Senate Candidate Belittles His Opponent As Just A Young Woman Who Has No Life Experience | ThinkProgress

If this is an example of the "new" GOP training for winning over women voters, they have a serious problem. What it does show, the GOP/TP's 'war on women" is the real deal. The misogyny preached by the likes of Steven Anderson in action.
__
Senate candidate Matt Bevin doesn’t think much of his potential Democratic opponent, Alison Lundergan Grimes. Dismissing her professed support of a minimum wage hike, her choice to make Medicare a central part of her campaign, or her background as a lawyer for domestic abuse victims, Bevin is now claiming Grimes has nothing to run on besides the fact that she is a young woman.

Bevin, the Tea Party Senate candidate putting a scare in Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) ahead of the May 20 primary, campaigned this week in western and central Kentucky. During a stop in Madisonville, Bevin argued that Grimes just runs on four things: “She’s young, she’s new, is a woman, and she’s not Mitch McConnell.”

“She’s a nice enough person,” he said, but when it comes to issues, vision, or life experience, “she really has none of the above on any of those fronts.”

Bevin also argued that it was “insulting” that Grimes, who has served as Kentucky’s Secretary of State since 2012, would expect that women would vote for her simply based on her gender.

Senate Candidate Belittles His Opponent As Just A Young Woman Who Has No Life Experience | ThinkProgress

AZ pastor: Childless women on birth control have destroyed the U.S. with ‘whoredom’

If one were to take the time and listen to Steven Anderson, you would think he is vying for some type of award from the Reich. As Fred Phelps was to the LGBTI movement, Anderson is becoming in regards to the women's rights movement.

His hatred for women first came to my attention in March of last year with this lovely sermon entitled Old Fashioned. This diatribe against women really needs to be re-titled "WHY DON'T YOU LOVE THE HUSBAND GOD GAVE YOU?" As it is an extended tirade in which he blame us women folk for all that ails the world. (I still wonder to this day who the target was of this gem.)

Later that year Anderson again came into my view with his clip "Obama Named after Weak Biblical Judge Barak," where in my view he failed at not only in disparaging our President but showed his complete lack of education in matters of the Bible; a poor attempt at using the story of Barak and Deborah. I did a thorough take down of his message here.

Then on March 24th, he found himself in a battle of stupidity with Pat "senile dementia" Robertson.

Which brings us to his most recent pile of shit he deposited on YouTube. It seems that Pastor Anderson is not done educating women, yet!

The gist: (1) If a woman is on birth control, her blood is an evil Satanic green color (debunked). (2) Birth control makes women idle, lazy, whorish gossips! (3) He continues, with Leviticus 19:29, which says: "Do not degrade your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will turn to prostitution and be filled with wickedness." In other words, the teaching behind birth control is that it frees women of the “bondage” of being strapped to the home. (4) According to Anderson, our society is training women to be easy, loose sluts, “A land can fall to whoredom! And the United States today, fits that bill. If anybody has ever fit that bill, it’s the United States of America. (5) Even Sandra Fluke gets a mentioned

Just as other Reich members have spewed before him, Anderson is supporting my contention the it is not Christianity that is being preached but Paulianity. The same misogynistic bullshit that Paul of Tarsus wrote in his letters to the early churches - 1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 14:34; Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; 1 Timothy 2:12; Titus 2:5.

AZ pastor: Childless women on birth control have destroyed the U.S. with ‘whoredom’

Christian ‘historian’: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’

You would think that in the 4000+ years of human existence there would be some sort of precept against lying. Oh. wait there is!!

Beck U professor David "I create my own HIStory" Barton has once again managed to ignore genuine history. He recently opened his mouth and out tumbled misogynistic psycho-babble he calls history.

The family was the first and fundamental unit of all government. Actually, you have individual self government first, then you have family government second, you have civil government third, and have church government fourth. Those are the four levels of government in the order they are given in the Bible.

So family government precedes civil government and you watch that as colonists came to America, they voted by families. You look at the Pilgrims, when they finally moved away from socialism and moved toward the free enterprise system, they called the families together and gave families plots of land. Private property given to the families. And so that’s the way things work.

And you have to remember back then, husband and wife, I mean the two were considered one. That is the biblical precept. That is the way they looked at them in the civil community. That is a family that is voting and so the head of the family is traditionally considered to be the husband and even biblically still continues to be so …

Now, as we’ve moved away from the family unit – you need to be independent from the family, don’t be chained down and be a mother and don’t be chained down and be a father and don’t be chained down to your parents, you know, we’ve moved into more of a family anarchy kind of thing, the ‘Modern Family’ kind of portrayal – that understanding has gone away.

Clearly, what [the listener] has asked is a brilliant question because it does reveal that the bigotry we’re told they held back then, they didn’t hold and what they did was they put the family unit higher than the government unit and they tried to work hard to keep the family together. And, as we can show in two or three hundred studies since then, the more you weaken the family, the more it hurts the entire culture and society.

So they had a strong culture, a strong society and it was based on a strong family to preceded government and they crafted their policies to protect a strong family.

As much as I would like to dissect this garbage, there is only one name I will mention, Lydia Taft, who in 1756 became the first legal woman voter in colonial America. And yes there is more evidence of pre-Revolution women voters.

Barton's blatant Biblical patriarchy aside, there is a danger in what this man preaches and teaches, depriving one group the right to vote will never satisfy him or his ilk. (And if you have read my diatribes enough you know who the "ilk" are.)

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.” (Martin Niemoeller, 1892 - 1984)

If they're successful in depriving women of their right to vote, who then becomes their next target? Gays? Asians? Catholics? What about the 99 "percenters"? They will keep going until only those they deem "worthy" of the right to vote are able to vote.

This man is dangerous, and those who listen to and believe him, I have one question for you. Will you be deemed worthy?

Christian ‘historian’: Allowing women to vote ‘hurts the entire culture and society’

If Jesus had a wife, would it change the GOP War on Women? | Informed Comment

I have been following the debate surrounding this "find" since it became public last year. The historical and archeological significance aside, I find the question the author is asking an intriguing one: would the structure of church hierarchy be different if Christ had a wife?

Like the author who specifically points to the passage in 1 Corinthians, I do believe that the church (the Reich in particular) focuses on this passage in regards to the social structure. What many within the church do not seem to understand, modern Christianity comes from Paul, not Jesus (hence why I call it Paulianity). Christianity did not exist in the time of Christ and the term "christian" was not used until the book of Acts (11:26 & 26:28) and in a derogatory fashion. Christ never called himself a Christian, Christ never called his followers Christians. The Apostles used terms such as "brethren," "disciples,", "followers," or "servants."

So aberrant where Paul's teachings, some of the early churches (eastern Christian churches) avoided Paul's influence altogether. Today, as testament , we have a remarkable document called the Didache, or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.

__

The early Church fathers loved Paul's teachings because they reflected the general contempt for women prevalent in Roman society. This eventually culminated in celibacy for priests.

But if it were correct, how might it change Christian sensibilities? For a holy figure to have a wife does not make the tradition more feminist, after all. The Jewish patriarchs and prophets were married, but Orthodox and Haredi Judaism are highly patriarchal. Likewise Islam, where the Prophet Muhammad (like Abraham and David) had several wives.

On the other hand, the text itself seems to be a pro-woman polemic defending the idea that women can be disciples of Christ even if married (Jesus is depicted as saying his wife is a disciple).

If Christian tradition were broadened to include these perspectives, it might help it escape the misogyny of some authors. For instance, the entire pyramidal structure erected by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3 might be difficult to maintain: “But I want you to understand that the head [kephale] of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” But if Christ had a wife, the relationships wouldn’t be hierarchical like that. The man-wife dyad would obtain both at the level of Jesus and at the level of the believers. And if Paul thought he could keep women quiet in church, he had another think coming, especially if Mrs. Jesus could have had anything to say about it.

If Jesus had a wife, would it change the GOP War on Women? | Informed Comment