Social Question

wundayatta's avatar

Do you believe the Republicans who say President Obama wants your sexy white daughters?

Asked by wundayatta (58326 points ) October 26th, 2012

In this article about an ad featuring Lena Dunham of Girls fame, one Republican says:

There seems to be no low to which President Obama will sink in his desperate attempt to win reelection. One has to wonder, is there any point at which the main stream media and the public get some self-respect and toss out this loser? First he asked for your wedding gifts, then your yard sales and now he has asked for your daughters.

Wow. I can’t begin to deconstruct this. It kind of rocked me right over. But maybe you can tell me all the subtle bits of hate that go running through it. And also can you tell me how a society that can grow people who even think this shit can find a way to cooperate and do things that actually help us?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

33 Answers

reijinni's avatar

more BS? They must be on a roll.

YARNLADY's avatar

What’s scary is that some people will actually believe this kind of hate talk.

rojo's avatar

I believe they are in more danger from a polygamist.

rojo's avatar

Not really, but it makes as much sense as the other claim

newtscamander's avatar

So silly. This is just a funny, witty campaign ad, and the Republicans seem to interpret it as Obama’s announcement that he will now steal white girls from republican households and put ideas in their heads. They are just being prude and conservative, and they hope that some poor, dumb people will not get that Lena Dunham is not saying that Obama plans to steal daughters, read their vicious reactions and vote for the incredibly intelligent, correct and fantastic Mitt Romney. Who is so intensely clever that he supposedly tries to open airplane windows and also knows exactly the geografic location of Syria and Iran.
To be honest, I would be disappointed for the sake of America if he became president of the United States. Obama seems much fitter and brighter to me.

glacial's avatar

Awwww! That ad is just adorable!

And after what they did to Sandra Fluke, this come as no surprise. And they should be called out on it for the bullies and misogynists that they are.

jerv's avatar

This makes me weep for our society, as approximately half of our nation will believe it simply because it is derogatory towards a Democrat.

filmfann's avatar

Is there an election going on?

How did I miss that?

Zaku's avatar

If Obama does get their sexy white daughters, wouldn’t they just think it was God’s will? ;-P

Sunny2's avatar

It’s deluded thinking. Stupidity is also involved. There’s a saying, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the Intelligence of of American citizens.”

woodcutter's avatar

It’s not nice to talk about other people’s mothers like that

Unbroken's avatar

Ok wait a minute. First, my stance. I am Independent.

Saying that I will say this whole entire mess is beyond stupid. Not just the articles cited above but all of the silly mudslinging and idiocy the media hounds, bloggers and everyone in general seems to have degraded to.

Republicans don’t think that Obama is out to steal daughters just as Democrats don’t really believe that Romney will reverse Roe v Wade.

These are comments made to incite and divide the country. They are issued forth out of the mouths of ignorant people and broadcast all over this nation.

Why because the majority of Americans can’t wrap their head around the real differences, most of us donmt understand the economy to the extent of being able to decide on a specific plan that is better for us etc etc. Because the President has little actual sway, more then a figurehead but not really, the Party owns them, they have to work with the Senate and the House. And at the end biting the hands that feed them is risky. Politics is a dance. So yes the President will pick the 2 Supreme court justicies. But mostly he will pick from a list given to him.

So all of this is a sick game of fearmongering and hate. I’m tired of it.

zenvelo's avatar

Sorry @rosehips , but the Republicans have repeatedly committed to overturning Roe v Wade. We really believe that because they have really said they would. This is not something made up by the Democrats.

Ask a Republican to the face and they will confirm. Ask Paul Ryan, ask Rick Santorum, ask Sarah Palin, ask Ann Coulter, ask Michele Bachmann, ask Richard Mourdock, ask Joe Walsh. They are running on a platform of no abortion for anyone under any circumstance. (Don’t ask Romney, he’ll ask you first what you want to hear.)

They believe God intended for women to be raped to have babies. Don’t listen to Democrats on this, listen to the Republicans say it day after day after day.

Unbroken's avatar

I live among Republicans. My community has an uprising of Democrats. But my work exposes me to a lot of Republicans. I have never heard any one wishing to overturn Roe v Wade. In fact some of them are grateful for it. It is just a show. They view themselves as the moral highroad so they have to raise a stink about it. Not to say no one wants it overturned. But imo no matter who wins it will never happen unless there turns out to be a better solution to abortion in the future. Since the closest thing we have is birth control or the 24 hour pill. (Which extremists can claim as abortion, I know) that won’t happen any time soon. Just like Catholics are against bc it is just a public stance at this point. Quite few of them actually follow it.

rojo's avatar

@rosehips true enough but it is the rabid ones we need to be afraid of.
They are not really “Pro-Life” (as evidenced by their support of war, the death penalty, disdain for human rights and intolerance toward anyone of a different religion) they just want to stop people from having sex. I truly believe that they veiw it as punishment from god for sinning. Were they serious about reduce the number of abortions, they would be pushing to increase the availability of contraceptives, the morning after pill and sex education both at the middle school and high school level not fighting it tooth and nail.

cheebdragon's avatar

Was she elected to represent the Republican Party? Because I didn’t get that memo…..

I guess she’s not friends with Kanye West

Hey, remember that time Obama said “I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go?”, that was pretty funny too, except, instead of being some celebrity fucktard, he’s actually your leader.

Unbroken's avatar

@cheebdragon. Wow, really? I follow on the Bachmann thing, if that was what you were referring to, she’s a nut.. But that’s your best shot?! ..Hmmm…
I’m not a pot stirrer

Jaxk's avatar

A new low in political ads. I can’t help but be glad I’m not in a battleground state and have to listen to this tripe.

jerv's avatar

@Jaxk If you watch TV, listen to the radio, or surf the Internet, you are going to get some politics on you though. As much as I normally rail against ignorance, I have to admit that I would be a happier person if I was ignorant of the fact that we have so many uninformed voters and batshit-crazy politicians.

cheebdragon's avatar

If you take anything she said to be even remotely serious, then you are a bigger idiot than she is. Sounds like she was mocking Ann coulter anyways.

Linda_Owl's avatar

The right-wing Republicans & the Tea Party members are responding to this ad in an almost ‘fearful’ state. The ad is supposed to be funny, but the Republicans seem to be taking it at face value & it clearly shows that they are bigoted & racist.

jerv's avatar

@cheebdragon Hard to say, and rather risky with the audience containing a large number of people who still believe Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate to be a fake.

@Linda_Owl My point exactly, and further proving that trying to be funny can backfire. Look at the White House Press Correspondents dinner where they invited Stephen Colbert to speak, thinking that he really was ultra-conservative rather than a straight-faced satirist.

Nullo's avatar

It resonates with another criticism that I have been hearing lately, that the Democratic campagin strategies ultimately objectify women, passing out buttons saying things like “I’m a slut and I vote,” and dressing up staffers as contraception which (they say) elevates sexuality to represent the whole of a woman’s identity.

wundayatta's avatar

You’re kidding, right, @Nullo? You recognize that is irony and political theater, right? The message is that sluts are people with rights. They are not, as conservatives seem to think, non-people, once they get labeled. Non-people who, because they made a bad choice in the conservative view, are therefore not worth paying attention to. Except as someone to save in a religious sense.

Unbroken's avatar

I normally would agree @wundayatta but as a person who has been labeled or seen the results of labeling. As a woman who has been objectified, and as a woman who has been physically, sexually abused. I am questioning whether this tactic exacerbates the problem. What is the more obvious message that it is ok to label woman as sluts, do we label men as rapists or womanizers? That it is ok to objectify women, or to self identify with these labels, that we should proudly own them.
Side note: I am not asking for your sympathy or pity or to stop discussing this matter because of my perspective as based on my life experience. I just am trying to establish my pov. I am interested in where ever this leads.

wundayatta's avatar

@rosehips You understand the concept of reclaiming a label, right? Like queers did it most famously. Queer was a derogatory term, and now they call themselves queer with pride. Or gay pride. Whichever. Same with “nigger.” Which is a term that blacks might use, but not whites. If a white person uses the term, then it’s a racist slur. But when blacks use it on themselves, it’s part of being inside the group.

For older women, there has been an attempt to reclaim the word, “hag.”

I’d like to reclaim the word “crazy.” It’s got a good side. It’s not all negative.

So why not “slut?”

The point of all of this is that only I get to call myself crazy. I, and my fellow crazies. And only women who want to feel slut pride would call themselves sluts. No one else gets to label them that way. And so an and so on.

Objectifying women happens, whether you use code words or not. So I don’t see how reclaiming a term will encourage more objectification. Objectification is in people’s thoughts and if they don’t use one word, then they will find an alternate way of putting people down. Republicans are darn good at this. Their code words change faster than a teenage boy cums. If only their words had as little significance.

Unbroken's avatar

OK I have thought about it some more and it would be a appropriate in a venue such as SNL or conan etc. But with a broader audience without context and possibly exposing impressionable young uns. I think the world has to be classier and clearer. I would be appaled and concerned if my nephew or my friends children were exposed to that and I had to explain.

Unbroken's avatar

Objectification doesn’t suddenly appear with in our thoughts, it’s placed there by cultural influences.

So has reclaiming the label actually accomplished any thing? In all the years that we have had time to reclaim these labels what has actually been accomplished by it. Could it be we need to revisit what isn’t working and move on to the next strategy.

wundayatta's avatar

There are people who take an edgier approach to things. Political radicals are more likely to feel a need to say such things because they believe in being in your face. It’s consciousness raising.

I can understand your point of view, too. I understand your concerns, as well. I won’t say any one person is right or wrong, because I think it depends on the context at the time, as well as the strategy a person is taking.

Personally, I don’t tend to be in your face that much. More so on fluther than anywhere else because it is anonymous, but even so, I still want people to like me to some degree, and while I am willing to piss off a few people, I don’t want to make most people angry. I do piss off a few people, but it usually turns out that there are specific reasons why they are so touchy about whatever it is that I said. That is what it is. I’m not nice enough to try to be nice to everyone. If I don’t like what a person stands for, then it’s hard to be totally nice.

But if I were as radical as my beliefs, I would be in people’s faces all the times. I wouldn’t care about the consequences. I wouldn’t care about my safety. I wouldn’t care about making people angry. I would always stand up powerfully for what I believe. Instead, I have to stand up quietly, and thus lose out because I am unwilling to knock anyone’s head off. At least I’m still alive, though.

I think that reclaiming labels has helped in some cases. I think “queer” has been reclaimed. And “gay.” Not sure about how it’s working with respect to “nigger.” A lot of people don’t like that word. It’s a kind of ghetto thing, and so middle class blacks don’t seem to use it as much, except when establishing street cred. “Slut” might be more like “nigger” than “queer.”

But I’m attached to the goal, not the strategy. So if there’s a better way of becoming sex positive, and not making women feel bad because they’ve had a lot of sex partners, I would love to hear about it. Personally, I don’t see a woman who has a lot of sexual experience as a bad thing. I don’t see working in the sex industry as a bad thing. I doubt I could handle it if my wife was a porn actress, but I know it wouldn’t bother me if I met someone who was very experienced, as long as they were able to use sex in the context of love, and not as some kind of recreational thing.

I wonder how many partners you need to have before people think of you as a slut. I wonder why men get to be sluts without being called sluts, but women think they have to be virginal and pure. It bothers me. Double standard. I think it hurts all of us to think that way, although I don’t know how to justify that thought.

Unbroken's avatar

Imo political radicals have a tendency to be selfish, or serving their own cause without consideration to the larger picture.
They don’t care who they turn off by their approach even if people given a less volatile approach an unpleasant view of their stance.
They fight fire with fire, and have no consideration for people who aren’t playing their game. Result everything ends up in flames and there is no middle ground.
It is good to state your stance, and defend it, but also listen to the view point of others. The example I would like to give is the teenage point of view where they earnestly believe they know more then their parents. In certain regards it could be true but it doesn’t justify their behavoir.
Gays won their acceptance through rational leaders, Harvey Milk, for example. Is there more work to be done, definitely.
If our media focuses on radicalism because that is what brings viewers. Then we just widen the gap we have to bridge, we commit to full scale dirty war.
In this situation, neither group has the moral high ground they so wish to claim, and often the people they wish to save or think they represent are all to often the victims.

Nullo's avatar

@wundayatta Large sections of the platform focus on sex, not women, and say that they’re focusing on women.

jerv's avatar

@Nullo Have sex or children without women. Of course, men don’t get pregnant and carry something growing in them for nine months, men rarely get sex forced upon them violently….

I’ll just save my breath and say outright that your statement proves that you know nothing of sex. And it that is the GOP line, then the GOP knows nothing of sex either… which is apparent as they believe that women cannot get pregnant if legitimately raped.

Nullo's avatar

@jerv I’m the sort of person who will periodically become interested in a particular thing, and will study it until I’ve run out of questions. I’ve studied sex, and even some of the related politics. Your post has provided no revelations to me save there is here a failure to communicate.
I got the feeling that the platform was talking about sex and reproduction as though that were all that mattered to women. While those are certainly pertinent, it has been my experience (which, I will grant you, is limited to interactions with mother, sister, girlfriend, aunts, cousins, grandmothers, friends, co-workers, co-students, schoolteachers, professors, lecturers, bosses, supervisors, customers, and other peoples’ female friends and relatives, plus the people on the Web or in games who may or may not actually be women) that there is much more to a lady than that.
I’m not the best at empathy, so I just try to imagine myself in a person’s same situation until I know more about them, on the belief that we’re not all that different.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther