Warren Shines On Women's Issues In Debate

SPRINGFIELD, Mass. - When women’s issues were raised during last night’s debate between Elizabeth Warren and Republican Sen. Scott Brown, Warren shined and Brown stumbled. It was the only real high point of the debate for Warren in an otherwise just-slightly above average performance.

"He has gone to Washington and he has had some good votes but he has had exactly one chance to vote for equal pay for equal work, and he voted no. He had exactly one chance to vote for insurance coverage for birth control and other contraceptive services for women, he voted no. And he had exactly one chance to vote for a pro-choice woman, from Massachusetts, to the United States Supreme Court, and he voted no,” Warren said.

“Those are bad votes for women. The women of Massachusetts need a senator they can count on, not some of the time, but all of the time,” Warren continued.

Brown, who desperately needs independent female voters on election day, has worked hard to cement his image as a supporter of abortion rights and a defender of women. But last night in Springfield he gave a clunky defense of his positions that relied heavily on personal anecdotes.

"We’re both pro-choice, we both support Roe v. Wade, there’s no secret about that. I believe, obviously, very much in women getting the same pay and benefits,” he said

Brown, never one to miss a chance to play up his strong “one of us” credentials, did note that he didn’t want to create conflicts for Catholics when it came to issues of contraception and abortion.

"I am not going to be pitting Catholics against their faith," he said.

Overall, his disorganized response to moderator Jim Madigan's question took away from what was otherwise a great debate for him. Brown's a moderate in a liberal state, and the abortion question is one he should have been better prepared to answer.

It’s too soon to tell if this crucial exchange will be a major factor in the race, but it did highlight one of the few areas where Warren really outshines Brown.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • YinxDoo||

    Sounds like a pretty solid plan to me dude.

    www.PrivacyGet.tk

  • MJGreen||

    Women only care about their vaj. It is known.

    Also, Elena Kagan was the only possible pro-choice nominee for SC Justice.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    No, according to Liz, women only care about the fetus.

    Forget taxes, Medicare, war, government spending - WHAT ABOUT THE FETUS WHAT IS YOUR POSITION ON THE FETUS I WILL ONLY VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE WHO IS PRO-FETUS.

    Or, anti-fetus, I guess. Still, there are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamed of in Liz' Womens Issues. It is incredibly condescending, like the 19th-century case against Suffrage come to life.

  • $park¥||

    It is incredibly condescending, like the 19th-century case against Suffrage come to life.

    And yet, here we are considering it.

  • Lisa||

    The anti/pro-fetus issue shouldn't be a "women's issue". Especially not since we live in a time when annoying parents talk about "our pregnancy". If a woman wants her child, it's also the father's child...if she doesn't want it, then it's not his. It's so stupid.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Women only care about their vaj. It is known.

    It is known.

  • Killazontherun||

    There once was a second moon that was itself a carefully infolded vag. There was but one man on the planet below to see it. Every evening he would gaze up at the crinkly surface of the moon with his hand around his crank. Still, by day, he journeyed across a barren world. And then the moon burst open and all the vags landed upon the Earth so he would never again walk alone.

    It is known.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    I see a spelling error in your post:

    "And then the moon burst open and all the vags landed upon the Earth so he would never again wank alone."

    FTFY

  • Enough About Palin||

    "Women only care about their vaj. It is known."

    Well I'm a guy and it's the only thing about women that I care about.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Dude, how narrow minded of you.

    What about boobs? And the ass? Or the curve of the .....

    BRB....

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "Outshines"?

    Bad choice of adjectives I hope, but there's no universe in which support for government controls on employment ("equal pay for equal work"), employer provision of health insurance ("insurance coverage for birth control and other contraceptive services"), and a vote for a Vagina-American statist judge should be seen as a positive by libertarians -- to say nothing of the, shall we say, *controversial* nature of the abortion debate in libertarian circles.

  • John||

    You can debate over when life begins. But I am unaware of any Libertarian who would support government funding of abortions.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Or forcing employers to provide what they conscientiously believe to be abortifacient drugs for their employees.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Bad choice of adjectives...

    Agreed. "Out" suggests outside of the body, like the male genitalia. Quinn, in true phallocentric fashion, has decided that interior genitalia is somehow inferior, perhaps like something worthy of only seventy-seven cents on the dollar in pay. And don't even get me started on his use of the word "point".

