• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is there a "War on Women" in the United States?

Is there a War on Women?


  • Total voters
    118
"War on Women" seems to be the popular buzz phrase lately. Do you believe there is a war against women in this country right now?
No.

.............
 
Just because there is sexism does not mean that everyone is pushing against us, our rights and our futures.

A war - in this sense - would mean a massive, widespread effort to subjugate, subdue and push under by a large majority or an influential minority (the elite, etc)

If there is any such 'war-like sentiment' it's not on a large scale: it comes in the form of groups, some religions, etc - smaller clusters. Which is why I selected 'yes and no' . . . and sometimes they try to push through measures via legislation, etc. But for the most part are unsuccessful.

More like an insurrection or an insurgency against woman perpertrated by certian segments of our population,rather than all out warfare.
 
I think what happens is that as time goes by the reasons behind a movement are lost a bit with the pages of history - I think some (emphasis on the some - ok - no one go getting panties all atwist now) some women feel they're being attacked but don't quite know just how things really did change over the last two centuries for women in this country - some debates about abortion and birth control coverage by insurance on the Congressional floor are small beans compared to the struggle for women's sufferage and the right to legalize birth control.

Women went to jail for defying the law in the name of diaphragms.

Can't diminish the importance of past efforts by equating every little thing that might feel negative as an all out measured attack.

It'll be a war when my right to vote, own property and patent my own inventions gets put on the chopping block.
 
I guess I'll bump this topic.

Are there any new developments on this issue?
 
I guess I'll bump this topic.

Are there any new developments on this issue?

No - I haven't had any life changing epiphanies about this issue since April 6, 2012. :D
 
I guess I'll bump this topic.

Are there any new developments on this issue?

Nope.

There's still a small minority of people who actively have the desire and intent to specifically take rights/freedoms/ability away from women because they're women.

There's still no "war" going on against them, nor is there any party as some kind of general rule or national level that is actively working against "women" as some kind of monolithic entity.
 
Nope.

There's still a small minority of people who actively have the desire and intent to specifically take rights/freedoms/ability away from women because they're women.

There's still no "war" going on against them, nor is there any party as some kind of general rule or national level that is actively working against "women" as some kind of monolithic entity.
There is a wide effort by conservatives at the national and state level to roll back gains women won over the last 50 years, specifically on reproductive rights and equal pay.

To say otherwise requires being blind to the legislative actions taking place.
 
reproductive rights

What, specfically, are ou talking about in terms of reproductive rights? If it's concerning abortoin...sorry, no dice. By and large, save for the extreme fringes, legislative actoin against abortion is not an attack on "women".

equal pay.

Again, specifics here? If its trying to remove favoritism under the law that was instilled at a time when the cultural and societal situations were significantly different then it's far from an open and shut instance of it being anti-woman to seek and remove such things. There are laws that were passed 50, 100, 150, etc years ago that no longer are needed today or actually potentially have a negative impact now compared to the positive impact they once had due to changes that occur over half a century of time.

To say otherwise I do not believe is "blind" to legislative actions...I think it's refusing to say that what a singular side simply DEEMS a "woman's issue" due to their view point of it automatically and unquestionably makes it one regardless of the view point or intent on the side of those taking those actions that they dislike.
 
This is how (Link HERE) women are treated in other countries. Our women get bitchy because they have to PAY for their birth control.

Puleeze.
 
What, specfically, are ou talking about in terms of reproductive rights? If it's concerning abortoin...sorry, no dice. By and large, save for the extreme fringes, legislative actoin against abortion is not an attack on "women".
Now there is an interesting, unsubstantiated claim.

Let me get this, removing, restricting, undercutting the ability of a women to control what happens to her body....a choice a woman has had since Roe, is not an attack on females rights specifically? How many men terminate their pregnancies?



Again, specifics here? If its trying to remove favoritism under the law that was instilled at a time when the cultural and societal situations were significantly different then it's far from an open and shut instance of it being anti-woman to seek and remove such things. There are laws that were passed 50, 100, 150, etc years ago that no longer are needed today or actually potentially have a negative impact now compared to the positive impact they once had due to changes that occur over half a century of time.
The repeal of Wisconsin's Equal Pay Enforcement Act, for one.

To say otherwise I do not believe is "blind" to legislative actions...I think it's refusing to say that what a singular side simply DEEMS a "woman's issue" due to their view point of it automatically and unquestionably makes it one regardless of the view point or intent on the side of those taking those actions that they dislike.
Right....limiting access to legally protected reproductive choice....or....repealing equal pay....are not specifically aimed at rolling back previously passed legislation focused on women's issues.
 
I am very surprised by the results of this poll so far.....The war on women has been a left wing and a democratic talking point and it looks like judging by the result of the poll most of the lefties and democrats are not buying it...
 
In 2008 90,000 women reported they were raped. Another 75,000 rapes were unreported. Yes, there's a war against women.

Source: CBS News
Exclusive: Rape in America: Justice Denied - CBS News


Any rape is a horrific and terrible crime and the perpetrator should be charged and convicted but what about the case of a woman that goes out and gets drunk and wakes up in the bed of a stranger and hollers rape...I would be willing to bet there are a lot of false charges filed in that 90,000 to.
 
Now there is an interesting, unsubstantiated claim

Let me get this, removing, restricting, undercutting the ability of a women to control what happens to her body....a choice a woman has had since Roe, is not an attack on females rights specifically? How many men terminate their pregnancies?

Rather than reposting and taking up space saying the same thing in another thread, let me post what I just posted in the "Anti-Abortion = Anti-Women" thread that explains my position on it.

Here

Essentially, the same logic that goes into arguing that being against abortion means one is anti woman would work equally as well in saying that people in favor of legalized abortion are anti-child...namely, it requires one to take their own particular view, believe egotistically that it is the only unquestionable legitimate view anyone can potentially have, and thus judge the other sides motives and actions based not on what that side actually thinks or believes but rather on the view point you have and are wrongfully and erroniously placing upon them.

The repeal of Wisconsin's Equal Pay Enforcement Act, for one.

So a law being overturned in a single state that is not even directed towards women but every protected status group out there because of the belief that the legal ramifications of it put too much of a burden on businesses that are by and large innocent in the cases brought forth (or so they argue, I'm not going to take it as a given since I have no researched it) is a representation of a "wide effort" on both the state and national level. I thank you for providing one, but rather than "for one" , how about "for few" since this is supposedly wide and specifically at least a few "for ones" on a national level? Not to mention, again, while women are one of the groups protected it is not a law focused singularly upon "women".
 
It's unfortunate when people start threads asking questions, but immediately make it clear that they are only interested in hearing one answer and that they will spend the rest of the thread deriding answers they disagree with.

And you're only interested in repeating the same "answer" over and over again, like copy and paste.
 
Rather than reposting and taking up space saying the same thing in another thread, let me post what I just posted in the "Anti-Abortion = Anti-Women" thread that explains my position on it.

Here

Essentially, the same logic that goes into arguing that being against abortion means one is anti woman would work equally as well in saying that people in favor of legalized abortion are anti-child...namely, it requires one to take their own particular view, believe egotistically that it is the only unquestionable legitimate view anyone can potentially have, and thus judge the other sides motives and actions based not on what that side actually thinks or believes but rather on the view point you have and are wrongfully and erroniously placing upon them.
It is a false argument because as you concede, a zygote is not a citizen it does not have rights until it reaches "viability". So any attempt to re-frame this argument as other than the woman's right to control her body is intellectually dishonest. The multiple attempts, both national and at the state levels, are aimed at restricting or outright eliminating woman's rights over her body.

Again, you avoided directly answering this before:
Removing, restricting, undercutting the ability of a women to control what happens to her body....a choice a woman has had since Roe, is not an attack on females rights specifically?




Zyp said:
So a law being overturned in a single state that is not even directed towards women but every protected status group out there because of the belief that the legal ramifications of it put too much of a burden on businesses that are by and large innocent in the cases brought forth (or so they argue, I'm not going to take it as a given since I have no researched it) is a representation of a "wide effort" on both the state and national level. I thank you for providing one, but rather than "for one" , how about "for few" since this is supposedly wide and specifically at least a few "for ones" on a national level? Not to mention, again, while women are one of the groups protected it is not a law focused singularly upon "women".
It is obvious that you have not researched the Wisconsin law, SB 165, but for you I'll post the first paragraph:

AN ACT to create 20.445 (1) (gr), 111.397, 814.75 (28) and 893.995 of the statutes;
relating to: authorizing the circuit court to order a person who engages in
discrimination in employment to pay compensatory and punitive damages and
a surcharge, directing the secretary of workforce development to appoint a
committee to study wage disparities between men and women and between
minority group members and nonminority group members, and making an
appropriation.

But I don't even have to get into the details behind the legislation (that it is designed to eliminate the 23% pay differential between women and men in Wisconsin) to show that it was primarily a move to improve the status of women, all I have to do is to show the motivation of those who repealed it:

Republican Wisconsin state senator Glenn Grothman said:
You could argue that money is more important for men, I think a guy in their first job, maybe because they expect to be a breadwinner someday, may be a little more money-conscious.





.
 
This is how (Link HERE) women are treated in other countries. Our women get bitchy because they have to PAY for their birth control.

Puleeze.

What's funny is I don't have a flipping problem with that necrophilia consideration - not my cup of tea . . . but if we donate parts of our bodies so other people can live then why don't we let the spouse have one last 'go' ? :shrug:

I think that's a silly example to make towards your point you have. . . . in other countries women are treated like property and sold into sex slavery - something like that would have really made sense. But a post-mortem sex law? :shrug:

You know - my insurance covered birth control among other things - AND my husband's prescription (get this) IBUPROFEN. . . . which is funny as hell in contrast to the 'issue'
 
What's funny is I don't have a flipping problem with that necrophilia consideration - not my cup of tea . . . but if we donate parts of our bodies so other people can live then why don't we let the spouse have one last 'go' ? :shrug:

I think that's a silly example to make towards your point you have. . . . in other countries women are treated like property and sold into sex slavery - something like that would have really made sense. But a post-mortem sex law? :shrug:

You know - my insurance covered birth control among other things - AND my husband's prescription (get this) IBUPROFEN. . . . which is funny as hell in contrast to the 'issue'

ALSO IN the article:
It will also see the minimum age of marriage lowered to 14 and the ridding of women's rights of getting education and employment.
 
It is a false argument because as you concede, a zygote is not a citizen it does not have rights until it reaches "viability".

It's determined that under the law, or more along the lines, case law at this time. That is true. However, people desiring a change in the law desire such because they believe that interpritation of the zygotes rights is incorrect and as such the state should be performing its rightful duties to protect the innocent....NOT that "Hey! Women shouldn't have control of their bodies".

Again, simply because it is current law does not make it an absolute truth. Sorry...that's just a fact regardless if you like it or not. Whether or not a zygote should be considered something worthy of rights is entirely opinion based, and any law regarding it currently is simply representing the currently legally enforced law.

Again, you avoided directly answering this before:
Removing, restricting, undercutting the ability of a women to control what happens to her body....a choice a woman has had since Roe, is not an attack on females rights specifically?

Because I'm not going to retype my stance I've already stated. A woman's ability to control what happens to her body does not supercede the right a child to live in these peoples opinion. That is no more "anti-women" then someone is "anti-child" for believing that when a child is in the zygote phase their rights should matter less than those of the womans. Essentially, in both cases, the individual is making an opinion call on which entities rights should be more important than the others when those rights come into conflict.

It is obvious that you have not researched the Wisconsin law, SB 165, but for you I'll post the first paragraph:

I didn't research it really since I just saw it from your link for the first time, but thanks for backing up what I said about it.

