Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Politics and Weaponry

Eliana Johnson gives up on her defence of Hitlerian sensibility to concentrate on Democratic equivalence with the festering evil of Republicans:
Colorado state representative Joe Salazar demonstrated yesterday that, as far as politics are concerned, making undiplomatic remarks about rape appears to be a bipartisan issue. The Democratic legislator cautioned yesterday that women, fearing they are going to be raped, may shoot and injure innocent victims.

Arguing a in favor of bill that would ban the individuals from carrying concealed weapons on college campuses, Salazar acknowledged, “There are some gender inequities on college campuses” that put women at risk. He explained, “It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at.”

Salazar continued, “You don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop, pop a round at somebody.”
This is a stupid thing way to put it; most women are pretty aware of both the threat and when the threat is about to become more than that. So condemn condemn condemn, it's okay by me. I can imagine what his point might be, but why offer charity? Anyway:
Republican senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock were defeated in November after making remarks about rape and reproduction that were widely criticized by politicians and pundits on both sides of the aisle.
Here's what Todd Akin had to say:
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”

Akin said that even in the worst-case scenario — when the supposed natural protections against unwanted pregnancy fail — abortion should still not be a legal option for the rape victim.

“Let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work, or something,” Akin said. “I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”
And here's what Richard Mourdock said:
“I’ve struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said. “And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”


Democrats seized on the remarks following the debate. Perhaps anticipating the impact they might have, Mourdock tried to backpedal in the minutes following the debate.

“Are you trying to suggest that somehow I think God ordained or pre-ordained rape? No, I don’t think that anyone could suggest that. That’s a sick, twisted - no, that’s not even close to what I said,” he told reporters, according to the Evansville Courier & Press.

But he reaffirmed his view that conception is determined by a higher power.

“It is a fundamental part of my faith that God gives us life. God determines when life begins,” Mourdock said. “I believe in an almighty God who makes those calls. ... There are some things in life that are above my pay grade.”
Is run-of-the-mill women-are-silly sexism the same kind of sexism as God's-plan-is-to-make-you-have-your-rape-baby-and-is-rape-legitimate-anyway sexism? If so, then yes, this Colorado state representative is just as brain-numbingly terrible as the two Republican Tea Party candidates for the US Senate.

Congratulations are due, I suppose, to Colorado Republicans for playing the sexism angle when they don't give a shit.


Big Bad Bald Bastard said...

I think the real difference is that Mourdock and Akin's statements have a corollary- some inscrutable deity will determine whether a particular sexual act was rape or not, the woman's characterization of events be damned.

Substance McGravitas said...

Untrustworthy agency and no agency at all is not a great choice.

wiley said...

Well, as a life-long pedestrian who loved to walk at night, I handled it by turning around and looking at who was behind me. It was invariably a man who started and had I'M NOT A RAPIST! written all over him. So apologetic. So frightened.

But if the guy responded as if the trap had been sprung and became aggressive I wouldn't have had a gun to shoot him with.

Perhaps I'm privileged to have the opinion that guns on campus is not a good idea; because that would allow predators to carry guns without censure, so that getting away from the rapist might be much harder, and the threat of death more menacing.

Substance McGravitas said...

Yes, guns on campus are a stupid idea. I'm not big on the "women are flighty" rationale.

tigris said...

There are some things in life that are above my pay grade

Why isn't "can't a woman make up her own mind whether or not to abort" on that list?

Substance McGravitas said...

Is there some woman getting paid more than he is? NO.

tigris said...

The wikipodium tells me he gets $66k. That puts a lot of things above his pay grade, but fewer things than if he were only paid what he's worth.

wiley said...

Well, I'd consider most people with guns a risk to innocent bystanders, but I get your point, sub.

Long ago I read a report that said that when a woman shoots a male intruder in her home, she is reasonably likely to shoot him in the crotch. Center of mass would be a safer bet, but there are moments in which dicks really piss us off.

Substance McGravitas said...

It kind of goes with the advice about kicking in the balls, so it'd make sense if true.

And yeah, fewer people with guns is a good goal. Idiocy is distributed more equitably than any of those three guys understands. Socialism! Or dummunism!

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

fewer people with guns is a good goal.

S_McG is with Cubans, err North Koreans!

Avenge me, WOLVERINES!