Subscribe via RSS Feed

Today in the War on Women

[ 57 ] February 12, 2013 |

Comments (57)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Ubu Imperator says:

    It should be noted that the whackadoo legislation in the Iowa House doesn’t have a prayer of making it to the floor of the Senate. Mike Gronstal (D), the majority leader, has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to tell Republicans of this stripe to go pound sand, and in almost as many words.

  2. c u n d gulag says:

    They clearly haven’t thought out the ramifications (SURPISE!!!) of charging a woman who has an abortion with murder – and the same goes for a woman who has a miscarriage being investigated as a murder suspect.

    If they start charging those women who had abortions/miscarriages with murder, they will NEVER win another national election (except for the Senate in some deeply Red States) – and a lot less state and district elections, too.

    Charging the doctor, the nurse(s), and any other helper(s) with murder is one thing.
    It’s a whole ‘nother kettle of zygotes to charge women with that.

    And the male significant others, what are they to be charged with? Accessory to a murder?

    And in the case of twins, or triplets, or more?
    Will those be double-homicides, triple homicides?

    Republicans will lose most of the women in this country who aren’t religious Evangelicals and/or Reactionaries forever.
    And a whole lot of men, too.

    Not everyone in this country is a religious-freak or a misogynist, Republicans.
    Maybe in YOUR little bubble-world.
    But that world, may soon be POPPED!

    So, yes, ‘Please proceed, Iowa representatives…’

    The lives you think you’ll save, won’t be YOUR own political lives.

    • daveNYC says:

      Republicans will lose most of the women in this country who aren’t religious Evangelicals and/or Reactionaries forever.

      If only. Even after all the crap that major Republicans spewed last year they didn’t do that horribly bad with women. Hell, as long as the Log Cabin Republicans exist you can’t assume that the party will lose all support from any group no matter no foaming at the mouth they become.

      • c u n d gulag says:

        You may be right, but Obama beat Romney 55% to 44% among women last year – the single biggest demographic in the country.

        Do you think if they charge women with murder in these cases, that Republicans can hold that number nationally?

        And anything more than a slight shift in all but the Reddest Congressional Districts might result in more seats in the House to the Democrats.

        Ok, maybe not in 2014, since even if Iowa passes this, which is doubtful, the law will only have been on the books for a short time, and the upcoming election is much more local than it is national.

        But, if they run someone who agrees with that policy for President in ’16, and the Democrats run a white candidate, don’t you think that will mean that the D’s hold the Executive and the Senate, and maybe gain a majority in the house?

        Maybe I’m wrong, but I think they’re so extreme, that it will affect them.

        • Crackity Jones says:

          That’s why I want Hil to run-I feel like she could pick up the demographic Obama couldn’t-married woman. My still-married mother’s voted Republican since 1980, despite always identifying JFK as her favorite president (Irish from MA explains it I guess). She constantly makes the most non sequitur criticisms of the President. But you should have seen how excited she was in 08 to see Clinton running. She saw her speak and was sold. I don’t know if my mom is representative of other married women, but that was something I noticed.

        • Manju says:

          but Obama beat Romney 55% to 44% among women last year

          Females – Presidential Vote Share

          ’08
          D = 57%
          R = 43%

          ’12
          D = 55%
          R = 44%

          Conclusion:
          1. Repubs have more women in binders since the WOW
          2. Women like the WOW?
          3. Women are convinced to vote against their gender interest by the Republicans use of divisive economic issues?
          4. Social issues don’t mean as much as we think.

          • Malaclypse says:

            5) Republican policies that hurt women were something that did not develop ex nihilo in 2012, and women were clever enough to be aware of this?

            Just a possibility

            • Manju says:

              Republican policies that hurt women were something that did not develop ex nihilo in 2012, and women were clever enough to be aware of this?

              Republican Presidential Vote Share of Women since Clinton and then the Newt Revolution:

              ’92 = 33%
              ’96 = 33%
              ’00 = 44%
              ’04 = 47%
              ’08 = 43%
              ’12 = 44%

              Data from ANES, except for ’12 which is from the NYTimes (with a little calculation)

              • Malaclypse says:

                You realize for this to have any meaning, you need to show how women differ from the rest of the vote, correct?

                • JMP says:

                  Oh come in, it’s not like his statistics are misleading, I mean there’s nothing wrong with just using raw D percentages when the elections covered included two in which a significant third-party candidate that skewed the vote, so that Manju’s chart makes it look like the GOP suddenly got more popular with women the next time out.