  • John||

    Since when do Libertarians buy into there being any such thing as "women's issues"? And last I looked the government forcing people to act against their religion is pretty unLibertarian.

  • tarran||

    You don't keep your position at the Boston Globe by exposing the progressives of Cambridge to a paradigm shift without a clutch, John. ;)

  • PapayaSF||

    Did the fact that she's never had a Massachusetts law license come up? I expected that to be a bombshell, but it doesn't seem to have exploded.

  • R C Dean||

    No, the moderator made damn good and sure that her illegal practice of law and her lying about her heritage to snag a plum job were not mentioned.

    Brown could have easily raised the issue:

    "I understand this issue [doesn't matter which one] raises some difficult legal questions. Ordinarily, I'd hesitate to give my opinion on legal issues when I'm sharing a stage with an attorney, but I understand that in spite of her impressive list of big corporate clients, Ms. Warren isn't a licensed attorney in Massachusetts, so here goes. . . ."

  • R C Dean||

    I can't imagine that there are more than 3 or 4 voters in Massachusetts who have "women's issues" as a major concern who weren't going to vote for Warren in any event.

    So, this master debate performance moved maybe 2 or 3 votes, tops?

  • Paul.||

    It moved Warren's family out of the "undecided" column.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    Warren's family? You mean the Tribe? Chief Consumer Protection and Fauxcohontis?

  • ||

    Fauxcohontas, spell it right.

  • $park¥||

    I said it before and I'll say it again. Everyone ought to get used to the thought of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA). I'll be very surprised if Brown wins despite what appears to be overwhelming support from Western MA.

  • John||

    The polls have him up pretty consistently. The Massholes have elected Republicans before. I would be surprised if she wins.

  • Calvin Coolidge||

    What polls? I was under the impression she had lead every poll since the convention?

  • ||

    Yes, that's what I thought. Post-convention she was ahead.

  • $park¥||

    I have zero faith in any polls anywhere being in any way an indicator of reality. Brown does have a slim shot at winning but I don't think he can stop the overwhelming Dem force behind regaining Uncle Ted's seat.

  • R C Dean||

    This is probably one of those toss-up races. The big thing Lizzie Warren has going for her is Obama's coattails. The big thing Brown has going for him is . . . Lizzie Warren.

  • John||

    My in laws are from Mass and all Dems. And none of them give a shit about uncle Ted's seat. Most of them think Brown did an acceptable job and Warren is a clown. I think a good Dem candidate would have beaten him easily. But Warren has been so awful and so off putting, Brown is going to win. Massholes like to elect the occasional Republican.

  • $park¥||

    My family and I are all in MA right now. I'm fairly certain my parents, an R and an L, are not going to bother voting this year. My wife and I aren't voting this year. My brother, who I believe is a D, and his wife will probably swing by and drop their votes in. See, I have anecdotal evidence too.

    The reason Warren is going to win will be that Brown can't drum up the support at the voting booths. There are some interesting ballot questions this year, but I don't think it will be enough to get the people who would vote for Brown out to do so.

  • ||

    I'm in MA too - my guess is that Brown's support is deeper that expressed. I think it'll be close, but I am hoping for liberal tears to make Three Sisters Soup with in November.

  • Paleo-ConAvenger||

    Please BEG THEM TO VOTE BROWN. I dont even like a RINO of his caliber, but a loser like Tribe Warrior Warren deserves to lose-bad

  • ||

    I think this is about right. Based on purely anecdotal evidence (I've yet to meet an independent breaking for Warren, and several lefties have expressed support for Brown - one in particular mentioning that his "totally left-wing" wife decided to vote Brown after last night's debate), Brown wins this one, possibly even with a comfortable margin.

  • ||

    uh, that was in response to John.

  • R C Dean||

    Sounds like our sample is on par with those used by Big Pollster.

    Call it Brown by 3%.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    He has gone to Washington and he has had some good votes but he has had exactly one chance to vote for equal pay for equal work, and he voted no.

    Probably because the Equal Pay Act already covered it--and it's the responsiblity of the person being hired to price themselves according to what they think they are worth. If a woman takes a lower salary than a man just because she doesn't want to haggle over it, whose fault is that?

