I'm sorry crayons but I think you're just splitting hairs here. Colter has already said that women shouldn't vote because they elect democratic presidents. Rush coined a term to easily dismiss any woman who actually speaks about women's rights or who is determined about women's rights "feminazi". They are already dismissive of women. They don't have to be specific about who is head of the family. It is automatically implied from their rhetoric.
I guess if you R E A L L Y stretch you can get that interpretation from what he said. IMO, what he's saying is blatant, women who call themselves feminists are about murdering children and satanism. There is NO 'legitimate' feminism, IOW. Again, tarring and feathering a term that women use to further their cause. Making 'feminisim' an ugly word no one wants to associate with and therefore further splintering groups who work for women's rights.
If the problem is making feminism an ugly word that no one wants to associate with, then you could as easily blame plenty of young women who wouldn't listen to Rush in a million years -- women with good educations and career plans and the assumption of equality, who associate the F-word with their mothers, with unshaven legs, with sexless man-hating, or whatever. It's stupid, I know, but there you have it. In my mind -- and, seemingly, yours -- "feminist" and "person who supports equal rights for women" are more or less synonymous. But to a lot of people on both sides of the aisle, they're not.
Does that mean I'm saying that Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are wonderful crusaders for equal rights? No no no no no. They're by no means friends of feminism, or women. All I'm saying is that the idea that women and men are not equal is so passé, even in conservative circles, that it's not cool to say so. And that few people even see things that way, in such blunt terms, these days. Does that mean that everybody is now totally enlightened feminists? Hell no. They just don't see women as being SO unequal that they have to submit to their husbands.
Maybe it's the equivalent of a racist who isn't happy to have a black president yet still would not teach his children that black people shouldn't be allowed to use the public pool. We haven't made total progress, but we have made SOME progress. Also, most people, even religious conservatives, have high hopes for their daughters and want them to be successful. If you asked religious conservatives whether they want their daughter to be a doctor, say, versus a housewife who totally submits to her husband, I would guess that 90 percent of them would choose the former.
What it relates to is that such people are extremely isolated. They live in a very homogeneous society and they don't have any other influences other than what they grew up with. And while they don't have to, they can be easily influenced by that society into thinking that their way is right and everyone else is the problem. I'm glad you grew up that way crayons. My friends did not. And I meet more people like them, than I do people like you.
Well, yes. I think part of the issue here is that you live in a red state that's not really known for its educational system and I live in a blue state (historically speaking, anyway) whose schools tend to rank high. So if to a worm in an apple all the world is apple, you and I definitely see different apples. (NOTE: In comparing the public school systems, I hope you understand that I'm not talking about your education vs. mine, I'm talking about the acquaintances you're referring to who are culturally isolated.)
But again, I have allowed that there are some isolated families who aren't reached by modern culture. Again, everything under the sun. So, yes, there are some people who live pretty sequestered lives. But I don't think the average conservative Christian family teaches this to their kids.
So why doesn't anyone dissuade them? Yes, you can get divorced. No, you don't need a man. Because the people around them believe what they do, too.
Have you ever had any luck telling a friend she was in a stupid relationship and should get out of it? Personally, I never have. And I've had (and have) plenty of friends in stupid relationships. And when I was in stupid relationships, my friends didn't talk me out of them, either.
But that doesn't explain Palin though, does it?
I'm not sure why I have to offer a separate explanation for the electability of somebody who's not actually even running for office, but yes, indeed, it does explain Palin. If people are going to vote for Michele Bachmann, they're going to vote for Palin -- not that they're identical; Bachmann is far more qualified but has scarier views. But the point is, if far-right conservative Christians love (and believe me, they do LOVE) Bachmann, they would not have a problem with Palin being female if she were to run. Far from it; on the contrary, her femaleness would be a plus, partly because they think she's hot, partly because it's an "in your face" to lefties who, they are fully aware, consider them sexist. And they don't want to be seen as sexist because, as I said, sexism isn't cool, even in conservativeland.
Does it have to be, though? You do recall how the Mormon Church involved itself in Prop 8 in California, right? You do recall Dubya courting the religious right and promptly started doing away with funding to Planned Parenthood, outlawing types of abortion, signing into law the religious initiatives, right? I'm in Texas, I don't have to tell you what the state school board did to the textbooks and history. I just read a story the other day of yet another school having to be ordered to take down the 10 commandments. There doesn't have to be a dictator in power.
Wait, am I now being challenged to defend everything the religious right has ever done? I thought we were just talking about women's equality. Anyway, yes, obviously, there are a lot of people in the United States who are conservative Christians, and yes, they do have a certain degree of political influence. Do I equate that with the United States being on the brink of a revolution that could anytime in the foreseeable future catapult a clergyman into control and turn the country into a theocracy? In a word, no.
BTW, the fact that you read about a school being ordered to take DOWN the 10 Commandments, rather than a school being ordered to put UP the 10 Commandments, supports my point.
