Tag Archives: conservative

Regarding the issue surrounding the Wendy Davis debacle (AKA abortion and women’s rights)

I am very hesitant to post this as I’m not fond of entering into Internet debates about any topic, particularly political ones.  However, I think it’s time to discuss this issue frankly.  I’m quite certain most of the feedback I receive for this will be negative, but that’s okay.

Since 2010, I have been a part of a growing Internet subculture called the Nerdfighters. Nerdfighter groups are made up of loyal viewers of the vlogbrothers channel on YouTube. (For those who don’t know, Nerdfighters don’t fight nerds; they fight for nerds and for awesome.)  I watch the vlogbrothers and several other YouTube channels run by Nerdfighters because I find most of them funny and insightful.

I will admit that Nerdfighters are, generally speaking, liberal in their political leanings.  There are a few of us who are conservative, but we are vastly outnumbered.  As a result of this slant toward the left, I have been exposed to far more positive commentary on this whole Wendy Davis filibuster thing than I would have been exposed to prior to joining this group.  I am glad to have been privy to the thoughts of those whose view is different than mine.  But, it’s time to address some things.

When it comes to women’s rights and abortion, particularly regarding the Wendy Davis debacle, the attitude that I have seen displayed by those who lean to the left is that there are Those For Women’s Rights (which includes, but is not limited to, being pro-abortion to some extent) and Scumbags Who Want to Oppress Women and that’s it; you fit into one of those groups.

As you can imagine, this makes life quite awkward for those of us Texan women (and non-Texan women) who are anti-abortion.  Personally, it feels as if I’m opposed to my own gender, even though I know there are millions of women who hold similar values across the nation.  When one divides the abortion issue into Women’s Rights and The Opposition, it makes it sound as if The Opposition hates women and just wants to oppress them for all eternity.

Let me first say this: while I’m sure a few hold that idea, by-and-large, this is not true.

When this topic is broken down into Pro-Women and Anti-Women camps, it is skirting the actual issue at hand and insulting a large portion of the population in the process.  There is no reason not to address what is actually going on rather than sweeping it all under the broad title of Women’s Rights and washing our hands of it.  This debate is far more complex than that.

It’s time to call a spade a spade.  The fact is, most anti-abortion advocates don’t want government regulation concerning what women do with their own bodies.  This is not, in fact, an issue of women’s rights but of semantics.  The main area in which we differ with those who want access to abortion is on the definition of where the woman’s body ends and a child’s begins.  We don’t differ on how women should be treated or what rights they should have…just on where their bodies stop and another person’s starts.

I’m for women being treated equally as men.  I’m for women’s rights.  But I am opposed to abortion, and I’m incredibly irritated by those who act as if those of us who are anti-abortion are also anti-women. It’s not true and it’s an uneducated, dangerous, and offensive misconception.

I look forward to reading insightful comments, but please know I personally will not be engaging in debates beyond the scope of this very limited post.  

Advertisements

In which I actually side with Hillary Clinton

First, I would like to be very clear about where I stand on certain issues.

I do not like discussing politics.  This is not because I find political theory boring, but because I become incredibly frustrated with politicians and voters who seem to think their only job in life is to beat the Other Side, whoever that happens to be.  That being said, I am not prepared nor would I be willing even if I were prepared to engage in any sort of political debate.  There are places for such discussions.  This blog is not one of them.

I am, for all intents and purposes, a conservative in most areas.  I do not subscribe to or align myself with any one political group because I find it pointless.  I will vote for who I think will be the best leader in light of my personally held values no matter what ticket they are running on.  As a conservative, I am quite tired of fellow conservatives being unfair, rude and libelous to liberal candidates and political officials.

I am not completely familiar with the Benghazi case, though I do know the basic facts.  Recently, I noticed an increasing number of posts on various social media outlets referencing Hillary Clinton’s now-infamous statement of “What difference does it make…?” regarding the Benghazi assault. I am fairly used to hyper conservatives blowing things way out of proportion (to the point of sounding like paranoid schizophrenics at times…but that’s a discussion for another day), so I decided to research a bit for the context of this statement.

The results of my (approximately) thirty seconds of Internet research didn’t surprise me, but they did irritate me.

Okay, let’s get this straight: Clinton was questioned about why information regarding the nature of the attacks was withheld from and/or misrepresented to the public for a few days.  Her stance was that the entire situation was complicated, they had four people dead and others injured, her department could not interfere with the FBI investigation, and  the information being received about this attack was fluid because it was an ongoing investigation.  I have no idea if any of that is true, but it is my understanding of her stance on the matter at the time of this interview.  At one point in the interrogation (because, let’s face it, whoever that senator was who asked her questions needed to calm himself down) of Clinton, she slipped into present tense when explaining a past-tense situation.  She was explaining the complexities of the situations relating to the case that had to be dealt with immediately following the assault and at that point uttered the aforementioned phrase.

And she has been slammed for it repeatedly ever since with no context given to the statement whatsoever.

What this senator did was essentially like someone demanding to know why Americans weren’t informed of the Boston Marathon bombers’ exact motives in the middle of the manhunt.  People are dead and injured.  There are bombers on the loose. At that point, what difference does it make what their motives were or are or will be? Help the injured, catch the guilty, and deal with motives at the appropriate time.

Clinton’s response was understandable considering the situation.

Now, I have no idea if Clinton or her staff acted in the right during the attack and the aftermath.  But, the statement she made has been ripped out of context and manipulated by hyper conservatives to make it sound as if Clinton didn’t care about the people who died or about the situation overall.  That is not what she was expressing, and anyone who would actually take six minutes to watch the C-SPAN clip I linked to above can see that.

I’m just so sick of people on either side of the aisle blowing political statements out of proportion and taking things out of context.  If someone does something truly scandalous or heartless, fine, shine some light on it if it’s relevant to American politics; but taking statements like this one, which in context is perfectly legitimate, and using them to paint a horrible picture of a political candidate only makes the accusing party look as if they are unable to determine intention based on context.

I may be wrong about something, and if I am, I’ll take the corrections.  But, from what I can tell, the only mistake Clinton made in this exchange was using a present-tense sentence when she was referring to a past incident.  The backlash surrounding a grammatical error is absurd and, quite frankly, is the type of thing that embarrasses me as a conservative voter.