A lot of attention has been paid to Rep. Todd Akin’s asinine assertion that “legitimate rape” can’t result in pregnancy, and Republicans have been backpedaling left and right to distance themselves from such idiocy. Take, for instance, Republican Senate candidate Tom Smith (mentioned in Jill’s post), who knows full well that rape, “legitimate” or not, can result in pregnancy. For instance, his daughter had sex out of wedlock, and she got pregnant, and it’s pretty much the same thing.
He was kind enough to say that into a reporter’s microphone at a Pennsylvania press club luncheon.
MARK SCOLFORO, ASSOCIATED PRESS: Well, how would you tell a daughter or a granddaughter who, God forbid, would be the victim of a rape, to keep the child against her own will? Is that something that you would–do you have a way to explain that?
SMITH: I lived something similar to that with my own family. She chose life, and I commend her for that. She knew my views. But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to… She chose they way I thought. No don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t rape.
SCOLFORO: Similar how?
SMITH: Uh, having a baby out of wedlock. You know.
SCOLFORO: That’s similar to rape?
SMITH: No, no, no, but… Put yourself in a father’s position, yes. I mean, it is similar. This was a–But, come back to the original–I’m pro-life, period.
Now, he did not say that a woman having a baby out of wedlock is like rape. He only said that to a father, if your daughter gets pregnant out of wedlock, it’s as good as if she were raped. It’s a very difficult time for him.
REPORTER. Mr. Smith, can I just ask your to clarify one more time the question that Mark asked you. Did I just hear you say that having a child out of wedlock is analogous to rape?
SMITH. No, I did not say that.
REPORTER. You did say that.
[Crosstalk]
SMITH. I said I went through a situation.
SCOLFORO. With your daughter. With a daughter.
SMITH. Yeah.
SCOLFORO. Okay.
SMITH. And it’s very, very difficult. But do I condone rape? Absolutely not. Do I propose life? Yes, I’m pro-life, period.
Does Smith condone rape? Of course he doesn’t condone rape! It’s like stealing! Or damaging property! If someone keys your car, you can get it repainted until the scratch is well-nigh invisible, but the value has decreased forever. If someone rapes your daughter, even once she’s physically recovered, she remains tainted and impure and cheapened. How could a father possible condone that?
But in the grand scheme of things, it doesn’t matter if someone keys your car or if you scrape it against the mailbox yourself–your paint job has been violated. Even when the scratches are gone, you’ll still know it’s been defiled. So whether your daughter has consensual sex or is raped, the effect is the same: She’s scratched and dented, and you’ll never get full resale for her. And that’s the real tragedy of rape.
Thank you for your discussion here. As the days wear on, and the arrogant and ignorant Republican comments continue, I am finding it difficult to decide if I want to laugh or cry. I guess I will cry with joy that the tragic truth of these men’s views is being revealed on video in all it’s astonishing stupidity. As one of my friend’s said, if we can’t win elections against people like this, we’re screwed.
To continue in the laugh or cry vein, I do fully expect more to be revealed as more of the Akin and Smith type candidate’s speak their truth. Let the ‘truth’ come out! And may all the formerly complacent liberals wake up!
Because a woman being raped and a woman having consensual sex outside of marriage are both equally traumatic to the real victim in all of this – her father.
Yes, it’s definitely good that we’re FINALLY talking about the real victims here.
It’s definitely good they’re stating their beliefs aloud, as opposed to behind closed doors. November 5th will be a day of reckoning for the pro-rape(-to-punish-sluts) party.
Seconding your first sentence. I know many sufferers from Moderates’ Remorse.
I’m detecting a certain lack of empathy here…
Exactly. Totally missing from all his comments: Any type of reflection on the perspective of the woman in question. Only if you have absolutely no empathy or respect for the woman in question (or any woman?) can you view these situations as similar.
Empathy for who? Smith? Not likely. Smith’s daughter(because she has a self absorbed moron for a dad?) Absolutely.
I meant on the part of Smith. One can only see one’s daughter having a pregnancy out of wedlock as the similar to one’s daughter being raped if one lacks empathy.
[...] “I know, right? Imagine discovering that a person who might someday be called on to make medical decisions for you–like if you’re in a car accident or something–can’t tell the difference between you having sex because you want to and when you’re raped, because both are embarrassing to him.” [...]
Doubling Down.
Jill, you’re looking at this the wrong way — this isn’t about women, it’s about God’s word, and with his decidedly Old Testament “rape is a property crime against whoever own’s the victim’s virginity” take on things, Mr. Smith is showing us he’s a true literal* Bible-Believin’ Christian.
*Except when it comes to the subject of abortion. God is totes pro-life for fetuses! That bit about ordering people to murder pregnant women by slicing their abdomens open, to make sure their fetuses never make it to term, and Him causing accused adulteresses to miscarry… that’s all metaphorical.
and Him causing accused adulteresses to miscarry…
Ooh, is that how Akin’s theory is supposed to work? Rape victims are like adulteresses, hence god makes them miscarry?
Eh, probably not. See, legitimate rape victims are virgins saving themselves who were violently assaulted in the manner described in disturbingly enthusiastic detail by South Dakota State Senator Bill Napoli.
Whereas the accused adulteresses who undergo the trial-by-ordeal where God makes the guilty ones miscarry (called the Sotah) are married women being accused by their husbands, so, you know, they already consented to have something go in their hoo-haw once. So it’s impossible to rape them anyway. (This is why state-mandated medically unnecessary trans-vaginal ultrasounds are not actually rape – if you’ve had sex and you’re female, you’ve consented to have any old thing shoved twixt your nethers.)
Either its what they really believe, or there is a large demographic of men who got raked over the coals in divorce court and now revenge vote.
I’d say that if a large demographic of men are revenge voting, it’s entirely probable that they believe they were raked over the coals in divorce court, but really weren’t.
Not to say that no one is ever treated unfairly in divorce court.
But if you’re* the type of guy who is going to “revenge vote” against women’s rights, then you were probably a misogynist before the divorce – and view the outcome of your divorce through that same lens.
*General use of the word “you”
I did not get raked over the coals in divorce court. I am just exploring the possibility that it could be possible to make politics with misogyny in the future. It is been done elsewhere, I don’t see why countries in the west are immune to it.
Also there is the problem, that many men do not move in feminist circles, either because they do not feel welcome or are not interested. A poster said how she whished anti feminism would equal to political suicide. If men do not know the first thing about feminism, then they do not detect anti feminism in politicians either and subsequently whether a politician is anti feminist or not is a non issue to most because its an totally alien topic to them to begin with.
Or they are dissatisfied with women for whatever reason, maybe because they feel raked over the coals in divorce court and purposely revenge vote. A demografic that increases as the average age of the male voter increases. If a man is between 30 and 40 (average voting age for men is 35), he probably grew up in a time where feminism was a bit more mainstream, so he can identify anti feminism and purposefully revenge vote.
I never said you, personally, did.
People make politics with misogyny in the west all the time. That’s what half of this blog is about.
I’m going to say here and now that anyone who “revenge votes” against women’s issues is a misogynist. It doesn’t matter the reason. It doesn’t matter if a guy’s girlfriend slept with his best friend and stole his dog. It doesn’t matter if some woman cursed him out for holding open a door for her. It doesn’t matter. You (again, general you) vote against the interests of an entire group of people for revenge for whatever slight, real or perceived, you’ve encountered in your life? You’re a misogynist. Pure and simple.
Aaaaaaaaand – that guy? Would be a misogynist.
Fun fact: I know a guy whose wife really did sleep with his best friend while he (the guy) was deployed in Afghanistan, and then she stole both dogs and all their furniture. Somehow, though, he managed not to be a raging misogynist. He was actually a really nice guy.
The reporter was asking him to put himself in the mind of a woman who had been raped and he just. could. not. do. it. Instead, it was All About Him.
Maybe he is just persoanlly narcissistic and incapable of empathy, but I definitely see a pattern here with these politicians who are “pro-life” (anti-bodily autonomy for women). It seems they cannot see woman as human. For example, Akin, when he said that the rapist should be punished, but the “child” should not be punished. He did not mention the woman AT ALL. What about the punishment of forcing her carry a potentially unwanted fetus to term and then give birth? He spoke as if she did not even exist: it’s just rapist, and fetus, and a fetus carrier.
Speaking as someone who’s currently pregnant, this is a common problem. You get it in ways large and small:
Other Person, upon learning that I am pregnant: Congratulations! How are you feeling?
Me: Oh, pretty good, thanks.
Other Person: No, HOW ARE YOU FEELING?
It’s pretty clear that Smith was trying to deflect the reporter’s real question by changing the hypothetical from an instance of rape to one of consensual sex (she asked for it) and then dodged the question entirely by stating that his daughter made the “right” decision (notice that he doesn’t actually say what would have happened if she had chosen poorly, “But, fortunately for me, I didn’t have to… “). He just executed the dodge poorly (by making it sound like he was equating rape to any out-of-wedlock pregnancy) and the reporter called him on it and he got flustered trying to explain his non-sequitur.
Yes and probably and I am fairly certain if politicians see a juicy demographic they can tap they wont have scruples to do so. You gotta admit many politicians have an “I want that well paying prestigious job and juicy pension f+ck everyone else” mentality.
Do you really and truly believe large swaths of men are revenge voting because they feel like they were screwed over by a woman at some point in their lives?
Maybe I’m overly optimistic, but in my experience (and Caperton’s story about her friend (and ohmygod that’s horrible!)), the men in my life – even the conservative ones – can easily discern the differece between “that one person screwed me over” and “that one person screwed me over, so anyone who is of that gender screwed me over”. Or even, “that one perso screwed me over, and I want to get back at hir” and “that one person screwed me over, so I’m going to work through the democratic process to deny rights to hir entire gender”.
Thinking that men are en mass revenge voting means thinking poorly of a large demographic of men. Very poorly.
Maybe not mass revenge voting, but seen as the baby boomer generation gets older, the angry old man might become a significant demographic in the future, if you look at the divorce rate and the rate of divorces which has been initiated by women. The party in divorce that has been served with divorce is more likely to feel bitter about the divorce and in most cases those who have been served are men.
Wether or not they are justified in feeling whatever way is irrelevant to politicians. They just try to push all the right buttons to get that paycheck with pension and benefits.
Also they dont have to revenge vote. In a 2 party system its sufficient if they ignore women issues and vote the republicans for other reasons, but not deterred by what they have to say about women.
Except men die younger than women, so if we’re looking at aging Baby Boomers, the men will have progressively less and less electoral clout.
Even if we accept your very silly premise that people base their votes on their divorce proceedings.
In a 2 party system its sufficient if they ignore women issues and vote the republicans for other reasons, but not deterred by what they have to say about women.
Anyway, how would we tell the difference between this and what’s been going on for the past few decades? You talk like this is some doomsday scenario when, actually, it’s business as usual.
Anyway, I am sure we all will be able to see what impact women issues have on men the way they vote. Somebody on here said outright “men voted and they voted for misogyny” so there must be at least one other person who feels the misogynist might have an higher impact on elections, than he had in the past.
This reminds me of an episode of Beyond Scared Straight (dreadful show) wherein the father says, regarding his teenaged daughter’s behavior that included drugs and shoplifting, “then the absolute worst happened, she lost her purity to a boy she barely knew.” I remember yelling at the TV “REALLY? That is the WORST THAT COULD HAVE HAPPENED?” Even though these guys know on objectively, on some level, that “sex outside of marriage” isn’t actually equivalent to rape (or other ‘worst situations’), their immediate reaction labels it equivalent, or the worst, because these are things that happen to bad girls so they’re all the same, right?
Bet his daughter felt thrilled at the comparison.
Maybe he felt that way because of his religion. If his religion preaches that women who have sex with anyone other than their husbands are the worst kind then obviously he will see his daughter having premarital sex as a greater sin than doing drugs or stealing.
I find it very interesting how his ideas of rape and having a child out of wedlock relate to the old idea of rape as a property offense against the “owner” of the woman.
The two are only alike if you consider them as offenses against the honour of the men in the family. It’s ridiculous that anyone who locates an offense against a woman as an offense against their honour should have a public platform with which to spread those ideas.
Most prolife people I know would at least attempt to frame abortion as a second act of violence against a woman’s body and conscience, rather than reducing it back to an act against the honour of her family.
Thats the precursor to rape becoming a felony to begin with.