The Problem With Conservatism Is That There Isn’t Any Empathy
You know the biggest problem with contemporary American conservatism? There isn’t any empathy. It’s a political ideology of selfishness. Republicans are against gay rights, until their son comes out of the closet and then suddenly they are capable of making a “brave, principled” decision to support gay people. Because it finally affected them personally. Republicans can’t see the problem with torturing war prisoners, except John McCain because the issue of torture personally affected him. Female Republicans are much more likely to see the value in liberal laws concerning abortion, birth control, sexual harassment in the work place, and equal pay, or at least much more than their male colleagues. Gay republicans naturally have a liberal view on gay rights, but many stunningly cannot extend that same social liberalism to other persecuted minority groups, like Muslims, Mexicans, and the trans community. Conservatism in America is informed by a conspicuous selfishness that lacks the compassion to see the liberal viewpoint unless the issue personally affects them–and then suddenly they see the need for compassion.
I don’t dress for men. And I don’t dress so other women will be impressed and/or be jealous. I just decide: “What makes me the most comfortable? What doesn’t dig in and cause flesh marks or scabs?” and go with it.
This is honestly one of the few aspects of my life I am perfectly fine with.
Fuck, man. I’d spend my life in pajamas if polite society would let me get away with it.
The #SupremeCourt has ruled on the #HobbyLobby case and has given corporations the right to make healthcare choices for women. This is a huge blow to women everywhere and their right to make decisions about their own bodies. Corporations are valued more than real people. This is the America that we live in today.
Female friends, before you take a new job, better read the fine print and make sure your employer doesn’t want to declare your uterus as theirs.
The Health Care “ Skinny” bill is dead thanks the two wonderful female Republican Senators Murkowski
and Collins and McCain getting his inter- Roman Emperor on. Are you not entertained yet??( Pick your face off the floor Mitch.)
North Korea is trying so hard to instigate a fight with the Orange Man Child who wants to take the bait. ( The Pacific is screwed)
The Orange Man Child is instigating police brutality even more while gloating that he’s the reason why 2nd Amendment is still here. ( Muller please have some dirt!!)
Priebus says deuces after giving Scaramucci’s the stink eye way to many times just like Spicey last week. ( Bannon’s next!)
Scaramucci’s wife says deuces as well and taking everything but his knee pads since he’s going to be using them a lot with the Orange Man Child.
And that’s what you missed on “ As the White House Turns”
two female republican senators voted against trumpcare and a female democratic senator came back from cancer treatment to vote no but please keep giving all credit to the principled john mccain for defying trump once
South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley’s Republican response to the State of the Union included some interesting policy points. Unfortunately, most people seemed too distracted by Haley’s teeth to hear her words. This was an ironic no-win situation for Haley.
Women at Federalist and Democratic-Republican Events
Despite the quintessentially male, martial character of the Cincinnati, the organization welcomed women to its gatherings. Printed speeches from 1786 to 1815 reveal numerous occasions in which Federalist orators directly addressed women sitting in the audience. In his 1790 speech to the Delaware Cincinnati, for example, James Tilton noted, “I shall be pardoned in deviating so far from ordinary form, as to address this head of my discourse to my fair audience.” In another venue, during one of his “Lectures on the Study of the Law in the United States,” James Wilson observed: “Methinks I hear one of the female part of my audience exclaim - What is all this to us? We have heard much of societies, of states, of government, of laws, and of a law education. Is every thing made for your sex? Why should not we have a share? Is our sex less honest, or less virtuous, or less wise than yours?” He then proceeded to elucidate the women’s contributions.
Comments directed specifically toward women were significant for several reasons. First of all, they indicate that women were in attendance at a variety of political gatherings, especially, though not exclusively, at Independence Day celebrations. Members seem to have regarded the women’s presence as both useful and appropriate. Moreover, by speaking to women in the audience, Federalist orators transformed the females from passive bystanders into active participants in the day’s events. They acknowledged women to be thinking, sentient beings who had a stake in the polity. In effect, they affirmed women’s role as Republican Wives and mothers.
In many more speeches Federalist orators spoke about women even when they did not speak directly to them. They honored women’s contributions to the Revolutionary cause, exhorted them to support the country in its present crises, or celebrated women’s distinctive branch of patriotism. Many speakers used the Independence Day celebrations, for example, to remind audiences of women’s role in winning the Revolutionary War. “To the fair of our country,” observed Keating L. Simon in 1806, “are we as much indebted for that glorious achievement, as to the generous souls, who endured the toils of the camp, and withstood the shocks of battle. Warmed by the same honorable feelings, they maintained, throughout, the same devotion to the cause. Their patriotism became the more noble, as it was of a kind entirely suited to their sex.” Other Federalists commented on women’s continuing service to American society. In 1788, during the ratification of the federal Constitution, William Hull observed, “With gratitude and admiration, we here likewise pay the tribute of applause to the fair daughters of America - for their unexampled exertions at this critical season; denying themselves the luxuries and delicacies of life and ornament, and practicing the duties of industry and oeconomy, they animated youth by the splendour of their example and inspired them with manly pride, to defend the beauties of innocence and the violated rights of their country.”
In contrast, the Democratic-Republicans seemed less supportive of women’s potential as political beings. They made very little room for women, either in their organizations or their rhetoric. From the beginning, lower- to middle-class white men began joining different organizations from the Federalists. They especially gravitated toward the Tammany Society, named after a mythological Indian chief. Founded in New York in the 1780s, the Tammany attracted former enlisted veterans, craftsmen, artisans, and skilled laborers. The Tammany and its affiliated organizations - the Mechanic, Cooper, and Hibernian societies - were Democratic-Republican in orientation. Though committed to liberty, equality, and fraternity, these organizations clearly understood “equality” to mean the equality of all white males.
Unlike the Federalists, Republican orators seldom spoke directly to women at their gatherings. On one such rare occasion, a Springfield, Massachusetts, Independence Day celebration in 1800, a Republican speaker addressed women as “female citizens.” In 1806 Republican Elias Glover of Ohio appealed to the “Columbian Fair.” Given the male-dominated nature of the political system, the paucity of appeals to women hardly seems surprising. But the contrast with the Federalists’ not infrequent allusions to the female sex makes the absence of Republican references significant. Unlike Federalists, Republicans may not have chosen to invite women to attend their meetings. Or perhaps Republican gatherings were less hospitable to women. Even if women were there, Republican speakers may have been less willing to acknowledge the women’s presence in their midst.
Beyond the quantitative difference, there was also a qualitative difference in the way Republicans depicted women when they mentioned them. Republicans tended to underscore the secondary, or auxiliary, nature of women’s political achievements. Hailing women’s “virtuous liberty,” for example, Elias Glover urged his female listeners to “accept the station nature intended for you, and double the knowledge and happiness of mankind.” Women’s place was subordinate to men. In 1804 Richard Dinsmore of Alexandria noted approvingly that female Patriots during the Revolution had, in his words, “emulated the decisive patriotism of their husbands and brothers.” Female patriotism was portrayed as derivative rather than primary. In a similar vein, the Reverend Solomon Aiken of New Hampshire praised what he called women’s “patriotic concurrence….Our heroines, in their place, were not a whit behind our foremost heroes.” The Reverend Joseph Pilmore’s comments, made in 1794 to the New York Tammany Society, seem to be typical of the Republicans. “See on this joyful Festival of our country’s Independence, a multitude of free men met to commemorate your valiant acts, while the fair daughters of our nation strew your graves with flowers.” While the Tammany Society was meeting to celebrate its collective male valor, women were putting flowers - either literally or metaphorically - on the graves of fallen heroes.
- Rosemarie Zagarri, Gender and the First Party System
If you’re a female conservative, a transgender conservative, a gay conservative, a black conservative, or any conservative who is also a part of a perceived minority…
That’s perfectly fine. The conservative party isn’t limited to one group of people and you have the freedom to believe what you want so if you see yourself as a conservative, there’s nothing wrong with that no matter what tumblr or anyone tells you