Thursday, October 25, 2012

. . . my position of the "War on Women"

. . . my position on the “War on Women”: 
I’m still looking for a place to declare my surrender.

10/25/2012   Thursday   10:20 AM

Glory hallelujah!  Giant liberal discovery!

If ANY conservative, EVER, said that women's voting brain and thinking mechanisms were influenced, even a little bit, by their HORMONES, you know what would happen:  they would be drawn and quartered on the public square, after having their manly parts removed while they were alive.  You realize that drawing and quartering is a fatal activity for the primary participant, so to get their attention, you have to remove the manly parts FIRST.

But LIBERALS CAN SAY (ANY DUMB) THING THEY WANT (and get fawning media coverage)!  Here we have such fantastic expertise telling the whole world that hormones have large effects on women's voting.  Hey, I'm just reporting this to you.  Don't shoot the messenger.


This Is a Dumb Way of Measuring Voter Attitudes . . . Period.
Hey, remember when it was offensive to talk about women voters as if they were nothing more than their, er, “lady parts”? (This was before the Obama campaign website offered, and then removed, an illustration declaring, “Vote like your lady parts depend on it.” I missed the part of the GOP platform that called for national mandatory hermaphrodism.)
CNN demonstrates that just about any social scientist can get headlines during election season if their research’s conclusions are likely to generate web traffic:
New research suggests that hormones may influence female voting choices differently, depending on whether a woman is single or in a committed relationship.
Please continue reading with caution. Although the study will be published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science, several political scientists who read the study have expressed skepticism about its conclusions.
The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney, by a margin of at least 20%, Durante said. This seems to be the driver behind the researchers' overall observation that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.
Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says.
“I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,” she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said.
That’s Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, San Antonio, lest you think some lunk-headed man came up with the notion that voting for Romney was a sign of repressed sexual urges.
Ace at the Ace of Spades offers a supremely skeptical post, and I’ll quote the semi-clean portion:
It looks like single women become diehard liberal partisans when they're fertile, and women in committed relationships become more . . . well, Republican.
I have no idea if this is true. I suppose there might be some biochemical mechanism that causes women to think more about their future when ovulating. Maybe there's a biochemical impulse to start thinking about future security. If so, I imagine that would mean single, liberal-leaning women might start thinking about Daddy Government, and married women might start thinking about pro-family policies.
But supposin' don't make it true, and "studies" are, by and large, a non-scientific enterprise chiefly occupied with extracting money from taxpayers to produce junk women's-health pop "science" for slick-covered magazines like Cosmo, and, once upon a time, Newsweek.
Now, you know my position on the “War on Women”: I’m still looking for a place to declare my surrender.
But if you really did believe in some sort of cultural war on women, the notion that a society awash in the lowest-common-denominator entertainment has cultivated a pervasive way of judging women by a different and tougher standard — not the most outlandish theory in the world, from where I sit — then wouldn’t so-called scientific research suggesting that women’s voting patterns are reflections of their hormonal shifts be pretty good example of this?
And while CNN offers quite a few caveats and disclaimers about the research in the article, wouldn’t too-credulous news coverage be an accomplice of sorts in this war?
They may have realized that themselves: The post has been removed: “After further review it was determined that some elements of the story did not meet the editorial standards of CNN.”
Kat Stoeffel of New York magazine: “Female voters! Kindly tell Nate Silver the date of your last period and your relationship status so he can figure out once and for all who's gonna win this thing November 6.

Great article, huh?  Aren't you glad we got all that clear?  Remember, it's intelligent because it came from the liberal side of the world.  

Here's another point from the Democrat Champions of Women in the War Against Women that is currently taking place.  See my initial epigraph, Jar-Jar Binks, "MnyI gipmf up!  MnyI gipmf up!".  The Obama campaign actually told women "to vote as if your lady parts depended on it."  Now I'm not sure what lady parts are in regard to voting.  How about man-ey-man parts?  I dunno.  Someone help me before my mind becomes a pretzel logic conundrum of Obamaconfusion!  Send me clarification and a life vest before I drown in the vast sea of liberal intelligence.

OK, liberal ladies, it's the Obama campaign that labels you by your parts and appearance.  Do big bosoms mean your lady parts carry more weight?  Does that make you more of a power player in the lady parts game?  I dunno know that either.  Call Obama headquarters to find out.  Ask them.  They're the ones who thought all this up and promote it as a campaign theme, to bring us a better election, of 
course . . .  I would think most ladies do not want to be judged by all that, appearances, looksism, bosoms, just like we don't want to judge people by color.  But maybe that's all there is for some people, people who can't think very well:  parts and appearances, shallowness and distractions.  Did you know Mitt Romney once strapped a dog in a doggie crate to the top of his car?! . . . Hey, dog stories about Romney are not a distraction!  They're RELEVANT . . . Is this the smallest president and presidential campaign ever, or what?

Mitt Romney, the Republicans and all Constitutional Conservatives recommend to ladies that you vote with your mind and your hands, especially after thinking about the principles of traditional American government (NOT Fundamentally Transformed America!), $16 trillion (and growing by $1 trillion per Obama-year) indebtedness to China for your children and grandchildren and how we can get this country back on the road to prosperity AS RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE.    Think about those things!

All your lady parts can do for you is help you populate the world, or give you a pregnancy to abort so that you won't be "punished with a baby" (who said that quote?) or give you a moments pleasure with some man who is, probably, deep down, if he tells you, A REPUBLICAN.  If he's small, maybe a Democrat.  More "parts talk" here.

But if you just vote with your parts, you won't have to bother with thinking, which is based in being a part of intelligent humanity.  Is that what you want?  Yuk.

Best wishes,
An Admirer of Thinking Women (and their parts)

No comments:

Post a Comment