    He had exactly one chance to vote for insurance coverage for birth control and other contraceptive services for women, he voted no.

    Considering that birth control as practiced by the Sandra Flukes of the nation is not an emergency service, and condoms are cheap, I count this as a point in Brown's favor.

    And he had exactly one chance to vote for a pro-choice woman, from Massachusetts, to the United States Supreme Court, and he voted no.

    There's a lot more reasons to oppose Kagan than just her stance on abortion.

    This stuff plays well to the base, which is probably why Warren "shined," but it's not like most libertarians would consider her statements to be sound policy.

  • R C Dean||

    He had exactly one chance to vote for insurance coverage for birth control and other contraceptive services for women,

    Elective and lifestyle drugs and services should not be part of any mandatory minimum benefit package, period.

  • califernian||

    There Elective and lifestyle drugs and services should not be part of any mandatory minimum benefit package, period.

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Why can't any of these cretins just say that they are NOT against birth control for either men or women, but they just think that people (yes, women are people too) need to take SOME responsibility for SOMETHING.

    These lefty fucks are always telling righty fucks to stay out of their bedrooms, so throw that back at them too.

    What kind of woman falls for this crap?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Abortion is the sum total of women's issues, right?

  • The Hammer||

    Seems to be abortion and free birth control.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Yes. The Left must retake this issue of personal freedom and civil liberties. Over the last 20 years, freedom has become a conservative watch word, and liberals have lost their claim to it. There is a huge difference between contemporary upper-middle-class bourgeois Democratic liberalism and the fire-breathing 1960s leftism that was the mood of my college years. After all, it all began with the free speech movement at Berkeley! But liberals have now been trained to be docile and obedient. Last month, I was the featured speaker in a debate about gender roles at the Yale Political Union. At the dinner at Mory’s beforehand, the very bright and talented student organizers were telling me about how every academic year begins with a counseling session where they are instructed about the nature of sexual “consent.” So I said to them, do you understand that there is a level here of surveillance and control of your private lives that at the University of Paris would be considered grotesque? Why should the administration of any college be telling young people the way they should be interacting with each other? But these very able and promising students have been brought up in a culture of smothering paternalistic observation and control. It’s so authoritarian! But the students have been taught not to question it. To a ’60s libertarian dissident like myself, it’s really alarming.

    - Camille Paglia

    Linked by John in the A.M. Links

  • Ken Shultz||

    Did you guys know that Lizzy the Learjet Liberal contributed to a cookbook entitled "Pow Wow Chow"?

    P.S. No, I'm not kidding.

    224 of 233 people found the following review helpful

    "I thoroughly enjoy the recipes here. My favorite one is called "Diversity Dish." This was contributed by the world's only confirmed blond-haired, blue-eyed Cherokee who used her tomahawk to dig this up from her Oklahoma archives. You start out with 10 quarts of sanctimony, add in a gallon of hypocrisy, throw in a few fables (I recommend the "Family Lore" brand available in Cambridge), add a pinch of whining (1/32 ounce will work), toss in a paleface poseur and a large measure of insufferability. No integrity required. And there you have it: political career implosion. Great for faculty lounge gatherings and unearned academic advancement."

    ----Joseph E. Toomey (Baltimore, MD)

    http://www.amazon.com/review/R.....ID;=tag;=

  • PapayaSF||

    And not only were the "old family" recipes plagiarized, one was for crab with... mayonnaise. We all know how important mayonnaise was in Native American cuisine.

    Plus, there's good evidence that one of her early books is outright academic fraud.

    This is how the Brown campaign should attack her: she's just a fraud and a hypocrite. She lied about her ethnicity, she faked her book, she stole her "family recipes," she made money flipping foreclosed houses, she practiced law without a license, some of it helping big corporations screw the little guy. She's Ward Churchill in a dress.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Ward Churchill in a dress!

  • PapayaSF||

    Really. They're both firebrand leftist academics who got ahead by lying about their ethnicity, produced questionable research, and plagiarized.

  • ||

    "It’s too soon to tell if this crucial exchange will be a major factor in the race, but it did highlight one of the few areas where Warren really outshines Brown."

