Republican Men and Rape

Richard Mourdock, Republican Senate candidate from Indiana, has joined the club of Republican candidates saying really stupid things about rape. His contribution:

“I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

Said while debating Democrat Joe Donnelly.

From the Obama campaign:

“This is a reminder that a Republican Congress working with a Republican president Mitt Romney would (feel) that women should not be able to make choices about their own health care,” Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Wednesday morning.

The Republican platform calls for making abortion illegal – including in cases of rape and incest.

Other stupid remarks by Republicans include:

Todd Akin: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways of shutting that whole thing down” – mid 2012 Senate Campaign

Rick Santorum: “I think the right approach is to accept this horribly created — in the sense of rape — but nevertheless a gift in a very broken way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given to you… rape victims should make the best of a bad situation.” – January, 2012

Paul Ryan: “I’m very proud of my pro-life record. I’ve always adopted the idea that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life,” said during an interview with television station WJHL.

I, of course, agree with Obama:

“This is exactly why you don’t want a bunch of politicians, mostly male, making decisions about women’s health care decisions,” he told Leno, without mentioning Romney by name. “Women are capable of making these decisions in consultation with their partners, with their doctors, and for politicians to want to intrude in this stuff often times without any information is a huge problem. And this is obviously a part of what’s at stake in this election.”

The Republican candidates have clarified that 1) they don’t understand reproduction and should shut up about it and 2) that their ideas are religiously based and have no place being forced on the population.

If we have freedom of religion – then while Ryan and Mourdock might think that “GOD” intends to create babies through rape, women who believe that “GOD” does not intend any such thing OR who do not believe in “GOD” whatsoever, should not have to be held down by the other’s religious ideas and beliefs.

I don’t think that the Christian Republicans have thought this through. I would be pretty shocked if one of them were to say that “GOD” had a hand in creating the holocaust, for instance. What all horrible things do they think that “GOD” intended to happen. Plus, I’m pretty sure that these Republican Christians would not want to be forced to comply with Muslim (or any other religion’s) laws.

The idea that the intelligent, educated part of the population should be subjugated by the wills of the ignorant, superstitious part (that makes up nonsense to deny women control of their bodies) is absurd.

Equality & Life & Environment Vs. Male-supremacy (Tradition & Control)

Jonathan Heidt has an article in the New York Times Forget the Money, Follow the Sacredness, where he tries to simplify the left and right. I have a feeling that he leans right because of they way his simplifications lead.

Haidt writes, for instance, “For the American left, African-Americans, women and other victimized groups are the sacred objects at the center of the story.” While that may be true to some extent – it implies that anyone who is not a woman or black or victimized does not count. Which is not true. And his summation does not follow the quote that he posts from Notre Dame sociologist Christian Smith.

It is a more positive description to say that Equality is the sacred object in the center. And Life (actual life, not unborn life). And yes – the Environment is sacred as well. Equality (non-discrimiation, equal-opportunity to go to college, to access health care, etc.), Life (& health), and the Environment. That is more encompassing than being about women, blacks and victims. And it also describes the left better.

For Conservatives, (white) Male-supremacy and their control of the world is the sacred element. It is referred to in terms of “religion and the traditional family” – but the religion they speak of – conservative versions of Christianity is all about Male-supremacy and control. The “traditional (white) family”, “strict father” ideas are all a part of that – so of course women and minority groups are especially going to rebel against that.

Haidt does not mention the (white) Male-supremacy aspect of the conservative message (possibly because he is a white male) – and without that aspect – the parts where Conservatives see Liberals as “Devils” makes less sense. As does the part where Liberals are upset with Conservatives – which is more understandable when you know how and why Conservatives are against equality.

Conservatives also against concern for the environment – because they think that their religion expects them to dominate the earth and they think that means that they have free-reign to do whatever.

The Conservative leaders are also very much about control. Where Liberals understand and accept that people are different, have different or no religion, have different sexual preferences, etc., Conservatives do not. Liberals would be happy to accept Conservative lifestyles as long as those Conservatives were not trying to control and restrict everybody else.

So yes – it may be a “Holy War” of sorts as Haidt says – he just doesn’t understand the sides.