Thursday, March 15, 2012

Women's health care and the sexual objectification of women

By Donald Sensing

Ever since the Catholic Church said it would not add contraceptives and abortifacients to the covered services of the its health insurance plans, the Democrats have been doing their best to get voters to concentrate on that issue instead of rising gasoline prices, the administration's looming failure in Afghanistan (where now the secretary of defense finds it necessary to order US Marines to surrender their arms before he will speak to them assembled - yes, really) to the stuttering, stagnant economy.

Now Republican candidate Rick Santorum has just won two primaries in the South, Mississippi and Alabama. And the Democrat Left (but I repeat myself) just cannot believe it. Take, for example, former DNC communications director Karen Finney, speaking Tuesday night on MSNBC to host Lawrence O'Donnell:



MSNBC's own transcript of the parts relevant to what I am posting:

O'Donnell: we have an exit poll of alabama republicans showing that working women went for rick santorum in a big way. 49%. and that may very well be how he won this thing.

Finney: it may very well be indeed. and that's why i say it's a little painful because i'm wondering if those women really heard the full message that yes, there's the economy, but if you've got to worry about your basic health care, how are you then going to be able to do what you need to do in terms of having a job, paying your rent, taking care of your kids? ...
O'Donnell then asked commentator Mark Thompson for his read, to which Thompson replied,
... what is amazing to me is that not only the 49% of working women go with santorum, but karen, it looks like all women went with santorum. 37% of women, the majority of men went with gingrich. so one of the great questions, the great mysteries i wasn't to have answered when i get to the pearly gates is not only where socks go in the dryer and why women are republicans and why people vote against their own interests.
Not on the video is that Finney went on to say that the women's vote for Santorum can only be explained by Santorum's appeal to "conservative values." Finney said bluntly that "conservative values" is code language for racism and that the women's vote for Santorum can be explained only because "racism trumped gender."

What are the fallacies? I can hardly count the ways. But I'll try.

1. Finney, like the rest of the left-wing Democrat party (but I repeat myself), can think only in terms of identity politics. Women, in her view, must vote in ways that Finney approves of because she knows the (only) authentic women's position. In her groupthink mind, not to vote in ways she wants is to betray all other women. That's why she said "it's a little painful" for her: she personally feels betrayed. The only thing she can ponder is that Santorum's women voters just didn't understand what was at stake: "i'm wondering if those women really heard the full message." This is of course the usual Democrat trope that the stupid voters just don't get it and that if only "the message" could get through, then Democrats would triumph all the time.

2. Thus neither she nor Thompson can conceive of any woman who is actually thinking for herself - and of herself - as an independent thinker, untied to pure gender politics. Finney and Thompson simply cannot make room in their world view for women who want economic freedom and lower taxes and less onerous federal regulation. In other words, Democrats can no more understand independently-thinking women who approach politics primarily as American citizens rather than as "women" than a chimpanzee can understand Einstein's theory of general relativity. Women who voice such concerns have, once again - wait for it! - not gotten the message!

3. "Basic health care" for women, in Democrat lexicon, means nothing at all but being given free contraceptives and abortifacients or abortions. That's it. In their mind, American women should not think of health care primarily in other terms. And if women can't get sexually-related prescriptions and abortions, then they will be so decimated that, as Finney put it, "how are you then going to be able to do what you need to do in terms of having a job, paying your rent, taking care of your kids?"

In the Democrat mind, sex without sex's consequences are the only thing that women should think about when they approach a voting booth. Finney and Thompson, et. al., actually think that unless the government makes sure that women's sex lives are unencumbered, then a woman simply cannot manage her job,  housing or children. Sex rules all else.

The Democrat party truly cannot comprehend a woman going to vote who is more concerned about the dent in her paycheck caused by $5-per-gallon gasoline than finding free condoms, or who worries about the future impoverishment of her children and grandchildren because of Obama's borrow and spend binges more than she worries about buying the Pill, or whose most pressing concern is not sexual liberty, but a college-graduate son or daughter who has moved back to live with mom because s/he can't find a job and therefore can't make student loan payments and rent at the same time.

Not in the Dems' world view is a woman who pays her mortgage every month but who knows that her home's market value is less than the mortgage principal remaining, and stupidly thinks that this is more important to her future (and thus her voting) than getting morning-after pills. There is no room in Democrat gender-identity politics for a woman who has been married to one man for 35 years and so never thinks about getting free contraceptives or an abortion (that is, what Dems say is "basic health care") but who is intensely concerned with her elderly parents' net worth falling as inflation rises.

No, these women simply do not authentically exist in the Democrat universe. Such women simply have not heard the full message that there should be nothing more important to a woman than sex, sex, sex.

To the Democrat party, women are simply sex objects, though with political and statist rather than fleshly purposes. But objects is all they are. That's the real message that countless women get very well and strongly reject.

Update: This seems right, too: "Women's health" is,
... that peculiar branch of medicine which has determined that every naturally occurring happening in an adult woman’s life, from menstruation to ovulation to childbearing to menopause, is a medical problem to be managed with the appropriate drugs or surgical procedure. That so many “feminist” women sign on to essentially declaring their gender a malady to be treated has always struck me as peculiar but that is a story for a different day.
Remember the old 1960s leftist slogan "The issue isn't the issue." The real issue of gender politics and "women's health" is neither women nor their health. It is increasing their dependency on statist bureaucrats and increasing control over evermore of the way we live.

Bookmark and Share