    You mean from a moronic Massachusetts liberal perspective, right? It's not as if the one-issue feminazis were really going to vote for Brown, anyway.

    Seriously, this blog needs more actual libertarian contributors.

  • $park¥||

    Send them your resume, I'm sure they could use a good laugh.

  • ||

    Why would I want to work for a "libertarian" publication that just today has published not only this BS pushing big government identity politics, but an attack on the electoral college (cause we all know democracy=freedom, durr).

    No wonder lewrockwell.com destroys reason in traffic.

  • $park¥||

    Maybe you should stick to hanging out with all the cool kids then.

  • Randian||

    Yes because dog-whistling racism, yokeltarianism and Christian Theocracy are definitely libertarian values.

    You raise a good point and then shit all over it. Way to be.

  • ||

    When I see someone over at LRC advocate for taxpayer-funded abortions we can talk.

    But unlike you I'm not scared of calling out the left for playing the race card, people who aren't from the beltway, and personal religious beliefs.

  • Randian||

    Cancel my subscription! Get me my meth!

    But unlike you I'm not scared of calling out the left for playing the race card

    Watch out guys! We're dealing with a badass over here!

  • John||

    And taxpayer funded abortions and absolute rule by the majority are?

    Put down the cosmo crack pipe Randian. Just step away.

  • Randian||

    Any thought to the notion that Quinn simply meant that she debated better than Brown?

    Oops, I guess you were too busy Getting Your Stupid On to ask that question.

  • Ken Shultz||

    On the one hand, you've got LearJet Lizzy, the Limousine Liberal, who contributed a recipe to "Pow Wow Chow"! On the other hand, you've got an official genealogist of the Cherokee...

    "Fauxcahontas put up a new TV ad this week. In it, Liz Warren shares the pain her supposed Indian heritage has caused — why, her parents had to elope because her dad’s family didn’t want their son marrying a girl with Indian blood.

    Huh. Twila Barnes, an indefatigable Cherokee genealogist, dug up the 1932 wedding notice in the Oklahoma papers. Warren’s folks got hitched in a large Protestant church 20 miles away, then drove right back to their hometown of Wetumka.

    A wedding party was held that evening; Mrs. Warren’s mom’s best friend was a witness. Some elopement."

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/o.....fuuDY1bsWN

    It's hard to tell who to believe!

    In Warren's defense, when she talks about women's issues, chances are she really knows what she's talking about...she sure looks like a woman anyway.

    But as any blond haired, blue eyed, Cherokee can tell you, though, looks can be deceiving!

  • ||

    Fauxcahontas tells one bald-faced lie after another and the race is still close? Is Massachusetts populated entirely by retarded people?

  • ||

    I clicked Quinn's name and see that he is one of seven libertarians in the town of cambridge. So I guess the answer is essentially yes.

  • $park¥||

    ALMOST entirely. The problem is, the lefty retards along the coast outnumber the saner people in the west.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    My wife is blonde-haired and blue-eyed and 25% mixed Cherokee/Crow. Genes are an odd thing like that.

    Unlike Warren, though, she hasn't been able to be a "woman of colour" due to the fact her Cherokee ancestry didn't end up on the Dawes rolls and her Crow ancestry is from the Canadian side, which amounts to jack squat in the U.S.

    Her cooking is solidly Italian, although I drop in a joke about cooking lima beans or squash now and then. I'd daresay it tastes a lot better than Warren's Franco-American dishes...

  • Ken Shultz||

    I bet your wife didn't exploit racial preferences at Harvard and then refuse to meet with Cherokee representatives to discuss her heritage--all while running for public office, either.

  • Ken Shultz||

    All while running for public office, either.

    All while running for pubic office--on a platform of fighting back against elitists who exploit minorities, among others--I should have said.

  • ||

    "...Warren shined ..."

    Really? It sounds to me like she was stumping for Brown.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Identity politics is her specialty, you say?

    [insert expostulation of surprise}

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Speaking of women's issues: Wendy's is changing its logo. No word on whether they're giving the woman in the logo a giant schnozz to match their fake redhead spokesperson's.

  • AuH2O||

    I wish White Castle would franchise. God, do I enjoy their food.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    It's the receptive anal intercourse of fast food chains.

  • AuH2O||

    In this analogy is 5 Guys the chick who loves giving blow jobs?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    YES.

  • John||

    You are such a philistine. Morgan Smith Goodwin is smoking hot.

    http://www.thesaltywet.com/mor.....in-random/

  • SugarFree||

    One day Tulpa with have sex with someone that isn't a cantaloupe he cored, warmed up in the microwave and put a wig on.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Good god, man!

  • ||

    He likes the cantaloupes that already have kids. Way lower maintenance, you know.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    A wig? That's disgusting.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    She'd be out of my league if she had an ordinary nose.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Note that none of those pics are from the side. There's a reason.

    In one of the commercials -- I think it's the one that starts in a grocery store -- she turns her head for a split second before the commercial ends and ZOMG!!! It's like Pinocchio.

  • John||

    She just has a Roman nose. She is not Pete Townsend for Christ sake.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    For fuck's sake! Tulpa's one of those who thinks girls with pig noses are attractive?

    Is everything backwards on him?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I would murder everyone on Hit and Run to screw her.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I'm not gonna stand in your way.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Too late. It has to be done.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Uh, Tulpa, while I really can't speak to her hair color (only her hairdresser knows for sure), but that "spokesperson" is the actually Wendy.

  • SugarFree||

    The older one is Wendy, but the girl in John's link is in some of the new commercials and is who Tulpa is referring to.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    What SF said.

  • The Hammer||

    The fat one is Wendy, the hot one is who replaced Wendy when her ads didn't sell fast food for some reason.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    The original Wendy is probably more indicative of women who eat there frequently.

    I don't remember if I've ever seen the fake Wendy eat any of their food in the commercials. She's usually just holding it a safe distance from her mouth.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I am not looking for her to put fast food into her mouth.

  • R C Dean||

    Hey, I think their new spokeschick is cute as a button.

    Probably her Indian ancestry.

  • AuH2O||

    Hey, speaking of identity politics...

    Girl who got mocked by teacher for Romney/Ryan shirt to transfer

    Please do read the linked comment, as it is too large to post. Its not as good as some of the ones we got on the "Conservative women are more attractive", but that one won't be topped until a potential Obama election loss.

  • John||

    We have a monopoly on victimhood.

  • $park¥||

    Son of a bitch. I know I shouldn't have, but I read it anyway. I'm never speaking to you again.

  • John||

    What is both sad and scary is that that comment is exactly what the Nazis when they were terrorizing Jews and their political opponents in the 1920s. The Jews were the oppressors who had destroyed Germany and now they just want to play victim because someone finally stood up to them and broke a few shop windows.

    The fact that the commentator has a Jewish name only makes the irony burn worse.

  • AuH2O||

    John, that women has actually inspired my new series, "Into the Maw of Madness: A look at Jezebel commentators"

    Seriously, go read the comments (not replies, but comments, second tab on the top) she posts:

    http://jezebel.com/people/deborahweiss

  • AuH2O||

    For example, here is her reaction to the women who spray painted that poster in NYC:

    This is the most offensively idiotic response you could possibly have drummed up. I hope you didn't pour a lot of thought into it. The notion that speech must be allowed to stand unchallenged or else the First Amendment is somehow nullified is either sheer madness, staggering ignorance, or an unholy marriage of both. Do you actually envision a society in which people just kind of randomly say things followed by a profound silence because no-one is permitted to answer back?

    The First Amendment does NOT exist to mute every voice except the first and loudest and angriest one, and even if it did, it doesn't apply here, since it relates purely and specifically to the regulation of speech by government.

    Anyhow, everyone has the right to say almost anything (one cannot of course shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, and this, alas, is not that); and everyone has an equal and unassailable right to respond.

    Cont...

  • AuH2O||

    Cont...

    Eltahawy did a brave thing. The particular form of her response also happened to have been an illegal thing, so she's paying a price for civil disobedience, but she had every right to assert her outrage at the madwoman Pamela Geller and these disgusting posters, so clearly designed to provoke an angry and ugly response (Geller and friends are no doubt hoping for something far bloodier and more jihady than spray-paint in the weeks leading up to the election).

    One needn't do it with spray-paint, if one would just as soon not spend time in jail; but brava to Eltahawy. Silent acquiescence to Geller's "right" to say toxic, grotesquely racist things does no good to anyone or anything, least of all the First Amendment.
  • PapayaSF||

    Don't you love it how criticizing the religion of Islam has become "racist"?

  • AuH2O||

    Another gem:

    Because a large number of Democratic candidates are not also saying dumb-ass stuff about white devils. Democratic candidates on the whole are not running against white devils. They could, because the Good Lord knows there are a WHOLE lot of crazy white devils out there, but Democrats across the board have refrained from launching a whole white devil frenzy. There has been no white devil legislation advanced by Democratic legislators. There is no white devil plank in the national Democratic platform.

    By contrast, on the Republican side, you've got the "real rape" remarks from Akin, plus Paul Ryan's actual voting history on rape-related issues plus a whole lot of bizarre anti-woman legislation at the state and federal levels, plus taped conversations of zealously pro-life Republicans demanding that their girlfriends get abortions (let's just stick to the crazy stuff about women and sexuality--let's not even get into the crazy stuff about stoning disobedient children to death, deporting Muslims, celebrating slavery as freedom, the evils of science, or how the earth is only a few thousand years old because Jesus). All I'm saying is, the trend suggests a party-wide attitude that's worth talking about, especially since Paul Ryan's own history makes him part of it.

    PS. Cute the way you got the whole "Obama buying weed" meme in there. That was worth half a point.
  • AuH2O||

    And, of course, KOCHTOPUS! (In reaction to a story about a dude who assaulted a smoking pregnant women):

    These terrifying people are the product of three decades of increasingly crazy and reckless propaganda and an (forgive me) unholy alliance between reactionary political parties and fundamentalist religious organizations, that's where they come from. The fuck of shit indeed. They're very Taliban, these people, and very scary, and although they are a relative minority, there are still a fuck of shit lot of them--enough of them to do quite a lot of harm.

    I am quite sure, incidentally, that Peter James Herz would not support my right to shut down one of the Koch brothers' properties (like their Georgia Pacific plant in Arkansas) with a threat to use grenades or bombs or Molotov cocktails or whatever was handy on the grounds that the effluent they're spewing is making children sick and even killing them, although there's a good deal more evidence for this than there is for the health hazards to the embryo of a mother who smokes (or, for that matter, one who drinks in moderation).

    Nevertheless, the Koch brothers are not women, and capitalism is good, so my right to shut down their plant through violence (if I deem it necessary) is not going to be entertained as a legitimate prospect. Nor should it, by the way.

    Oh, and it is continued, where she kinda proves John's point...

  • John||

    Tell me this woman wouldn't be putting people in camps and hacking them to death with hoes if she ever get the opportunity.

  • ||

    Ilsa, She-Wolf of the JezS

  • AuH2O||

    Cont...

    However, there are people here who are justifying a threat of armed violence against a woman, plausibly in their own minds, with an appeal to a sentimental vision of "the unborn" which, according to these people, has a greater right to be protected from cigarette smoke than its mother has to be protected from threats or coercion at gunpoint.

    This sentimentalization of the fetus as a being with rights superior to those of the mother (rights it will lose immediately upon birth, mind you, should it have the bad fortune to be born welfare-dependent and in need of assistance from American taxpayers to ensure that it will be adequately fed, clothed, housed and educated) brings to mind Carl Jung's observation that "sentimentality is the superstructure erected upon brutality."

    Jung said this in the midst of the political turmoil that gripped Europe in the early 1930s. Bad luck for us--it's just as relevant today.

    Oh, and folks: That was the first page of comments. I didn't have to comb through her stuff.

    This has been "Into the Maw of Madness" with AuH20. Good night, and may you die horribly in you sleep. Especially Warty.

  • ||

    Carl Jung's observation that "sentimentality is the superstructure erected upon brutality."

    "The duality of man! The Jungian thing, sir!"
    "Whose side are you on, son?"

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Not all the comments are bad:

    Seems to me that the consensus is that the girl was asking for it because of the outfit she chose...sounds reasonable.
  • Heroic Mulatto||

    BONUS: Read "Into the Maw of Madness" comments with this looped in the background. I guarantee your hair will turn white and you shall lose your sanity!

  • Lisa||

    Translation: "go cry home to mommy, little white girl"
    The sympathetic political party, everyone.

