Why does * and the GOP hate women and children?

[Shallah Kali]

States Rein In Health Costs
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/latimests/20050424/ts_latimes/statesreininhealthcosts

The federal government helps pay for Medicaid, but in the coming fiscal year, the federal contribution will drop by more than $1 billion because of changes in the cost-share formula. President Bush has warned of far deeper cuts to come; he aims to reduce federal spending on Medicaid by as much as $40 billion over the next decade.

{snip}

Legislators are still working out eligibility details. But under one leading proposal a single mother of two who earns $3,800 a year would be considered too wealthy to qualify for Missouri Medicaid. The woman's children would still be eligible for free healthcare. But if she gets a better job and starts earning $23,000 a year, they, too, would be bumped off Medicaid — unless she's willing to pay as much as 5% of her income in monthly premiums. The state expects many parents at that income level would be unable or unwilling to pay the premiums, forcing about 24,000 children off the Medicaid rolls.

Children who remain on Medicaid would continue to receive full benefits, but under legislation expected to take effect this summer, most adults would get a bare-bones package. The program would no longer pay for their dental care, hearing aids, eyeglasses, wheelchairs, hospital beds or even bedpans.

{snip}

Rather than raise costs for minimum-wage clerks, Skaggs suggests increasing insurance premiums for lawmakers who get health coverage through the state. He recently introduced a measure that would have cost the average politician $115 a month — the measure failed on a close vote.

The last quote reminds me of a Democract, a represenative I belive, who put up legislation to require our national congress' healthcare be tied to level of benefits the VA gives. Of course nothing came of it. We can't have our leaders sacrificing even a penny of their plenty for the sake of those with nothing.

[etherealtruth]

1. They don't hate ALL women ...

just poor, marginalized and or frail women and children.

Nah, you're right they hate women and children (no qualifiers).

[shance]

2. I think they are indifferent to women and children. Which is worse.

They seem to observe women as essentially being property and are to be used and maintained as long as they are redeeming with some sort of value, which to them is financial, material, or lineal.

Its the indifference bred apparently from being disconnected from the real world and real people for so long.

[LdyGuique]

3. Actually, it's somewhere between hatred and indifference

According to their biblical training, women and children are property to be controlled by the man in the family. If they've chosen to give up a man, then it's up to the state to assume this role. Women and children are collateral damage to a man's life, especially since the courts have taken away his right to discipline his family as he sees fit. Once the courts have been effectively redistributed by bona fide Christian men, then these laws and rulings can be thrown out and the natural order reasserted.

[methinks2]

4. cause they're evil poopyheads

bunch of wingnuts :mad:

[Nightjock]

5. As much as I despise *

and wish he and his fellow crooks were in jail, I believe they think they are doing the right thing...which is VERY scary.

[applegrove]

6. Because they mirror the sociopathy of the cabal. And sociopaths

(political ones or religious ones) are notorious for being misogynists. And many see educated women as a threat (all people are supposed to be subservient to a megalomaniac.. even the women they pretend to love). Religion can take on misogynistic qualities too. Just about any group led by a monster or a group of monsters can.

Look at female circumcision in some Muslim Countries. By now it is religious & customary law. But at one time it was an idea: remove the sex organs from a woman and sew her up really tight after each baby. Some leader, at some point, decided that women were objects and was threatened. Sociopaths are notoriously sexually (& emotionally)inadequate. (I am not talking about all Muslims here at all - most who follow female circumcision have been taught to be that way).

Compare that to something like Quakers who celebrated the love between a man and a woman and the happiness that would bring to them. Quakers have guts & hearts (or their leaders did). Sociopaths & misogynists do not. They want control to feed their fragile self-esteem.

And you are right to think that it is the Bush type of religion that is against women. Many fundies are not that way. But the religious leaders, just like the corporate ones, who rise to the top under this Bush cabal (and have been for a few decades) mirror the personality of the cabal at the top that has used them.

I would imagine that many preachers are the antithesis of misogynists.

[goddess40]

7. They're easy to identify

When you pick a group to look down on it helps if they are easy to pick out in a crowd and it really helps if they are physically weaker.