, most American Catholics do not adhere to the Church on birth control, or premarital sex. And the effect of religion on voting is diminishing for Catholics, largely because they no longer live in enlcaves. While older mid-west Catholics who are weekly church goers skew strongly Republican Latino, urban Catholics and so called cafeteria Catholics skew Democratic.
I should note that the only reason Catholics are still the largest religious group in the U.S. is due to immigration.
Like many moral attitudes amongst the religious, many christian women do believe that abortion should be illegal… for everyone else.
Should it ever be necessary for them too have an abortion then their case is *special*.
Mike.
Yeah this has been proved time and time again, just look at the recent case of congressman Scott DesJarlais.
Makes sense explaining quite a few women voting GOP.
I think it’s also a “My Team” mentality.
It’s like football; “I support my team whether it plays well or $uck at it. It’s my team!”
The other team is considered the looser, even though all logic indicates that’s the winning team.
Team/party loyalty is OK, but only to a certain point….
In my not-so-humble opinion, this post, along with the one below from Miss Texas Kitty, are the most accurate. Due to my rather unfortunate past, I know literally hundreds of fundamentalist women, *all* of whom are single-issue abortion voters. They can’t be reasoned, or even spoken, with. If it just happens to come along with generous dollops of racism, militarism, homophobia, a smugly self-satisfied middle-class lifestyle etc., well, let’s just say that they are not all that upset. Do you think even *one* of them knows that jesus never mentioned either abortion or homosexuality (both of which were live issues in his time and place; I’m assuming for discussion’s sake the somewhat doubtful proposition that he actually existed) and that he spoke at length about social injustice and the danger of riches? Hint: the answer is “no”.
When I failed Modern Physics in the sixties it was because the Schrödinger wave equation did me in… I just didn’t understand it. The second time around I got–earned–an A because I understood it well enough.
Republican women I do not understand.
“It’s masochism … and it’s offered to you by sadists.” — Hitchens
Old and tired, but worth a re-tread nonetheless.
R.Crumb is still around?! I’m sure that Mr. Natural will vote Obama!
I listen to other women, those who will vote republican and find the truth is the abortion issue. Many are very ill informed, believe exactly what they are told, do no real independent research, have no opinion that is not fed to them by their husband or church leaders.
I don’t understand these women and honestly no longer attempt to understand them. I no longer have patience for the ill informed “extremely right” leaning voter.
The “log cabin” republicans have just endorsed Romney. A man who is very comfortable with a wife that shows a remarkable slave like attitude.
Equality for all humans is not a part of his vocabulary.
It’s actually easy to explain, if not understand:
generations of male privilege combined with authoritarian personality.
explains the entire behavior set.
I think she’s missing something. A good battering by the “Wand of Humiliation” that Doonesbury was writing about a few months ago? Contempt should be seen to be done.
Just plain insulting, and sexist as hell.
Which do you mean, the cartoon or Republican candidates?
The New Yorker‘s Andy Borowitz has again outdone himself with another piece of brilliant spoof that fels just too true to be just funny.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/10/gop-split-over-whether-to-emphasize-misogyny-or-racism.html
As an impartial across-the-pond observer I feel I should point out the artist’s error. She should’ve been punching down, not up.
http://www.dependablerenegade.com/.a/6a00d8341bf82953ef017c32cc4657970b-320wi
Republican mid-west voter registration drive:
Professor, with all respect, this is getting silly. You do know that there are a significant number of secular conservatives out there, who – heaven forbid – see the Republicans as being more realistic about the problems America faces than democrats? See the site Secular Right as an example. As for the abortion issue, I would simply point out that Christopher Hitchens – while not necesarily agreeing with them about the issue – did have sympathy for those who held the the anti-abortion position and could see where they were coming from on humanistic grounds (which incidentally, doesn’t require religious belief – again, there are pro-life atheists out there, although admitedly they are a relatively rare breed). Finally, I would point out that young people especially, who tend to be more skeptical about religion, actually tend to be more anti-abortion than their elders. Are they just a bunch of fools who are too stupid to know their own interests?
I’ve no idea how many secular conservatives there are, nor do I care.
So Christopher Hitchens thought that . . .? what? there should be fewer abortions? so do I As few as possible.
But so what? Science has yet to find a way to make me, a man, pregnant. Until it does, I’ll refrain from trying to control what women do with their bodies.
And as I have four sisters, certainly one of whom, and I suspect three of whom (they only hinted) have been raped, I heartily commend you to Basement Cat
You should care that there are a lot of secular conservatives, since there are a lot of them and their number will grow – try actually first grappling with their arguments before mindlessly condemning them (Again, secular right is a good place to start). Hitchens was arguing not merely his sympathy for reducing abortions but for the anti-abortion point of view itself. Finally, with all respect for your sister and for other victims of rape, which is indeed terrible and she and they have all my sympathy – what does rape have to do with whether or not abortion is correct or not? Either it’s wrong or it’s not, and either the embryo and/or fetus does or does not deserve protection – I really believe that emotion should generally be eschwewed concerning this subject and should be addressed rationally by all sides.
You should care that there are a lot of secular conservatives
your argument is nothing more than an argument from authority.
fail.
what does rape have to do with whether or not abortion is correct or not?
nothing. what it DOES have to do with is whether it is appropriate for YOU to force someone ELSE to have a rapists child.
which, of course, is exactly what you’re trying to convince us of.
sorry, but no. It should always be the mother’s choice to bring, or not bring, a pregnancy to term, period. It’s not your choice, not my choice, nobody’s choice but the mother’s.
that you can’t see where the abrogation of personal autonomy leads to is not our fault.
Fair enough on your point about appealing to authority – I would say in response that one of the reasons they are a significant minority who are growing is because they are very insightful, especially concerning the connections between public policy and genetics/sociobiology/evolutionary psychology. See again Secular Right, or Steve Sailor, or Charles Murray at the AEI blog, among many others for examples of this perception.
Joshua, I don’t think it’s entirely possible for a rape victim to eschew emotion when dealing with the rape itself or a pregnancy resulting from the assault.
Here’s my issue: The belief that a fertilized egg is a fully realized human being who must be protected at all costs is a religious one. Catholic teaching is so strict on this matter that the Catholic protocol in emergency rooms if a rape victim presents within 72 hours of a rape is:
– Give the rape victim a pregnancy test.
– Get a medical history from the rape victim determining where she might be in her cycle.
If the test is positive, the E.R. assumes the pregnancy was pre-existing, and they offer no morning after treatment.
If they determine that a woman might be ovulating, they assume there’s a possibility a fertilized egg may exist. Their policy in this instance is NOT TO OFFER Plan B, because preventing implantation (a key step in the pregnancy process, since not all fertlized eggs implant) is, in their view, an early-stage abortion.
And here’s the kicker. The staff in a Catholic hospital E.R. doesn’t really inform rape victims about the purpose of their protocol, because they are afraid that victims who don’t share their religious beliefs about the sacredness of conception will take steps to make sure a preganancy doesn’t occur. Their protocol at this point is to wait and see if a pregnancy occurs. !!!
This has become such an issue that several states –including Mass. when Romney was governor — have passed laws that require Catholic ER’s to either offer emergency contraception or inform rape victims where Plan B is offered. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romney-and-plan-b-the-santorum-and-gingrich-claims/2012/02/07/gIQATG6VxQ_blog.html
It’s one thing to cherish a religious belief and act on it personally. It’s quite another to impose that belief on someone else. Particularly a rape victim.
Not to mention the fact that preventing a women from preventing a pregnancy resulting from an assault is more likely to result in an actual abortion.
I’m not surprised that some people cherish some strong beliefs related to pregnancies, however they occur. What does surprise me is the persistant fight to prohibit women from choosing their own belief systems and acting according to their individual consciences.
Yeah, I think you’re right that it is too idealistic – or really, inhuman – to just eschew emotion when you’re the victim of rape, and also that it is perhaps unrealistic for family or friends of rape victims to do so. Total “objectivity” is perhaps unattainable, although I do think a certain civility and at least the attempt to reason through these matters is probably attainable for most people.
As for the rest of your comment, you’ll probably not be surprised that I disagree with many of your points, although I won’t deny a certain discomfort as a result of this disagreement. However, I do think you’re very right about the protocol matter – I believe strongly in transparency, and patients certainly should know the motivations of Catholic practitioners and where they are coming from.
Not fools, just the end products of heavy indoctrination. The Right has kinda made antiabortion propaganda a cornerstone of their politics and, obviously, they’re drilling it into their kids.
Plus younger voters haven’t had to live in a society where abortion is illegal so they’re not directly familiar with the suffering making abortion illegal causes. Kinda like anti-vaxxers that way.
So was Hitchens simply an indoctrinated idiot for having sympathy for the anti-abortion position (not to mention the millions of others throughout the world – including secular Europeans, where abortion laws are stricter than in the U.S.)? If you believe that there should be protection for fetuses and embryos, are you simply beyond the pale as far as civilized discource in a democracy is concerned?
Hitchens argued in favor of upholding Roe vs Wade and for increased research into medical abortions. He did hold some pro-life “sympathy” but it is dishonest in the extreme to conflate his position with that of current anti-abortion activists.
I also believe you are misrepresenting the situation in Europe. Although it is true that many countries limit on demand abortion after the first trimester, 88% of abortions in the US occur in the first trimester. Most abortions that occur in the US after the first trimester are medically indicated. I believe you will find that the majority of Europe permits abortion for medical reasons after the first trimester as well. So there isn’t much of a practical difference. Except that in Europe, the government health systems may fund the abortion. But this talk of Europe is just a bit of smoke isn’t it? The goal of anti-abortionists in the US is not to imitate secular Europe, but to outlaw abortion entirely.
Your last sentence is so vague as to prevent any coherent response. Obviously, anti-abortionists are free to voice their opinions in the US, and we are free to criticize them. If you believe they are attempting civilized discourse, however, I suggest you review their arguments and tactics. I don’t see any pro-choices saying “some girls rape easy”
Thanks for your considered and candid response.
1. Although there might be room for debate, I do still think I interprerted Christopher Hitchen’s opinion fairly, at least as far as this exchange between Hitchens and Bill Buckley is concerned http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/26690 . It is true that Hitchens is being unusually cryptic in his responses, but he never really contradicts the moderator when the latter suggests that Hitchens and Buckley share common ground in opposition to abortion. Note also this key line by Hitchens: “ I take with you that it’s a conflict of rights.” In other words, Hitchens admits there is a tension between the rights of the mother and the rights of the unborn child. Like I said earlier, this doesn’t mean that Hitchens is against abortion, but it does again suggest by implication a respect for the anti-abortion argument If you know of other sources which better document Hitchen’s opinions, please provide a link and I will look at it.
2. Concerning abortion and Europe, my point was simply that I believe both pro-choice advocates and pro-life advocates there are more free to argue their positions than in the U.S., and with less questioning of purposes and motives (a very pernicious problem in the U.S., in my strong opinion – the lack of respect that people have for differing opinions is very destructive to democratic governance here. Indeed it was this that inspired me to bring up the issue in the first place). Different factions – made up of a variety of people of good will with different opinions and perspectives – are able to duke it out in European legislatures and eventually arrive at some kind of consensus. It’s democracy in action, where people are able to put their trust in persuasion rather than judicial fiat (the case in the U.S.). Should it not be surprising then that the abortion issue is less contentious in Europe than it is in the U.S?
3. I certainly agree that there is stupidity within the anti-abortion movement, although I think it is important to be judicious and fair about it. I happen to live in Missouri, where of course Todd Akin made his infamous statesment about abortion and rape. It’s interesting actually, because just the other day my mom asked who I was going to vote for for Senator, and I said I couldn’t vote for Akin because of his callousness and stupidity (I usually vote Republican). I suspect thousands of other conservatives in Missouri will do the same thing. Also, I would point out that almost immediately after Akin’s statement became public both the state and national Republican party denounced the congressman and asked him to drop out. I think that this response in pretty emblematic of how the Republican party tends to respond to outrageous statements, although to be sure you’ll find plenty of exceptions. But then, you’ll find crazies within any political movement or coalition – that’s the nature of politics.
I don’t expect that you’ll agree with any of this, but I did want to respond. Thanks again for your input.
Just a clarification. In number 3, I should have added that the Republican party – again, in general – tends to speak out against controversial statements like the one Akin made or the reference you listed of “some girls rape easily.” Also, it doesn’t mean that some commentators don’t try to understand where individuals like Akin are coming from, which I don’t see as attepts to condone or justify. Honestly, I wish I had more time to devote to all of this, since I believe it can actually be very complicated. Anyway, you can take my comments for what they are worth.
Sadly, it is not the ‘Republican party in general’ who make legislative decisions. That responsibility belongs to the likes of Akin, Paul, Rivard etc., and on the basis of such statements, I do not think that they can be trusted to make rational decisions.
Yes, there are secular conservatives. So what? There are also atheists who maintain a fondness for religion. Is it silly to point out the absurdity of their position?
Today’s Republican candidates are not making an effort to reduce abortion. If that was their interest they would be advocating for greater availability of contraception. They are not making the case the equal rights for women. If they did they would not oppose things like the Lilly Ledbetter Act.
So, with all due respect, 39joshua, it is your objection that is a bit silly.
So contraception in your mind then should – by some kind of fiat – simply automatically trump any other issue a woman finds important (foreign policy, taxes, abortion,crime, immigration, etc)? That’s sexist – women should be able to decide on their own which issues they think should be stressed and prioritized as far as voting for candidates is concerned.
My suggestion, 39joshua, is that you read more carefully.
I read it very carefully – what I think is that you chose to ignore my point. Why don’t you address it, rather than taking shots?
I took the shot because there is no reasonable way to get from my statement that if one really wants to reduce abortion one doesn’t seek to block contraception (very popular with Republican politicians these days) to your assertion that I would think that contraception “trumps any other issue” and women shouldn’t think for themselves. That was an offensive assertion and worthy of having a shot taken, IMO.
Foreign policy, taxes, crime, and immigration are not issues that have special resonance for women as opposed to men. Access to woman’s health care services and equal pay are. There is a reason that a political gender gap exists. And it takes a special form of denial to pretend that this isn’t the case.
Thanks for your response. I agree with you that a gender gap exists on issues – however, it is not entirely clean cut and there exists a great deal of variance. Gallup recently conducted a poll which asked men and women what the most important issue of the election was. 39% of women said it was abortion, something no men agreed with, so you’re right that there is a gender gap there. However, 60% of women believed it was other issues: the economy, healthcare access, education, and so on, which I think supports my contention also – that women are not monilithic and prioratize a wide array of issues, something that I think is important to acknowledge.
“that women are not monilithic and prioratize a wide array of issues, something that I think is important to acknowledge”
Yes. And we should acknowledge that women, just like men, consume oxygen when they breath.
As my dad used to say, you are crashing through an open door.
Your point is irrelevant to the subject of this cartoon.
see the Republicans as being more realistic about the problems America faces than democrats?
so you’re happy to toss entire classes of people, including women, under the bus because you *think* there is some magic rethuglican economic platform that will get America “on track”, even though there has NEVER been any evidence for such?
man, I don’t know what to say, other than to spew insults at your intelligence, and Jerry doesn’t like people doing that here.
Let’s coin a new term to describe women who support Romney: the self-loathing woman.
What she said!
Is the picture implying that women are too stupid to know what is good for them?
are you?
Possible alternate headlines for this photo:
Women faithful to the Mormon church (lower incidence of birth control than Catholics, women’s only major role is wife and mother, very patriarchal culture, only two generations away from polygamy, women do not hold leadership positions in the church)
Women faithful to many evangelical churches (that emphasize subservience to men)
Women members of Orthodox Jewish sects (that preclude use of birth control and also value a life of Torah study for males, leaving women to be both breadwinners and childbearers, a particularly unrewarding culture in which to be female)
The common thread is all of these is religion. The beliefs may differ, but the placement of women in a secondary, subservient role is common.
Until more women understand that a religion that views half the human race as inferior or subservient, women will fail to vote their self-interests for religious reasons.
Of course, unfair and unbalanced “news” sources such as Fox play a role in promulgating the phenomenal amount of misinformation out there about women’s issues.
I hear on tv that Romney is attracting more women. But I do not buy it, no matter how you want to live your life I do not understand how anyone would want to have a government in the United States that controls women’s bodies. I hear night and day all this negative talk about Muslim woman and how they have to follow whatever men want , like not driving not going out on their own and wearing clothing with only slits for eyes. In this country women should be trusted to take care of their own bodies and minds ,so much talk about controlling women this election season is very troubling, in fact it is no different basically than what is going on in the Muslim world. It seems we are all created equally as long as we are not women.