  • ||

    This may feel like an updated and crudely farcical spoof of The Crucible, but it's serious stuff on the right, which embraces a huge and passionate cult of victimhood, a kind of endlessly titillating victim porn. They're seriously addicted to it.

    I just read that, checked the URL of the page to make sure I wasn't hallucinating, and now my face is twitching involuntarily.

  • FD||

    "... one chance to vote for equal pay for equal work, and he voted no..."

    How is this a "women's issue"? For if it is, there is nothing more demeaning and patronizing than this kind of government control on private lives -- women or men.

    Well, as Alice said, "It would be so nice if something made sense for a change."
    Sigh.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Women's Issues:"

    -Legalize a "procedure" a majority of whose victims are female.

    -Violate religious freedom, because women aren't religious, that's strictly a male thing.

    -Put Harry Blackmun clones on the Supreme Court, because Harry Blackmun is the stuff of female fantasy.

    -Extend the filing deadline for complaining about the behavior of private businesses, because Lord knows, no female runs a business and so would not be adversely affected by open-ended liability to disgruntled former employees.

  • PapayaSF||

    if abortion comes up in the debates, I hope Romney points out that not only are half of the aborted girls, but that increasingly people are aborting girls because they want boys, and that Obama is fine with that. Even people who are "pro-choice" can get quesy about sex-selective abortions.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    African-American women get abortions at a rate 3.5 times higher than white women in the latest census survey. Very "pro-choice" indeed.

    It'd be nice to see people who are "pro-choice" get queasy about the demographic and socioeconomic inequality created by legalised abortion.

    Disclaimer: I'm a libertarian and don't believe the government should restrict first trimester abortion, or that it's even possible for the government to do so.

  • SugarFree||

    The "black women getting abortions" tactic is not the slamdunk the pro-life movement think it is. Liberals can simply counter that the disparity in abortion rates is due to racially-induced economic disadvantages, which the pro-life "demographic" is to blame for. Which--expect for the blame part--is probably largely correct.

  • entropy||

    WTF are "women's issues"? Regulation of that time of the month?

  • Drake||

    I'm in favor. Right now I just practice avoidance during that time.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Most the women I know are anti-abortion, so the "pro-woman" political position must be to be staunchly anti-abortion, right?

  • AuH2O||

    They're just tricked by patriarchy induced false consciousness.

  • Drake||

    Most I know think they are pro-choice. Then I ask them about second trimester abortion and they get uncomfortable. Only the diehard liberals aren't vehemently against on-demand third trimester abortion.

  • Sudden||

    Clearly, Garrett Quinn's iPhone maps gave him wrong directions to the HuffPo.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    And he had exactly one chance to vote for a pro-choice woman, from Massachusetts, to the United States Supreme Court, and he voted no

    Fun fact: The only legal issue you are allowed to consider for a SC Justice is Roe v Wade. All other considerations must be on the identity of the candidate.

  • califernian||

    "but it did highlight one of the few areas where Warren really outshines Brown " at pandering to communist women voters

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    OT: Lil' "Savages"

    D'AWWWWW!!!!

  • ||

    I honestly can't understand how many women appear to honestly believe that mandatory birth control coverage under insurance is a serious women's health issue.

    The entire argument seems to be premised on the notion that if something isn't covered by insurance it's effectively forbidden. But this is absurd. Most women don't use insurance to pay for birth control pills. I personally, have never used insurance for them. They were $20 per pack per month which is an easy expense. Even in Canada with single payer, I had to pay for my pills myself. The government doesn't give them to you for free.

    Not does it make any particular financial sense to use insurance to pay for things like birth control, because it's a predictable expense, which you can easily shop around for. You can order birth control pills online and get a year's supply. Using your insurance to cover them makes as much sense as buying auto insurance that covers gas.

    And yet, i keep hearing from these people like Elizabeth Warren who react to the idea that birth control coverage not be MANDATORY and ZERO CO-PAY as if crazy lunatics are trying to control their vaginas. Surely, the majority of American women are neither THIS stupid, nor can they be THIS selfish and cynical to play such a game.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    They were $20 per pack per month which is an easy expense.

    But Sandra Flake said it's $3000 a year! And the insurance won't cover it even when there is a medical necessity instead of just being a contraceptive!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement