What Elizabeth Warren's Critics Get Wrong About Discrimination (1 Viewer)

[LEBassett]

What Elizabeth Warren's Critics Get Wrong About Discrimination

America has a history of naysayers attacking people who speak out about sexist and racist discrimination.

www.gq.com

 

[Lazybones]

It's more than just discrimination, it's inherent sexism and misogyny that exists in our culture. You only need look at Trump being elected to see how sexist and misogynistic culture permeates within those bastions of right wing voters, who I might add make up a large part of companies and leadership councils that make rules which impact women on a daily basis.

Casting judgments on a whole group of people isn’t very productive.

Are you saying that there is no culture of misogyny and sexism in the left of the political ideology?

 

[Beach Friends]

It's more than just discrimination, it's inherent sexism and misogyny that exists in our culture. You only need look at Trump being elected to see how sexist and misogynistic culture permeates within those bastions of right wing voters, who I might add make up a large part of companies and leadership councils that make rules which impact women on a daily basis.

I don't think trying to tie misogyny to a particular party is helpful to the conversation. I could provide a rebuttal to that assertion, but if you have followed the news over the last couple of years that should not be necessary.

 

[MT15]

Oops! My apologies, I don’t know how I forgot you.

 

[LA - L.A.]

She was a first year teacher without rights. If they wanted to get rid of her, why not do it then?

Why would they extend her contract into the second year and then terminate her employment?

It was pointed out that she might have had her contract extended sight unseen, meaning they didn't know she was pregnant when they extended her. If that's true, then it's plausible they fired her later, because they discovered she was pregnant.

 

[Heathen]

I don't think trying to tie misogyny to a particular party is helpful to the conversation. I could provide a rebuttal to that assertion, but if you have followed the news over the last couple of years that should not be necessary.

Well..I mean when your party (general you) votes in favor of limiting a woman's rights and against expanding them, I think there's quite a bit of validity in that argument. Not even to mention the nation's leader supported by these individuals has time after time publicly and brazenly spoke in a disgusting way about women.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Well..I mean when your party (general you) votes in favor of limiting a woman's rights and against expanding them, I think there's quite a bit of validity in that argument. Not even to mention the nation's leader supported by these individuals has time after time publicly and brazenly spoke in a disgusting way about women.

The easiest way to litigate this dispute is to simply look at the evidence. And what the evidence shows is a history of the Republican Party in the modern era dragging their feet on protecting or advancing the rights of woman.

In 1994 the violence against woman act was passed with majority Republican opposition. A year later they attempted to cut funding for it.

The reauthorization process in the early 2010’s was fraught because conservatives wanted to ensure LGBT people would be excluded. In 2019 the act has fully expired and McConnell has refused to even pick up the vote because it clarifies language and protections for transgender people and the NRA doesn’t like that you could take away the gun of someone who is abusing their domestic partner. But even if you are the type of person that thinks transgender people shouldn’t be protected or aided from domestic violence. McConnell has still refused to prioritize the matter at all.

This is but one example but it is a pretty encompassing one in showing the way Republicans have handled matters of social equality.