Sending Republican Misogynistic Trolls Back Under the Bridge Where They Belong

Screen Shot 2013-08-26 at 3.33.44 PM
We’re commemorating 93 years of women’s suffrage today with women’s equality day, so naturally I just had a Republican ask me how things have changed since before women got the vote.

He tweeted, “how has it changed.” So I wondered if he meant how things have changed SINCE we got the vote? Or in general since that time? Or did he mean how has the Republican Party changed since then? Any and all of ’em are a WTF moment.

Is this how the GOP plans to get women voters? Please proceed:

Gee. I don’t know, I guess I’d have to ask a rich, white man how things have changed since women got the vote, since there is no valid experience unless a Republican man authorizes it. No need to ask women or minorities how we feel about our own experiences. Only the rich white man is objective enough to decide if they have been screwing us all over with their privilege. They determined that that they have not. FINI.

He is asking how things have changed since we were fighting to get suffrage. Let’s hope he’s not asking for a history lesson, but rather implying that the Republican Party hasn’t changed in the last 100 years and is not, in fact, the party trying to take women back to the dark ages now. Is not the party of misogyny and patriarchal privilege. Is not the party behind the war on women.

This is the same argument conservatives use to get out charges of modern day racism (they scream Lincoln was a Republican, as if that had anything to do with the facts regarding today’s GOP). In other words, he is defending the Republican Party by not only denying what they do today, but pretending that they are the champions of women as they were 100 years ago. Nothing has changed in almost one hundred years.

However, if we follow his question through to its logical conclusion, we get the pot of Republican gold at the end of their fairy rainbow – see, minorities and women do not need to vote. Things are no different for us when we vote, Republicans were our champions 100 years ago, so what’s all of the fuss about women’s rights and minority disenfranchisement?

Also implied in this question, since it’s offered as a rebuttal to women not wanting to serve under Republican knuckle-dragging lord and masters, is the seriously clueless premise that women already have equal rights and so what is all the fuss? We do not, as a matter of law: See the ERA, see Stand Your Ground laws, see women in America in prison for having a miscarriage, see the Republican legislative war on women. Republicans are the main reason why we do not have equal rights and they are the party fighting to take what rights we do have, even the Constitutionally protected rights, away from us.

Let’s turn this whole thing around, shall we? Why don’t we put women in charge of the courts, the legislature, and the police. Don’t let men vote or have credit in their own name. Make it legal to beat your husband. Make men property of women, subject to their moods and goodwill (getting nervous yet?). Let that marinate for a few thousand years.

And then when death at the hands of an angry, jealous woman is a leading killer of married men and murder by an intimate partner is one of the top causes of death for pregnant men, but those killers go free or serve limited time in prison because other women know she was goaded into it by his whorish behavior and big mouth, let’s ask a man if anything is different since he was allowed to vote.

Let’s say that of males killed by a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. Yes, the number of men shot and killed by their wife or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by female strangers using all weapons combined. And only one party is pushing unrestricted, unregulated access to guns — the Republican party.

Let that man see that same party refuse to reauthorize the Violence Against Men Act, the one thing that helped some men get some justice and protection.

Let that man see his son raped, and that same party telling everyone that rape isn’t real. That same party wants to force that man’s son to have the baby of his rapist — and be financially dependent on a system that clearly doesn’t value him. Oh, and in some states, he’s going to have to give that rapist visitation rights.

That same party will pass laws telling men what they can do with their bodies, since we can’t trust men or their doctors to know what’s best. That party will defund access to birth control and then take choice away from men when they get pregnant.

If they think a life of poverty and dependency doesn’t look so appealing, we will tell them that their freedom is immoral. They must think of the embryo first, above themselves, because that is what good men do. Good men never think logically about finances and resources, and most of all, good men never put themselves first. A good man always sacrifices his own health and even life for the embryo so valued by women, even if those same women refuse to feed and shelter that embryo once it’s born.

If the man doesn’t like it, he should have kept his legs closed. Oh, he was raped? Sorry, we don’t believe in rape. Victims are “accusers” in our world, and now he is branded a vicious, untrustworthy whore and liar.

And women will pat this man’s head and tell him there is no war on men, we know because we decide what’s fair. We will pretend that only polling women is fair, because we are the only people who can truly be objective since everyone knows that men are victims of testosterone and can’t be relied upon to be logical or fair, prone to crazed violence and rampant whoring around as they are.

How does someone even ask how things have changed since we were fighting for suffrage? CRAZY TOWN.

This is your modern day Republican party in action. Holy shrinking tent, batman. These people are nuts. 93 yrs after passage of the 19th amendment, the Republican party is working to take women back into the dark ages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.