I ran across this post on Jezebel yesterday and I now have insight on how the inside of my head looks thanks to all the eyerolls I kept doing.
"Listen Up, Men: Here's How Romney's Views on Women Will Make Your Life More Difficult" is a basic piece on the evils Mitt will unleash on the fairer sex if elected. It's geared at dudes, though, because as the writer points out in the opening, their is a huge chasm between how many guys and many ladies are planning on voting in a couple of weeks:
This "holy crap do men not get it?" epiphany isn't just me gearing up to be a Cathy cartoon for Halloween; according to God of Polling Data Analysis Nate Silver, if the election were held today and only men voted, it would be a landslide Romney victory. If only women voted, Obama would win like a doped up Lance Armstrong. This election is shaping up to showcase the one of the largest gender gaps ever in a Presidential election — but why? Mitt Romney has made it clear that at the very least, his administration would prioritize limiting women's rights over their own bodies, fight equal pay laws, and have a big male har har har about issues near and dear to women of all stripes.
The writer, Erin Gloria Ryan, then gives a list of five reasons why those with a Y chromosome should back away from the dude with the binders full of women. And of those five, three could really be summed up in one word: abortion. Here's some excerpts:
If birth control is less accessible, then less women will be on birth control. And so it stands to reason that women, as a population, will become slightly more fecund. This is bad news for a guy who just wants so have a consensual no-strings-attached fun with an of-age woman, as Romney's plan is to limit access to birth control that women can now purchase with their employer-provided insurance and appoint justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade and limit abortion at the federal level. That means that if a woman in Romn-erica gets pregnant, she stays pregnant. And you, young stud, are on the hook for child support for the first 18 years of that child's life. That means a whole world of headache and red tape.
Okay, let me interject. First, straight off the bat, I'm not against birth control. I am against overly dramatic (and extraordinarily long) statements like that third sentence up there. I've suffered through three debates (and it really was SUFFERING), and have read hundreds of political pontificating essays on my iPAD, and somehow, I must've missed Mittens saying a dang thing about "limiting access to birth control". To clarify, he wants to undo the Affordable Healthcare Act (i.e. Obamacare) and is against the HHS mandate, which is the part that specifically ties to "employer-provided insurance". By the way, there are a lot of folks against the HHS mandate, like the U.S. Catholic Bishops , some Evangelicals,and Orthodox Jews.
But he is against birth control, right? Well, no. What he's against is having employers like religious institutions who teach it to be immoral being forced to pay for it. Same difference? No. Explaining these differences does, admittedly, involve nuance, and do not sound great as catchphrases to rally the troops.
But what about abortion? Romney will assuredly get rid of that, right? From The Des Moines Register:
Mitt Romney today said no abortion legislation is part of his agenda, but he would prohibit federally-funded international nonprofits from providing abortions in other countries.
“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” the GOP presidential candidate told The Des Moines Register’s editorial board during a meeting today before his campaign rally at a Van Meter farm.
... Romney has said he opposes abortion, except in instances of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is threatened.Now, for a lot of pro-choicers that last part is not good enough. But, it should be noted, for a lot of pro-lifers, it isn't good enough, either. So basically, no one's happy. Which considering the realm of politics, sounds just about right.
But, but what about his appointments to the Supreme Court? Surely they'll undo Roe vs. Wade?! From that same article:
... Romney has said he would appoint justices who are not activist judges.
Ahem, moving on. Back to Jezebel:
Even if your one life stand ends up giving the child up for adoption, you've still got a kid running around. And one day, that kid's going to try to find you in a heartwarming Unsolved Mysteries reboot that is going to be terribly awkward for you. He'll want birthday cards and shit and you'll have your own family and your wife will be like, what the hell, dude? and your kids will be like, "Daddy, is he our brother?" And you will look to the sky and shake your fist and yell ROOOMMMMNEEEEEEYYYYY!Wow, way to trash adoption. Didn't know my mom, who is adopted, is channeling Robert Stack just because she wants to know who she is.
Casual dating, the kind where one of you inevitably says "So... what are we?" at 4 am after you two have been watching Game of Thrones and then having sex regularly for a few weeks, will be dramatically different under a Romney presidency. When pregnancy must be seen through to the end, every possible consensual pregnancy-causing encounter becomes less fun and more dire — unnecessary baggage for an act that is supposed to be fun and bond-exploring.Wait, what? I know Ryan can't really believe this. If R-Money moves into the Oval Office, suddenly it will be the end up hook-ups? BWAHAHAHAHAHA.
STOP IT! Again with the dramatics! Okay, I *get* that this is a satirical piece, and dag nab it, I am laughing. But the sad truth is, from a quick skim of the comboxes under the article, there are a lot of people who believe this. To which I ask, under what other Rethug Prez did hook-ups suddenly cease? Nixon? Ford? Reagan? Bush? Bush II? No, no, no, no and no.
I'd also like to point out that "every possible consensual pregnancy-causing encounter" isn't all "fun", actually IS somewhat "dire" and does carry with it "baggage." Also, I was under the impression sex can be bond-FORMING. Seems there's some science to it, too.
What if your wife/sister/girlfriend/mother gets raped or has a severely health-threatening pregnancy? ... Under Romney, states would have the option to restrict abortion rights until there are no rights left at all. ... a woman you love could end up being forced to give birth to the child of a rapist.
Referring back to the quotes from The Register above: "Romney has said he opposes abortion, except in instances of rape, incest and when the mother’s life is threatened" She does raise a good point about "assclown" state-level politicians. And THIS is where those on both sides of the debate should take note: if you want to see real change, you need to start locally. It's your congressman, your senator that can and does make all the difference in your state.
Crap, this is an epically long post chock full of quotes. I'll start my own wrap it up music here. Blame it on my being a raging moderate. Or thirty. Or a wife (to a small business owner). Or a mother. I'm just not buying into the hysterics that Mitt Zombie (credit, "30 Rock") is going to pull us ladies back to, in Ryan's words, "1860." Which would be epically bad for me being that back then, I was only 3/5th a person. I *do* have a problem with the notion of all "ladies' health problems" being boiled down to my vagina and uterus. I'm far more than a va-jay-jay.
Who thought this was a good idea? (Source)