President Donald Trump

[Bernie Brewer]

I did answer; you just chose to disagree with the evidence. If there is something specific in those bills promoted by Democrats on issues like equal pay, anti-discrimination, anti-violence that the GOP didn't like, then I hope they would present their own bills that address those issues. But they haven't, mainly because they dispute the idea that such bills are needed.

The goal of the feminist movement is not to shatter a glass ceiling - the goal is to enact policies that promote equality and fairness. The idea is to help everyone, not one specific person. Politicians like Haspel and Palin are not getting the support of NOW because of their ideas.

By the way, great post by B-Fly above.

Again, I asked for specific platforms the Republicans put forth taking away rights of women. You gave me examples, not evidence, of bills put forth that the Dems that the Republicans didn’t support. And, I responded but you chose not to accept my response. I said in the two bills you posted there were provisions the GOP tried to change exclude and modify but the Dems wouldn’t allow it. One bill went beyond women’s rights to other groups of individuals, some of which were apparently objectionable to the Reps. One bill was never passed even though the Dems controlled the Senate and House.

[Bernie Brewer]

Well, I'd certainly say that the many, many restrictions on reproductive rights passed by Republicans in state legislatures take away women's rights and harm women. There have been many hundreds of measures actively promoted and passed by Republican state legislatures rolling back abortion rights and removing insurance coverage for contraception and family planning. The federal government and many state governments, under Republicans, have removed or materially curtailed public funding for health clinics serving women who can't necessarily afford to otherwise obtain those health services, including but not limited to Planned Parenthood. They also slashed the WIC program that provided federal assistance for health services for low-income pregnant women, breastfeeding women and infants and children under five. Trump expanded the "gag rule" implemented by Reagan that withholds US funding from global health clinics serving the needs of women if they dare to even so much as acknowledge the option of abortion. Scott Walker in Wisconsin actively repealed the state's Equal Pay Enforcement Act. Trump and DeVos also affirmatively rescinded Obama-era guidance designed to attach some standards and Office of Civil Rights enforcement muscle to investigations of on-campus sexual assault under Title IX. So even if I ignore Republican omissions (e.g., Republican opposition to Democratic-sponsored bills aimed at protecting or expanding the rights and interests of women), there are still plenty of things Republican's have affirmatively done that harm women.

So you’re saying you caught the Republicans across the country supporting Republican agendas but show me where the agendas make a statement to take away a women’s right. Life or choice takes away a right but the argument has always been who’s rights. Isn’t this a disagreement about an individual woman’s right against that of (potential) a human’s rights? When is life “life?” So who is being harmed? I’m personally in favor of pro choice but as a Christian, I certainly understand the other side of the arguement. And elections have consequences. But, if you close your eyes so tightly that you only see the right to choose as the only argument, you can see then I probably can’t help you. And, I’ll just say that your assessment of “harm” in the eyes of the beholder. Find me one mainstream Republican who will say out loud that women should not be paid equal to men if they share the exact same skill sets.

[B-Fly]

So you’re saying you caught the Republicans across the country supporting Republican agendas but show me where the agendas make a statement to take away a women’s right. Life or choice takes away a right but the argument has always been who’s rights. Isn’t this a disagreement about an individual woman’s right against that of (potential) a human’s rights? When is life “life?” So who is being harmed? I’m personally in favor of pro choice but as a Christian, I certainly understand the other side of the arguement. And elections have consequences. But, if you close your eyes so tightly that you only see the right to choose as the only argument, you can see then I probably can’t help you. And, I’ll just say that your assessment of “harm” in the eyes of the beholder. Find me one mainstream Republican who will say out loud that women should be paid equal to men if they share the exact same skill sets.

C'mon Bernie, this is silly. Oak shared a list of pro-women bills that the GOP blocked. I shared a list of anti-women laws and actions that the GOP has taken. You reject them all as not really harming women or restricting their rights in any way because: (1) Some of them harm women, sure, but in favor of potential humans, so who's being harmed? (Answer: women), (2) These are Republicans supporting Republican agendas and elections have consequences (Answer: exactly), and (3) these Republican officials don't say out loud that they want to take away rights from women and don't say out loud that they think women should receive lower pay for equal work (Answer: golf claps for harming women while being savvy enough not to announce "harming women" as your goal).

How do any of your bases for rejecting our points actually counter our argument that Republican acts and omissions - which indeed are Republican agenda items and consequences of Republican electoral victories - have broadly harmed the rights and interests of women?

[Bernie Brewer]

C'mon Bernie, this is silly. Oak shared a list of pro-women bills that the GOP blocked. I shared a list of anti-women laws and actions that the GOP has taken. You reject them all as not really harming women or restricting their rights in any way because: (1) Some of them harm women, sure, but in favor of potential humans, so who's being harmed? (Answer: women), (2) These are Republicans supporting Republican agendas and elections have consequences (Answer: exactly), and (3) these Republican officials don't say out loud that they want to take away rights from women and don't say out loud that they think women should receive lower pay for equal work (Answer: golf claps for harming women while being savvy enough not to announce "harming women" as your goal).

How do any of your bases for rejecting our points actually counter our argument that Republican acts and omissions - which indeed are Republican agenda items and consequences of Republican electoral victories - have broadly harmed the rights and interests of women?

We are now in full blown guns laws territory as Baldgriff tried to argue. You clearly see it your way. I just disagree with you. I’m not a Dem so therefore I must be out to harm women. Got it. I’ll pass.

In summation, Identity Politics is good for all. I’ll get over it I’m sure.

[B-Fly]

FWIW, I'm still waiting for some Republican state legislative caucus to have the cojones to call their next bill restricting women's rights and funding for/access to women's health care and insurance, and/or stripping government enforcement of anti-discrimination laws or restricting access to the courts to pursue discrimination complaints, the "Let's Fuck Over the Women Act of 2018".

[chancellor]

"Historic day for our country: swearing-in ceremony for Gina Haspel, the first woman ever to serve as CIA director. Democrats are losing their war against women in the Trump administration."

- Sarah Sanders

[B-Fly]

We are now in full blown guns laws territory as Baldgriff tried to argue. You clearly see it your way. I just disagree with you. I’m not a Dem so therefore I must be out to harm women. Got it. I’ll pass.

In summation, Identity Politics is good for all. I’ll get over it I’m sure.

I didn't say that you're out to harm women because you're not a Democrat. I'm saying that Republican government officials have a clear track record of acting contrary to the broader interests of women. One may be a Republican for completely unrelated reasons, but the track record of the party on women's rights and interests is the track record.

As for "identity politics", you drew a reasonable distinction in your earlier post. If I understood you correctly, you are okay with "identity politics" like the abolition movement, women's suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement that actively and affirmatively seek to advance/do advance the equal rights and equal protection of previously disadvantaged or disenfranchised groups, but you oppose the crass political co-option of group identity in ways that make no real difference in anyone's lives but are designed just to reinforce a group's electoral support for the "home team". That's fine. I think Oak and I have laid out reasonable arguments that there are real platform and policy differences with real world impacts, in this case with respect to women.

I think there might be some common ground between us here. For example, I think a lot of the uproar over perceived "microaggressions", while perhaps understandable in historical and social context, are counter productive. For example, the uproar over a girl's Chinese-style prom dress, or over a prom ticket that says "Party Like It's 1776" because Blacks were slaves in 1776, or advocacy to pull George Washington's or Thomas Jefferson's names off schools and buildings, or even spending two days arguing whether Trump was only using the term "animals" to refer to MS-13 gang members, or whether he intended to dog whistle a slur onto a broader class of immigrants, etc, could all reasonably be viewed as liberals taking their eye off the ball in a way that's ultimately counterproductive.

[Bernie Brewer]

I didn't say that you're out to harm women because you're not a Democrat. I'm saying that Republican government officials have a clear track record of acting contrary to the broader interests of women. One may be a Republican for completely unrelated reasons, but the track record of the party on women's rights and interests is the track record.

As for "identity politics", you drew a reasonable distinction in your earlier post. If I understood you correctly, you are okay with "identity politics" like the abolition movement, women's suffrage movement, and the civil rights movement that actively and affirmatively seek to advance/do advance the equal rights and equal protection of previously disadvantaged or disenfranchised groups, but you oppose the crass political co-option of group identity in ways that make no real difference in anyone's lives but are designed just to reinforce a group's electoral support for the "home team". That's fine. I think Oak and I have laid out reasonable arguments that there are real platform and policy differences with real world impacts, in this case with respect to women.

I think there might be some common ground between us here. For example, I think a lot of the uproar over perceived "microaggressions", while perhaps understandable in historical and social context, are counter productive. For example, the uproar over a girl's Chinese-style prom dress, or over a prom ticket that says "Party Like It's 1776" because Blacks were slaves in 1776, or advocacy to pull George Washington's or Thomas Jefferson's names off schools and buildings, or even spending two days arguing whether Trump was only using the term "animals" to refer to MS-13 gang members, or whether he intended to dog whistle a slur onto a broader class of immigrants, etc, could all reasonably be viewed as liberals taking their eye off the ball in a way that's ultimately counterproductive.

Ok. Then I guess we aren’t that far apart. But, my initial comment began and was intended to end with “Identity politics” (I should have added the quote marks initially) for the sake of political gain over real progress is bad for everyone. Yes, I know a demorcrat will tell me how much good the Dems have been and will then tell how bad the GOP is for women, minorities and groups of shared circumstance, and will beat me over the head with something called “facts” but they’re really opinions with which I simply don’t agree. And, Trump mastered the game of ID politics, and not for good outcomes. I’m no longer a Repubilcan, but I am sure not a Demorcrat. I think both parties are equally at fault for the toxic environment we now witness daily. Again, that’s my read, others will disagree and I am ok with that.

[Mithrandir]

So basically Bernie doesn't really give two shakes about women's rights and hides behind the cover of "it's just opinion" and doing some type of two-step to explain his reasoning.

[Bernie Brewer]

So basically Bernie doesn't really give two shakes about women's rights and hides behind the cover of "it's just opinion" and doing some type of two-step to explain his reasoning.

Busted! That’s absolutely correct. You have figured me out. Now will you unfriend me on Facebook, please.

[cardboardbox]

"Historic day for our country: swearing-in ceremony for Gina Haspel, the first woman ever to serve as CIA director. Democrats are losing their war against women in the Trump administration."

- Sarah Sanders

[Gregg]

So basically Bernie doesn't really give two shakes about women's rights and hides behind the cover of "it's just opinion" and doing some type of two-step to explain his reasoning.

This is an example of why I very rarely post in the Sports Bar.

I like you Mith. You are out of line here. Posts like this take the fun out of the debate.

Best case you silence the opposition and have no one to play with. They stay but stick to things baseball related.

Worse case they leave the site.

[Sour Masher]

This is an example of why I very rarely post in the Sports Bar.

I like you Mith. You are out of line here. Posts like this take the fun out of the debate.

Best case you silence the opposition and have no one to play with. They stay but stick to things baseball related.

Worse case they leave the site.

I totally agree with this assessment, Gregg, in relation to Mith's comment. No call for personal attacks here, and this fit the bill to a T, and it isn't a fair assessment of Bernie's position.

At the same time, I think Bernie was being too sensitive, and unfair in mischaracterizing B-Fly's and OaklandA's original comments that tried to answer his questions about what Dems have done for women and how Republicans see things differently for women. I don't think either of those gentlemen implied that all Republicans don't care about women, as he said, and neither said what Mith said (Bernie, I thought it was interesting you were quick to infer they were taking personal shots when your bar for Republicans seems to be that have to be explicit in attacking women, or it doesn't count as evidence). They both represent, to me, very respectful ways to engage in this debate, but that is hard to do if the response is always, any criticism of a position is a personal attack. That wasn't the case with those two's comments. Of course, then Mith chimes in and does exactly that, so that sort of undercut my argument that things are generally respectful in here.

All I know is that if we can't have a middle ground between personal attack and egg-shell walking, never disagree with each other for fear of making someone feel like this isn't a "safe space" then there is no point in having a dialogue at all. It is getting to the point where I feel that way--I don't want to come across as insulting fellow posters I respect and want to engage, but I also can't ignore positions I think need to be challenged. So, if all challenges come across as insults and personal attacks, I guess I should just stick to the lighter threads.

I'll take one last stab on this debate, though:

Conservatives, as a general rule, are in favor of the status quo, of tradition, and of the value of the ways things were and have been for a long time. Liberals are by definition progressive. They see problems, and they are quick to advocate for change as the solution to those problems. I want to be clear and use value-neutral language here: progress is not always perceived by all as a good thing. After all, if you "progress" from a good position to a worse one, that isn't the sort of "progress" folks want to make. And that is how conservatives see a lot of the "progress" progressives try to make. That is the balance of things. Progressives try to change things quickly, and conservatives want to slow things down, for fear of rushing into decisions that will make things worse. Both positions have merit and value, depending on who you are and what the issue is.

However, if we can all accept all of the above as being in a very general and simple way accurate, I think we have a starting point on understanding why conservativism is, generally speaking, in the best interest of those who have been historically privileged by the status quo, and progressivism, in general, is more in the best interest of those who have been disadvantaged by the status quo. Those whom the system favors with better jobs, better pay, more power, more rights, etc benefit from inertia in the system. Those oppressed by the system benefit from the system changing. So, it is just natural that the progressive party, Democrats, would be the party most favorable to women and minorities, because they are the party proposing changes to the system that puts them at a disadvantage.

I want to be clear, again, that just because the progressive party pushes such changes, does not mean all changes they push actually help the people they say they want to help. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, after all. That is where I see legitimate debate on this and other issues. If we can all agree that there are well-meaning people on both sides of this thing, and that all of those people want to do the "right" thing for all people, then we can debate the relative merits of being cautious with changes vs forging ahead.

My position, and why I generally align with progressivism, is that, yes, it can be a very haphazard, imperfect movement toward improvement, but history shows us that over the long haul, despite the missteps, the sidesteps, and the occasional steps backward, progressives, eventually, move things forward in a way that most reasonable people agree is good for society. So many things that all good people agree on today--from civil rights, to women's suffrage, have been driven by the progressive ideology of seeing wrongs and forcing changes to right those wrongs.

But I also see the value of conservatism, because, left unchecked, progressives will take things to extremes, or in directions that don't represent real progress. There needs to be that corrective, to ensure change flows in a postive direction, and I think thoughtful, compassionate conversativism helps direct thoughtful, compassionate, progressivm, toward a better tomorrow. I think the legitimate debate is on what issues do progressive agendas represent real progress, and on what issues do they represent changes that don't actually make things better, and may actually make things worse.

Let's be honest about our ideologies, though, and have the courage to back up our positions. Let's do that respectfully as a way to temper our ideas in the fires of spirited, well-intended debate. You know, let's do the opposite of what this admin does .

[DMT]

[Mithrandir]

This is an example of why I very rarely post in the Sports Bar.

I like you Mith. You are out of line here. Posts like this take the fun out of the debate.

Best case you silence the opposition and have no one to play with. They stay but stick to things baseball related.

Worse case they leave the site.

I appreciate the response Gregg.

But that's how I see Bernie based on his responses in this thread. And why it is a "personal attack" ? It was me stating how I perceive Bernie's stance on the subject being discussed. And if Bernie (or anyone else) is "silenced" because of how I perceive them, well........

Over the years I have been the subject of MANY personal attacks on this site, yet I carry on.