What do the Afghans and the Republican Party have in Common? Both are populated by misogynists actively engaged in a war on women. The tactics, intensity, and outcomes are different, of course, but the intent is the same--to suppress the rights of all women to be protected from controlling and predatory men, to take from women the right to be in control of their own bodies, and to deny women the right to equal pay for the same work as men.
The Republican Party would angrily and vigorously deny this assertion, but the facts contract any denial or disbelief. For example, what Men in Congress, men who represent all American women and who are opposed to the repression of women, would vote against the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2011? Well, to be sure, 31 Republican men in the Senate voted against the Violence Against Women Act.
The Senate passed the Violence Against Women Act, but these 31 Republican men voted against it. John Barrasso (R-WY), Roy Blount (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Richard Burr (R-NC), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Thad Cochran (R-MS), John Corryn (R-TX), Jim DeMint (R-SC), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Orin Hatch (R-UT), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Johanns (R-NE), Rob Johnson (R-WI), John Kyle (R-AZ), Mike Lee
(R-UT), Dick Luger (R-IN), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Rand Paul (R-KY), Jim Risch (R-ID), Pat Roberts (R-KS), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Richard Shelby (R-AL), Jim Thune (R-SD), Pat Toomey (R-PA) Roger Wicker (R-MS). Take a close look at the state these 31 Senators represent, with few exceptions, what do they have in common?
All of these Republican Senators claim to have a reason for voting against the Violence Against Women Act. Marco Rubio, Senator from the State of Florida, apparently hating non-sexual assault and battery more than he hates rape, claims he voted against the Violence Against Women Act because it diverts money earmarked for domestic violence to a fund dealing with sexual assault. How Absurd! Does Mr Rubio really want us to believe that rape is not a violent act against women? Does Marco Rubio believe that rape is not violence against women. This line of reasoning reeks of the absurd. And this from a man the Republican Party considers to be one of their shining examples and bright future.
There are many more examples of the GOP war on women, too many to offer here, but available in many other places. Most examples are individual acts and statements made by Republican leaders--which by the way are not gaffe but true sentiments and beliefs of the persons making them. But here is one that comes from the party itself.
The Republican Party Platform, written for all to see, contains this line: "Congress--the Senate through its ratifying power and the House through its appropriating power--shall reject agreements whose long-range impact on the American family is ominous or unclear. These include the U.N. Convention on Women's Rights (and) the convention on the rights of the Child." (Italics, Mine).
Seriously, how can women's rights and the rights of children have an ominous or ulnclear effect on the American family? Surely the Republican Party isn't suggesting that the American family is a patriarcial unit and any attempt to protect women's rights and the rights of their children would be ominous for the patriarch and his control over His family. Or could they?
Is this the America that women want for themselves and their children? Say it isn't so.