                • Manju says:

                  Presidential Vote Share since Clinton and then post-Newt Revolution:

                  Year = R – D

                  ’92 = 33% – 53%
                  ’96 = 33% – 61%
                  ’00 = 44% – 56%
                  ’04 = 47% – 53%
                  ’08 = 43% – 57%
                  ’12 = 44% – 55%

                • The Dark Avenger says:

                  And you’re comparing the campaign with Palin with a woman-free ticket in 2012.

                  Controlled variables, how the f*ck does that work?

                • Manju says:

                  Or, gender gap (D% women – R%) =

                  ’92 = 20 points
                  ’96 = 28
                  ’00 = 12
                  ’04 = 6
                  ’08 = 14
                  ’12 = 11

                • Malaclypse says:

                  So, the gender gap is nothing new.

                  I might be surprised, if I didn’t live through the Reagan years.

                • NonyNony says:

                  Manju, you do realize that your posted numbers actually show that the GOP women who ran into the arms of third party candidates during the run of HW Bush came back to the GOP for his son, right?

                  I don’t know what kind of point you’re trying to make, but the only point I get out of this is that women tend to vote Democrat, and Republican women hated George HW Bush and Bob Dole as much as Republican men did in ’92 and ’96.

                • Manju says:

                  I might be surprised, if I didn’t live through the Reagan years.

                  Ha, you got me there…

                  % of Women’s Vote:

                  1980 – Reagan 48 / Carter 43
                  1984 – Reagan 55 / Ferraro 45

                  …sorta. I mean, what to do with this? After all, Reagan was a solid anti-choice nutcase pol for his time.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  So, in 1980, Reagan did 5 points worse with women than with the electorate as a whole, while in 1984, he did 8 points worse.

                  You usually are not this transparently dishonest.

                • Manju says:

                  Manju, you do realize that your posted numbers actually show that the GOP women who ran into the arms of third party candidates during the run of HW Bush came back to the GOP for his son, right?

                  Well, in ’96 Perot got 7% of females. Clinton = 61, Dole = 33. (I don’t know why this adds up to 101%)

                  But Perot got more Dems (8%) than Repubs (6%). He got 20% of independents, but they are a small group and (I think) among them, they were more Dem learners.

                  So, that can’t be it.

                  http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/2ndtable/t9a_2_3.htm

                • Manju says:

                  So, in 1980, Reagan did 5 points worse with women than with the electorate as a whole, while in 1984, he did 8 points worse.

                  You usually are not this transparently dishonest.

                  Well, I’m using the same metric others were before I came onto this thread. Using yours, Republican points worse with women than the electorate as a whole:

                  1980 – 4
                  1984 -3
                  1988 -3
                  1992 – 1
                  1996 – 3
                  2000 – 5
                  2004 – 3
                  2008 – 3
                  2012 – 3

                  The point is, Social issues don’t mean as much as we think.

                • Malaclypse says:

                  Okay, in 1984, you had a ten-point female delta between Reagan and, well, you said Ferraro, while I assume you meant Mondale. Mondale lost the election by 18.2 points.

                  Now, since you have also said that Reagan got both 55 and 56% that election, while Mondale and/or Ferraro got both 45 and 47, I’m not sure how to parse your data, but I do think you have a promising career counting votes in Florida.

              • Manju says:

                So, in 1980, Reagan did 5 points worse with women than with the electorate as a whole, while in 1984, he did 8 points worse.

                Using the NYTimes data (since it has the total vote handy)

                year/ Reagan total vote/ women’s vote / gap between the two

                1980 51 / 47 / 4
                1984 59 / 56 / 3

                http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/national-exit-polls.html

              • Djur says:

                I’m confused by this. The Republicans have been the White Man party since 1980, and Democrats have consistently done better than Republicans with women ever since. How does showing that indicate that social issues don’t matter?

                • Manju says:

                  I’m confused by this. The Republicans have been the White Man party since 1980, and Democrats have consistently done better than Republicans with women ever since. How does showing that indicate that social issues don’t matter?

                  This is an awfully nucanced subject, but the quickest way to rasie doubt is by looking at the claim that; “The Republicans have been the White Man party since 1980.”

                  Via Paul Krugman, here is what the data says:

                  Unless you have a peculiar nostalgia for the racially coercive Democratic monopoly of the Jim Crow era, it makes sense to focus on the rest of the country. There, the Democratic share of the two-party presidential vote among white men was 40% in 1952 and 39% in 2004.

                  Having said that, regarding race, things change around 2008, with the election of barack Obama. But 1980 is waaaaay too soon to call the R’s the White Man’s Party. Hell, post 1980 Dems will deliver two men who voted against the 1964cra into the presidential line of succession.

                  I’m sure Malaclypse can tell you who those two men where.

              • Manju says:

                Now, since you have also said that Reagan got both 55 and 56% that election, while Mondale and/or Ferraro got both 45 and 47, I’m not sure how to parse your data, but I do think you have a promising career counting votes in Florida.

                OK, there is a slight difference between Ames and the NYTimes.

                I see the metric you are using now, and I’ll run it using the NYTimes dataset only.

                • The Dark Avenger says:

                  Sorry, Manju, but both Bartels and Krugman are full of hot air:

                  Unlike Krugman, who purposely ignored the urban/small town split which Bartells used in his comparison, my intuition told me that that factor is far more important than income to both Bartell’s (faulty) logic, and Obama/Frank’s insight. In a typical city, 40% vote republican and 51% support some restrictions on abortion, according to Gallup. In a small town it’s 60% republican and 65% favoring the same abortion restrictions. Clearly abortion is not overriding enough an issue in either setting to keep all anti-choice voters from voting for democrats, so in both settings it is the republican voters that are more homogenous than the democrats, who are somewhat split on the issue. Importantly, urban republicans are a smaller relative proportion of the anti-choice population in their cities, so it would seem that the urban republicans are more consistently anti-choice than rural republicans, kind of confirming Bartells’ (misleading) observation about small town conservatism, but it hints at a very different reason why. The gap between Bartel’s thinking and Obama/Frank’s is that Bartel’s argument only considers one vote-driving issue at a time.

                  My counter hypothesis to the Bartels theory is that cosmopolitan social conservatives, being in the minority in their communities, are just far more homogeneous in all of their views than small-town, low-income conservatives. In a small town, blue-collar conservatives meet others like them everywhere they go and are more likely to disagree with their fellow conservatives on some issues. In cities, educated conservatives are isolated and are far more orthodox in their conservatism. Admittedly I do not have the data needed to confirm my theory. To properly test this, we would need to know how many small-town working class pro-choice republicans are also pro-gun rights and how many of the republican voters among their rich “demographic opposites” in the cities are (just survey Fox News HQ?). If the GOP-COSMO-LIFE group is more consistently pro-gun than the GOP-RURAL-LIFE group, then I may be on to something.

                  If so, it is due to the fact that small-town republican voters aren’t as strongly inclined to “cling” to their beliefs on abortion because if they don’t happen to be pro-life they can still find comfort in and vote republican on the basis of immigration or guns or illegal immigration or creationism in school. The Frank/Obama theory is that all these different 5% correlations add up to a substantial group of people voting against their economic interests for many different reasons. This theory depends on the important principal in statistics of covariance, which Bartels has conveniently left out of his discussion.

                  Bartels also talks extensively in his earlier writing (and Krugman parrots him) about how the number of democrats in small towns hasn’t actually decreased in the last several decades, but that’s not what either Obama or Frank claimed. What they are saying is that there should have been ever increasing democratic—hell, forget party, just say “populist”—support in small towns than there has been. If voters had cast their support based on where their economic interests lie, we would have had more than just two Democratic Presidents in the last 40 years.

                  Update:
                  Razor-sharp reader carolita points out in the comments that Bartels’ income divider for small town/working class people is pretty ludicrous. Bartels splits America at the income level of $60,000, but according to the U.S. Census:

                  The wage difference between rural and urban or metro economics is significant, with rural wage earners bringing in a median household income of $32,837 in 2000, compared to the metro median income of $44,984 the same year. According to the USDA, more than 33% of households in agriculturally based communities have annual incomes below $15,000.

                  As I responded below, this data shoots a gaping hole in Bartels’ case. Bartels’ small town/working class group making under $60k swallows up almost the entire typical town. So, Bartels 5% vs. 58% comparison between town/poor and city/rich is even more subject to the effect of isolation-bred orthodoxy because those high-rise dwelling rich folk are not even close to the majority in the cities that they inhabit.

                • Manju says:

                  Sorry, Manju, but both Bartels and Krugman are full of hot air:

                  I guess the part you highlighted from the anonymous blogger is what you think proves that “both Bartels and Krugman are full of hot air”.

                  Well, its just pure speculation:

                  Admittedly I do not have the data needed to confirm my theory.

                  The guy is focusing on small town v cosmopolitan working class social conservatives. But he doesn’t realize that he’s trying to explain a phenomena that by-in-large does not exist.

                  At teh time of his writing, working class voters had simply not been voting increasingly republican, except of course for those in the South post-64…. where there were hardly any republican office holders to begin with, due to the dems racially coercive one-party system.

                  Like every other libtard out there, he sits and wonders why there have been “just two Democratic Presidents in the last 40 years.” (he writing before Obama’s election).

                  The fall of Jim Crow, the demise of a one-party system favoring liberals is the answer. End of Story.

                • The Dark Avenger says:

                  At teh time of his writing, working class voters had simply not been voting increasingly republican, except of course for those in the South post-64….

                  Like in that Southern state, Kansas?

                  Good point.

                • The Dark Avenger says:

                  BTW, Manju, libtard is about as useful a term as Repuglican, so keep that in mind when you’re trying to pretend to have an intellectual conversation in the future.

                  As many scholars whom you haven’t sucked up to have documented, segregationists appeared on all sides of the spectrum from authoritatian to quasi-populist liberal(except on race issues), of course, so your attempt at explaining your convoluted, Ptolmaic theory of American politics and race has, as usual, been shown to be not in accord with the available facts and data. Like Kansas going for Republicans increasingly more so despite not being a Southern state with a one-party lock by Dems pre-Civil Rights era.

          • DrDick says:

            Manju does not understand statistical significance?

            • The Dark Avenger says:

              Yes, he doesn’t understand that with MoE, even a well-designed poll will have MoE at least 2 or 3%, so that the difference between the two years compared is practically irrelevant.

      • Bill Murray says:

        For instance, Romney won married women by 7 points according to the CNN exit poll

    • BigHank53 says:

      Check who gets charged under those “fetal endangerment” laws. It’s always a poor, drug-abusing woman and usually a minority. Sure, they were intended to give police and prosecutors another tool to use against abusive husbands, boyfriends, and the random lunatic that attacked a pregnant woman, but it shouldn’t be a real surprise that misogynists will find a way to re-purpose any tool.

      That proposed law might declare all abortions to be murder, but some abortions will be more murderey than others.

    • Manju says:

      Okay, in 1984, you had a ten-point female delta between Reagan and, well, you said Ferraro, while I assume you meant Mondale. Mondale lost the election by 18.2 points.

      Malaclypse, hopefully this formats:

      Total Vote:

      Year/R/D/Difference

      1980 51 41 10
      1984 59 40 19
      1988 53 45 8
      1992 38 43 -5
      1996 41 49 -8
      2000 48 48 0
      2004 51 48 3
      2008 46 53 -7

      Female Vote Only

      Year/R/D/Difference

      1980 47 45 2
      1984 56 44 12
      1988 50 49 1
      1992 37 45 -8
      1996 38 54 -16
      2000 43 54 -11
      2004 48 51 -3
      2008 43 56 -13
      2012 44 55 -11

      Gender gap (difference between both differences):
      1980 8
      1984 7
      1988 7
      1992 3
      1996 8
      2000 11
      2004 6
      2008 6
      2012 7

  3. Joe says:

    RH Reality Check this week has ‘An interview with Tammi Kromenaker of North Dakota about legal threats to her clinic.’

  4. DocAmazing says:

    Not to be a pest, but it’s “Tara Culp-Ressler”, not “Tara-Culp Ressler”.

    Y’know, for posterity.

  5. mpowell says:

    Of course this trend is quite unfortunate and I would love to see a Republican member or two of the SC replaced with liberals willing to strengthen Roe v Wade and get rid of some of these laws. But there are plenty of places in the world where women can’t get abortions legally. Should I be more concerned about the women in North/South Dakota? You know, they have the franchise up there. And until white women abandon the Republican party it’s going to be tough for women in red states regardless. It’s not at the top of my list of concerns.

    • Anonymous says:

      Hahahaha what is this

    • JL says:

      Do you also de-prioritize issues of the poor and working class in the US because, hey, they’re better off than poor people in the developing world, and lots of poor and working-class white people vote Republican?

    • Anonymous says:

      Should I be more concerned about the women in North/South Dakota?

      Why can’t you be concerned about all of them at the same time? It’s not a zero-sum equation.

    • sharculese says:

      Should I be more concerned about the women in North/South Dakota?

      imo probably South Dakota. SD looks a little bit closer to totally banning abortion, but the difference is razor thin.

      • mpowell says:

        This was funny. Anyways, I know this was a bit of trolling on my part, but these laws impact the middle class quite a bit as well. It’s not that easy for someone with a 30K/year job to travel out-of-state once the last abortion clinic disappears. And middle class white women are still voting for Republicans in droves. It’s pretty amazing really.

        • Anonymous says:

          Good to put a name to the faceless bunch of petty, vindictive white male assholes willing to sell poor women and WoC down the river because: white women. Fuck you.

          • mpowell says:

            Your anonymously posting vitriol is hardly impressive. You’re imputing views to me that you have no basis for. I’ll happily donate to support a Democratic candidate for congress that has a good chance of winning but doesn’t represent my district. But in a lot of states, the Republican majorities are substantial. You might even consider the policy results to carry some democratic legitimacy. I’m not going to spend any energy trying to swing the result. If that’s selling poor women down the river, what are you doing about poor women around the globe? I don’t say that to make the point that we can’t do anything about domestic issues, but to point out that we are always establishing priorities and mine do not lie in North Dakota (SCOTUS decisions on the other hand…). I also knew my post would tweak noses, but I do think it’s interesting to note the difference in the level of injustice between a policy enacted through a legitimate democratic majority that unfairly impacts a majority of the population with the vote (in this case women) and the many other situations where it is a small minority being persecuted or cases like Wisconsin where hard right Republican policy priorities were achieved with narrow electoral majorities and a kind of bait-and-switch campaign. These comment sections are not always about just expressing outrage about social injustice. That doesn’t actually effect change anyhow.

            • Anonymous says:

              Your singular talent at meeting obvious systemic injustice committed against more than one half of the US population with a hearty “meh” and a manly shrug of the shoulders has now been noted, thoroughly. Please run along and take your self-congratulatory thought experiments and Dear Muslima hand-wringing and hand-waving with you.

            • Anonymous says:

              It never fails to irritate, by callously invoking the plight of women abroad, wherever they are, the lengths men will go in their artless attempt to ensure the women they know stay humbled, handicapped, and properly ashamed of themselves. And yet it’s obvious, as in your case, they think they are advocating the kinder, nobler, more sublime and logically reasonable argument. Literally: stay out of my feminism. You are not wanted.

    • rea says:

      If you are a citizen of the United States, which after all is a constitutional republic, you ought to be more concerned about plight of women in the United States than elsewhere in the world, because as a voter in the United States, you have a degree of personal responsiblity for government policy in the United States. When you drive, shouldn’t you be more concerned that you don’t run over pedestrians yourself than about the possiblity of someone else running over pedestrians? It’s much the same thing.

      • Njorl says:

        I think that is his point. He is a citizen of the United States. He is not a citizen of South Dakota or Iowa.

        • Anonymous says:

          No, it isn’t. He’s pulling the starving-women-in-Africa / dear-Muslima routine. Ten to one he’s a straight, white man who thinks American women are a bit too empowered already, if you ask him.

          • mpowell says:

            Actually, Njorl gets my point exactly. And I certainly wouldn’t claim that women are too empowered, however you would measure it. But I don’t hold out much hope for woman’s rights in most of the states. And unlike Jim Crow, they have the vote and they actually form a majority all on their own.

            • Anonymous says:

              No, actually. You’ve confirmed exactly what I suspected: that you’re an angry, victim-blaming white boy with a chip on his shoulder. That you pretend to believe the franchise is some kind of magical elixir to the myriad, intersectional problems of social justice tells me all I need to know about your trolling bullshit.

    • JMP says:

      And the Sun is going to explode into a red giant and engulf the Earth in about five billion years, so really why should be concerned about the welfare of anybody on this planet when it’s ultimately doomed anyway? Humanity is not at the top of my list of concerns.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Minor editing request:

    Sorry, I don’t usually make comments like this, but I don’t think this is too big of a deal. When you guys do lists like this post and the previous one, can you add an extra carriage return between the bullet points? I don’t know about anyone else, but I find them very hard to read without extra spacing in between.

    Thank you, that’s all, carry on.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • Switch to our mobile site