Shocking: Herman Cain Makes a Sexist Comment

Well, it’s almost as bad as when Wisconsin State Sentator Grothman said “You could argue that money is more important for men” on why the state had to strip away equal pay protections from the law.  I don’t think there is a man in the republican leadership who thinks that women are equal to men.  After all there most sacred religious texts says that women are not equal and that they should not speak.    

Sexism can be found in both parties, from both genders.  See Hilary Rosen who thinks that Ann Romney never worked a day in her life because she didn’t have paid employment outside the home.

“And I think many men are much more familiar with the failed policies than a lot of other people, as well as the general public.”

Sexist?  I don’t know.  Given the structure, and the use of the qualifier “many”, this statement, imo, makes no sense at all.  That is to say, it is vague enough to be saying nothing at all.

However, if one wishes to use it as a launching pad for high dudgeon the, of course, one will.

Thanks for the mansplanation.

Thanks for the mansplanation.

 What attempt was that?

It’s weasely. He obviously means an unspecified number of men are more familiar with Obama’s failures than all the people who are less familiar than them. Kinda like how a lot of numbers are higher than 72. It means nothing.

 For confidence’s sake, can you offer just one legislative effort on the part of the GOP to roll back reproductive rights?

Are you referring to pushback on ObamaCare’s mandate to pay for contraceptives?  If so, that’s a fail.

He could simply mean that women are less interested in politics than men. Which I think is true though if you measure the difference scientifically it is probably pretty slim.

 Wrong.  Rather, the so-called “War on Women” is a bunch of lies and came out of the left’s efforts to ensure that ObamaCare, and the individual mandate (including the mandate to pay for other peoples sterile sex supplies) is not derailed.

Now, if there’s something eles, then indeed I missed it.  But given the lies spewed regularly by the left on this subject, I doubt there is any there there.

 Oh, wow. Oh, just, wow. Oh man. Wow. I’m going to go now. And. . . laugh or something. I can’t take that even remotely seriously.

 The charge was that Republicans are trying to “wipe out women’s reproductive rights.”  [direct quote]  Even given allowance for hyperbole, it’s still wrong.

Just cite one bit of legislation to prevent women access to any of the products or services euphemistically referred to as “reproductive” in nature (but are actually ordered to preventing reproduction.

 http://womenslawproject.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/record-number-of-anti-choice-bills-introduced-in-2011-we%E2%80%99ve-had-enough/

162 enough for you?

He was asked for an answer and he gave a response. There’s a Babylon 5 quote in there somewhere.

 Do a news search on “transvaginal” and see what pops up.

 “services euphemistically referred to as “reproductive” in nature (but are actually ordered to preventing reproduction.”

Are you suggesting that preventing reproduction is not part of my reproductive rights? How am I supposed to have control of my body and choose if/when to reproduce if I don’t have access to contraception or abortions?

You’re being deliberately obtuse here.

Let’s use an analogy here: All citizens over 18 in the US have a right to vote (except those with felonies in some states). Now, let’s say we enact a law that imposes a poll tax of say…$100. Let’s just say that there is a district that is particularly poor, and the citizens there cannot afford the poll tax, so they effectively cannot vote. That is restricting access to fundamental rights. It’s saying,”Yes, you have the right to do this, but we’re going to make it so difficult to access it, that you actually won’t be able to exercise that right.”

Thank you for following up your posts by actually looking at some facts. I really appreciate that.

(also, I’m a woman who is extremely interested in politics)

It can’t be easy being an atheist and an apologist for the Christian Extremist party.
Cognitive dissonance doesn’t even come close to describing what must be going on in your poor head Nordog.

What does this have to do with atheism?

Actually, I give him a pass on this one. People make simple mistakes when talking under high pressure situations, like a national telecast, all the time. This didn’t seem to be something that was well thought out or really indicative of a negative stereotype of women or anything.

Just looking at the words themselves, there’s a lot of ambiguity in it anyway. He says,

many men are much more familiar with the failed policies than a lot of other people.

I personally think, based on his saying “many”, the “other people” were more likely to be those men who didn’t fit into the “many” group and not necessarily women at all.

I don’t see one at the link that fits the description.

I do see references to efforts to put restrictions on abortion, which is in keeping with Roe v. Wade.  Are you against Roe now too?

Again, the charge was, “wiping out reproductive rights”.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

I will even flip it over for you, since you’re not really talking about reproduction here, but contraception and abortion.

There is not one bill or one effort by any nationally elected politician to wipe out a woman’s right to sterile sex or the destruction of any baby caused by the inevitable failure at attempting sterile sex.  None. Bupkis.