"directing the secretary of workforce development to appoint a committee to study wage disparities between men and women and between minority group members and nonminority group members, and making an appropriation. "

Hey look, like I said, the bill was not directly focused simply on women but on "women" AND "minority groups".

But I don't even have to get into the details behind the legislation (that it is designed to eliminate the 23% pay differential between women and men in Wisconsin) to show that it was primarily a move to improve the status of women, all I have to do is to show the motivation of those who repealed it:

So the guys dumb in rgards to why he thinks the disparity exits and appears to be misogynistic in some of his thinking. However, that's one of his reasonings for why he thinks studies showing the gap are wrong in their determination that its simply due to employer bias. In terms of motivation for why to repeal it he also stated from the same article:

the fact that you’re innocent wouldn’t make you happy, because you have to show you’re innocent at some considerable time and expense,” says Republican state senator Glenn Grothman, a major driver of the repeal.

Grothman says companies are being bombarded with false accusations of discrimination. “It’s an underreported problem, but a huge number of discrimination claims are baseless,” he says. “Most of them are filed by fired employees, and really today almost anybody is a protected class.” As a result, he says, many companies are forced to pay fired employees to go away. He argues that the Wisconsin law, which allowed for damages of up to $300,000, the same amount as in federal law, raised the cost of doing business in the state to intolerable levels

I do like how you chatise me for ignoring something (that really was easily answerable based on what I had linked to in my response anyways which is why there was no point in responding...becuase I obviously disagreed with your premise) and yet I don't see links to some examples of significant national attempts at taking away atual women's rights issues or a few states other than just Wisconsin doing things like this.
 
Looks like a lot of far-right sock puppets got their votes in.

I don't like the word "war" - it's hyperbole. But there is definitely an anti-woman vibe on the right.
 
It's determined that under the law, or more along the lines, case law at this time. That is true. However, people desiring a change in the law desire such because they believe that interpritation of the zygotes rights is incorrect and as such the state should be performing its rightful duties to protect the innocent....NOT that "Hey! Women shouldn't have control of their bodies".Again, simply because it is current law does not make it an absolute truth. Sorry...that's just a fact regardless if you like it or not. Whether or not a zygote should be considered something worthy of rights is entirely opinion based, and any law regarding it currently is simply representing the currently legally enforced law.
I know what the dance is now, I know that is how the conservative argument is being played, I don't need a recap from you. It is the back-door attempt to undercut a woman's rights by creating a whole new classification of a person, it will roll back the existing rights of a woman...the point of the argument.



Because I'm not going to retype my stance I've already stated. A woman's ability to control what happens to her body does not supercede the right a child to live in these peoples opinion. That is no more "anti-women" then someone is "anti-child" for believing that when a child is in the zygote phase their rights should matter less than those of the womans. Essentially, in both cases, the individual is making an opinion call on which entities rights should be more important than the others when those rights come into conflict.
Again, I don't care what opinion the cons have towards personhood of a zygote, a zygote is not a child, it is false and the turning back of established birth control laws is an infringement of current rights, the main point that you continue to dance around. If it is infringing on the rights of a woman, it is an attack upon her rights, there are no two ways about it.



I didn't research it really since I just saw it from your link for the first time, but thanks for backing up what I said about it.

"directing the secretary of workforce development to appoint a committee to study wage disparities between men and women and between minority group members and nonminority group members, and making an appropriation. "

Hey look, like I said, the bill was not directly focused simply on women but on "women" AND "minority groups".
Um, I never said it was strictly about women, your false claim was "that is not even directed towards women". It is primarily directed towards women, you are being dishonest.



So the guys dumb in rgards to why he thinks the disparity exits and appears to be misogynistic in some of his thinking. However, that's one of his reasonings for why he thinks studies showing the gap are wrong in their determination that its simply due to employer bias. In terms of motivation for why to repeal it he also stated from the same article:I do like how you chatise me for ignoring something (that really was easily answerable based on what I had linked to in my response anyways which is why there was no point in responding...becuase I obviously disagreed with your premise) and yet I don't see links to some examples of significant national attempts at taking away atual women's rights issues or a few states other than just Wisconsin doing things like this.
Funny, you admit he is misogynistic, and then you show how he further defends corporations from paying equally to both sexes for the same work.

And then you (try to) say that even though I have brought forward examples of reduced women's rights (which you don't accept as being reduced), you want more examples. I could go and bring up many more examples(like the defunding of Planned Parenthood by multiple state legislatures, the current attempt by Mississippi to create greater hurdles for the Dr's at the last PP in the state, the AZ legislators allowing employers to drop contraception coverage.....it just goes on and on with increasing numbers over the last 2 years....), but what would be the point, you refuse to accept any of it. You prefer to defend zygotes by giving them personhood status, you defend the overturning of equal pay for equal work, you want to turn back the clock to pre-Roe.

You are arguing for the reduced rights of women.
 
So your other examples revolve around abortion, revolve around abortion, and then revolved around religious freedoms...

Yeah, not "anti-women" despite your egotistical belief that your view on the issue is the end all be all absolute truth.

Sorry, but no...you're simply wrong when faced with reality rather than the dishonest motivations and views you force upon others to manipulate your way into hoping that people are stupid enough to think you're proving your propaganda point.

Which isn't surprising, since you yourself flat out lie about "what I defend" since I've done no such thing. I've defended suggesting that it is automatically "anti-women" in its intent in that case and that a singular state doing it is representative of a "wide effort" at a "national and state level". I don't deem to know enough about the law either way to condemn it or to defend it, however I have seen enough to suggest that deeming it as unquestionably "anti-woman" in motivation or a way of showing "wide effort" to "roll back" women's rights 50 years. You also, completely ignorant of my views regarding abortion, claim incorrectly that I want to turn back the clock to pre-Roe.
 
For those who believe there is a "war on women", how will you determine when the war is over?

What would "victory for women" look like?

When men have menstrual cramps!
 
I guess I'll bump this topic.

Are there any new developments on this issue?

Nope. I still have my armor on, but everyone is too busy talking about Zimmerman to fight with this woman.
 
Well - while I was doinga project for school my husband watched his news (Fox) - they make everything into a war (tonight's focus was a war on school I think)

So it sounds like 'war' has lost it's meaning and is just being tagged onto everything like '. . . gate' and ' . . . ism'

Which kind of bugs the **** out of me - it's a heavy word and should be used sparingly. I don't like how it's being turned int ojust a catchphrase.
 
So your other examples revolve around abortion, revolve around abortion, and then revolved around religious freedoms...

Yeah, not "anti-women" despite your egotistical belief that your view on the issue is the end all be all absolute truth.
Again, do men use these reproductive choices?

No.

So the only people as a class who are having their rights restricted are...women.

Sorry, but no...you're simply wrong when faced with reality rather than the dishonest motivations and views you force upon others to manipulate your way into hoping that people are stupid enough to think you're proving your propaganda point.
Now you are spewing rhetoric and still not making any point.

Which isn't surprising, since you yourself flat out lie about "what I defend" since I've done no such thing.
You have hid behind your "cons do this" blanket. You do this since you cannot defend your position, you take up someone else's position.
I've defended suggesting that it is automatically "anti-women" in its intent in that case and that a singular state doing it is representative of a "wide effort" at a "national and state level".
You have defended who? No one. Again, the only people who are having their rights restricted are women.

I don't deem to know enough about the law either way to condemn it or to defend it, however I have seen enough to suggest that deeming it as unquestionably "anti-woman" in motivation or a way of showing "wide effort" to "roll back" women's rights 50 years.
Again, you misrepresent what I said, I said the the total effect is to chip away at women's right, to take their status back to Roe. If personhood for zygotes sticks, it will take women's rights back even farther.

You also, completely ignorant of my views regarding abortion, claim incorrectly that I want to turn back the clock to pre-Roe.
You still are hiding under the "cons do this" blanket. Again, if you had faith in whatever belief you have, you could say it, no one is stopping you but yourself.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom