Funny or Die has an amusing video starring Kate Beckinsale and Judy Greer making fun of the Republicans for their constant attempts to regulate the reproductive and sexual lives of women. Incidentally, I’ve long had a crush on Judy Greer. And she’s from Michigan too.
May 12 2012
Women Want Republicans In Their Vaginas
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
About the Author
22 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Dana
May 12, 2012 at 9:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It’s not showing up due to copyright, but here is the .
Dana
May 12, 2012 at 9:12 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Let’s try it this way.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/87be7156f5/republicans-get-in-my-vagina
cgilder
May 12, 2012 at 9:14 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
One of my friends had a similarly-themed open letter published in McSweeney’s last month. http://www.mcsweeneys.net/articles/an-open-letter-to-the-tiny-white-man-the-republican-party-has-sent-to-live-in-my-underpants
Michael Heath
May 12, 2012 at 9:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’ve never explored or encountered an explanation(s) on why millions of Christian women remain as members in evangelical and fundamentalist denominations. Specifically those that believe the plain language of the New Testament. That females are inferior to males simply because they’re females. Along with denying them equal rights in the church or earning their way to the same status as adult males based on merit – like becoming pastors of an entire congregation,
indoctrinatingteaching adult males, or preaching to the congregation.In fact many congregations suffer from a paucity of adult male attendance and engaged participation. The politicization of inerrantist churches benefits in getting men more involved since it introduces both competition against other political ideologies along with introducing groups to hate and fear. But why do women remain when they could practice their faith in denominations who do not claim they’re fundamentally flawed worse than males simply because they’re females?
Pteryxx
May 12, 2012 at 9:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Short version: because there are high social barriers to leaving, starting with demonization and ignorance of alternatives, all the way through punishment of those who do manage to leave.
Libby Anne’s an ex-fundamentalist who’s written a lot about leaving patriarchal religion on her blog, for instance:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/04/on-the-importance-of-realizing-you-are-not-alone.html
And here’s a random recent essay from a woman about leaving fundamentalism:
http://nolongerquivering.com/2012/05/09/the-world-not-so-evil-and-dangerous/
Moggie
May 12, 2012 at 10:02 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Wow, I didn’t recognise Kate Beckinsale with an American accent.
dingojack
May 12, 2012 at 10:15 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
A (modified) blast from my past*:
This black guy is fossicking through a junk pile and he discovers a horrible green, lumpy lamp. He polishes it, and polishes it until… you guessed it, a genie appears in a technicolour cloud of smoke from the lamp’s spout.
The genie says: “you have freed me from the lamp I will grant you a wish, any thing you want”. The Black guy thinks about it for a long while, finally he says: “I wanna be white, tight and outtasight!”
So the genie turns him into a
tamponRepublican.:) Dingo
—–
* From when I was about twelve
Michael Heath
May 12, 2012 at 12:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Me earlier:
Pteryxx writes:
There’s two problems with your hypothesis. The first is that men have no compunction with leaving and the second is that there is a lot of adult migration between denominations in the U.S.; partly to due to geographical moves, but also partly due to both theology and a superior social atmosphere.
I realize your assertion is the pat answer prior to your pointing it out, I just don’t think it’s compelling or sufficiently informative. Unless it still stands as true after controlling for the first two factors which provide opportunities for adult females to remain practicing Christians yet not associate with misogynists who run and/or attend the inerrantist churches. And then your explanation still has to do deal with communal opportunities still available if one changes churches. There are after all wingnut Christian sects who provide equal leadership rights to women who still preach an inerrantist view of the Bible; illustrating the fact all Christians are cafeteria Christians when it comes to practicing biblical edicts given the New Testament’s description of females and how they should behave is clear and unambiguous.
nonpersonhobofico
May 12, 2012 at 12:21 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
@Michael Heath
You assume that men and women are socially conditioned in the same way, which is obviously untrue. In the US (and much of the rest of the world) women are taught to value social contracts and relationships much higher than men. It’s the woman in “traditional” marriages that keeps up with in-laws, sends notes on holidays, and generally performs most of the social functions.
The social barriers are much higher to women, especially in fundamentalist groups where their congregation may represent the only support system a woman has due to staying at home, not going to school, not having a job, etc. while men are to toss aside relationships without being judged by society and are able to fall back on other social circles in the event of the loss of one.
I’m sure there are lots of other factors, and this is purely anecdotal, but this is the exact reason why I left Mormons while my wife has not. The cost of leaving for her is simply too high to even consider doing it. I don’t care if I alienate my family and hers if I leave, why she cares deeply.
D. C. Sessions
May 12, 2012 at 12:44 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
MH: the simple answer to “why do women put up with this shit?” is that they’ve internalized the demeaning messages they’ve received all of their lives.
This doesn’t apply in all cases. In some, they have other reasons for low self-esteem and find that they “fit in” better in an environment that is structured around low female status.
And then there are some women (think Ann Romney) for whom there are other compensations such as wealth and status that compensate for their congenital inferiority.
Michael Heath
May 12, 2012 at 12:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
nonpersonhobofico to me:
I most assuredly did not. I suggest blockquoting that which your seek to rebut; it’s poor form to misrepresent what others write as you do to me here.
chilidog99
May 12, 2012 at 1:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Ed, you are giving off creepy stalker vibes.
nonpersonhobofico
May 12, 2012 at 3:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There’s no problem with Pteryxx’s hypothesis if men and women are socialized differently. In fact, men having no compunction with leaving (while women do) would be the expected result. Same applies for shifting congregations due to geographical moves. If womens’ support systems are rooted in religious groups. The expected response would be for a woman to attend the congregation if whatever associates she has after a move.
It’s true that the hypothesis would be better tested if other factors are controlled for, but given the obvious differences in socialization and the fact that the expected result matches reality (while you appear to be undecided as to why women stay), I’d say it’s a pretty safe bet.
tacitus
May 12, 2012 at 5:04 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t think it needs that much explaining. Many women who grow up in secular liberal households still decide to become homemakers when they start having kids, at least for a few years until the kids are in school.
And given that women have fulfilled that role almost exclusively for 99% of recorded history, it’s still a very solid foundation upon which the traditionalists can base their ideals of family life and family values. For many of the conservative women who are now raising kids, it’s still the only life they’ve known, having been raised in families where the father worked, and the mother stayed home to raise them, and even if they now have to go to work themselves, it’s likely still an ideal they aspire to.
And many conservatives churches serve as a closed and very close knit community that proves a valuable support structure while reinforcing these values on an almost daily basis, and given that many the women already quite comfortable in the role they are expected to serve, they’re happy to support the status quo.
Like everything else to do with religion, the best way to break this pattern is to get them when they’re young. As can be seen in the generational shifts in the number of religious people in America, it’s really only the young who reject the teachings of the past in significant enough numbers to make a difference overall. (That doesn’t mean people don’t change their minds later in life, of course, many do, just not in the same numbers overall).
Conservative Christians know this too, which is why they spend so much time and effort on indoctrinating kids and teens, but I think we’re finally seeing the beginning of the end of all that in America, as the percentage of secular youngsters accelerates toward 30% and beyond. Still some ways to go, but it’s happening.
Michael Heath
May 12, 2012 at 5:37 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
tacitius,
I’m aware of all of what you point out but don’t think this explains it. If I did I wouldn’t have raised the issue since what you describe is self-evident to anyone either raised evangelical or fundie (me being the latter)m or others who follow these groups like Ed’s readers. My primary point was that I hadn’t researched this, it was a lazy-ass way of wondering if anyone had some empirical results to share that could provide an explanation. An explanation which considered all the factors I pointed out previously which rebuts the obvious notions you present and I’ve also considered.
tacitus writes:
Right, but that doesn’t describe why adult females would be attracted to, or stay in biblically inerrant churches which discriminate against them when they have other options available which still fit the paradigm you describe above.
tacitus writes:
And again, we know migration to other denominations is high, even within evangelicalism and fundamentalism. We also know women are frequently the deciders on which church the family will attend. So I would expect more adult females to exploit this opportunity by disproportionately switching to churches which still espouse a relatively conservative theology from the one they’re leaving, but isn’t as misogynistic as the churches which define and treat females as inferior.
tacitus writes:
Of course, but this again doesn’t address the issue I raise, which is adult Christian females who remain devout and regular church attenders.
tacitus writes:
I predicted back in the 1970s that two phenomena would occur, the one you point out here and a mass migration of adult females to denominations which don’t discriminate against them. Instead only the one you point out occurred – with the former far slower than I imagined. Why would adult females rights strive for equality in the workplace, which they’ve yet to achieve, but choose a church that considers them defective merely for being female? So defective the brightest among them aren’t qualified to teach and preach to the most moronic of their adult male members?
tacitus
May 12, 2012 at 6:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Do those women strive for equality though? They are happy to accept the freedoms that women — those who actually fought the battles — have won in the workplace, and would probably be upset if they were taken away, but that doesn’t mean they would have striven for them in the first place.
And don’t underestimate people’s ability to compartmentalize. After all, how many Tea Party fanatics are perfectly happy to suckle at the government teat and would be upset if that was all taken away.
That’s probably what I was clumsily trying to say in my previous comment. Just like those in the Tea Party, they like what they hear without really understanding the full consequences of what would happen to them if the policies of the religious right were fully implemented. While they continue to enjoy most of the liberties of modern womanhood (e.g. Catholic women on the pill) they can indulge in the fantasies of the religious right, even to the point where other people — i.e. not them — start being hurt by them, as in the closing down of Planned Parenthood clinics.
Dr X
May 12, 2012 at 7:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Judy Greer, a smart men crush magnet.
chuckonpiggott
May 12, 2012 at 8:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I fully agree about Judy Greer. Definitely crush material.
dingojack
May 13, 2012 at 8:48 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael – In my opinion you’re making a fundamental mistake, you’re assuming humans behave rationally to maximise thier own gross happiness. It ain’t necessarily so.
Dingo
Michael Heath
May 13, 2012 at 10:29 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
dingojack writes:
Not at all, quite the contrary. What I’m instead doing is asking if anyone understands the motivation on why adult females are not behaving in their own self interests.
I am perfectly cognizant that many people do not act or even promote their own self-interests, both for piss-poor reasons – like social conservative populists supporting those politicians favored by oil and coal interests. That’s an example I’ve repeatedly noted in Ed’s venue while frequently citing Thomas Franks’ work. We also observe people acting against their perceived self-interests for laudable reasons – the rich who argue for higher taxation rates. Though with the latter, there’s a great rebutting argument which I concur with; that higher rates on the richest lead to greater growth and opportunity for the richest in excess of their marginally higher tax liabilities. Therefore those rich people are actually arguing their self-interests at a higher strategic level than most people are capable for discerning. The same can be said with other sacrificial altruistic acts when considering how people identify within a population.
dingojack
May 13, 2012 at 10:47 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael – Why do they do it? Because they are irrational. If there was a understandable reason it wouldn’t be, by definition, irrational.
Dingo
dingojack
May 13, 2012 at 11:03 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I supppose the point I’m kinda making (clumsily) is –
suppose you’re on a game show where you are to pick one of three boxes, one of which contains a prize. You pick a box. The host, Monty Hall, shows you that one of the boxes you didn’t pick was empty, and asks you whether you want to swap your choice to the other unopened box or stay with the one you orginally picked, what would you do, and why?
Dingo