TOM COTTON, PHYLLIS SCHAFLEY, AND WOMAN HATIN’: TOMMY AIMS TO PLEASE
By Jane X
Tom Cotton has recently pushed a group called “Women for Cotton.” Talk about an oxymoron. Truly baffled, I wonder how and why any woman who actually knows the truth about Tom Cotton and his views about women would vote for him. Anyone … Anyone … I say in my retrofitted Ferris Bueller voice. He has repeatedly voted against us at every turn and has earned a big fat zero concerning everything that affects us women folk and just as important, our families. Honestly, let’s look at his voting record: he voted against the Violence Against Women Act, not once, but twice, he voted against the farm bill which included food assistance for us single moms who need help to feed our kids, he voted against the student loan bill that would help those sisters who are trying to educate themselves, he was against changing the form of military justice that allows twenty six thousand rapes a year in the military to go unchecked with only 238 convictions, he voted against immigration reform which helps keep families intact, and he voted for a government shutdown which had a detrimental effect on female government employees and of course those “stay at home moms” who are married to said employees, costing American taxpayers 26 billion dollars, and to top it all off, he voted against equal pay for women cause you know, we should be pleasing our husbands and frying chicken barefoot and pregnant to put it nicely.
If that isn’t enough, we can look to his patronizing comments about women in the military and his writings at Harvard which are just beyond all explanation. How any honorable man can blame women’s equality for the fall and great demise of modern society is just … bizarre. Mind you, Tom Cotton wants to force every woman in America to give birth to children no matter the circumstance including rape, incest, fetal anomalies, and even when the mother’s health is in jeopardy as he supports “personhood.” For those of you who don’t know what that means, let me explain. Personhood would give a zygote more rights than a living breathing woman and would be disastrous for women’s health and to be more accurate, endangers the very lives of pregnant women. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU2BZN_GRhI
It would also stop stem cell research for those suffering from diseases with no cure and in-vitro for those women who have trouble conceiving. It would even lead to a ban on any type of hormonal contraception. Think about that. Ninety-nine percent of all American women have used birth control during their lives, yet Tom Cotton either doesn’t realize this or doesn’t care. I vote for the latter. Even more disturbing is his connection to Phyllis Schlafly’s doctrine of thought. Both Schlafly and Cotton even used the same phrasing, “perverse incentives” to describe women who have used food stamps to feed their children. Remember, she believes that if women just got married, they would not be at risk of being raped. It is Mind boggling, ancient, and quite frankly, a disgusting belief system. To begin the comparisons between Schlalfly and Cotton, let’s start with the similarities in their comments on women in the military.
Ms. Schlafly has a blog called the Eagle Forum in which she spews her archaic views regarding our sisters who have served most honorably in the military even though they are more at risk of being raped by one of her own than being killed in combat, and remember, Cotton supported the measures to keep it that way. Meditate on that for a while. Not too surprising as Ms. Schlafly has strong thoughts on rape. Hey gals, IT’S YOUR FAULT. Yes, all caps, because her statements of the present and the past yield no other conclusion.
The epidemic of rape and domestic abuse doesn’t seem to faze Ms. Schlafly, but apparently, even a fictitious military flick is hard for her to stomach: “G.I. Jane proves that women can take a beating as well as a man, but so what? The movie shows that she lacks the upper body strength to pull herself out of the water into a boat, a rather elementary test for anyone seeking to be a Navy Seal. The pretense that G.I. Jane could do everything the Seals do is a Hollywood fiction created with trick photography, make-up, and a stand-in for the star. It’s all as make-believe as the scene where her Seal commander talks to her in the shower and somehow doesn’t notice that she’s nude,”
Now, let’s look at Tom Cotton’s statement about women serving in the military which he made on the Laura Ingram show: “To have women serving in infantry, though, could impair the mission-essential tasks of those units [showering in the nude]. And that’s been proven in study after study, it’s nature, upper body strength, and physical movements, and speed, and endurance, and so forth.” And what exactly does he mean by our “nature?” Obviously he has never seen a woman give birth, or witnessed a woman protect her children. Would not these same traits be beneficial in the arena we call war? Fierce and deadly protection of the “family” unconsciously or willingly without a second thought of sacrificing life and limb, and the ability to endure extreme pain might prove beneficial. No? It’s astounding when you compare the two statements between Cotton and Schlafly: nature, upper body strength, and apparently the belief that male soldiers should not be held accountable for their innate “manly desires.” In my humble opinion, men that rape their own comrades are the ones who are detrimental to the mission and the men who allow that to occur and protect the criminality of soldiers and allow them to remain in the military are the threats. Not women. “That be” you Tom Cotton. And who does he sound like? Do their words sound similar? It should. You can read more about that interview here:
If belittling female soldiers isn’t enough, let’s move on to the Violence Against Women Act. One of the aspects of this act is to help quell help domestic abuse and help rape victims. Interestingly enough, Schlafly and Cotton want to change divorce laws. They both think no fault divorce laws destroyed the institution of marriage. Let’s compare the comments made by Cotton and Schlafly. She says, “The recent PBS program called “Breaking the Silence” is an example of feminist propaganda that men are batterers and women are victims. Among the falsehoods in the film was the assertion that ‘one-third of mothers lose custody [of their children] to abusive husbands’ and that if a divorcing father seeks any form of child custody, he’s most likely a wife-beater.” Shaking my head. Yeah, she said that. http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/nov05/05-11-09.html
She goes on to say that, “Because of perverse incentives a so called “no fault divorce” is often followed by a bitter child custody dispute with bogus allegations of domestic violence or child abuse, and the winner can get a huge child support windfall. Usually the family court judge cannot tell who is telling the truth.” Now read what Tom Cotton wrote in his Harvard Crimson article, “Promises and Covenants.” “For example, liberals wanted to help the poor, especially poor children, so they created a welfare system with perverse incentives that encouraged the birth of children into poverty.” He also stated that feminists should hail the covenant marriages as it doesn’t allow men to dump their old hag wives for new bustier prettier versions. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1997/10/3/promises-and-covenants-pmen-are-simple/
Mind you, Tom Cotton, still today, seems to believe that garbage. He cares so little about the plight of women that he voted against the VAWA, both versions, and what was his reason? His reason was this: he was afraid that a white man might be falsely accused and have to face justice “on the reservation.” http://arkansasnews.com/sections/news/arkansas/house-passes-violence-against-women-act-no-ark-delegation-support.html
On his the “truth” about Cotton website, he had this to say about the VAWA: “This law spends $660 million, much of which goes to fund liberal organizations to carry out an ideological agenda without effective results in reducing violence against women. This law is poorly and too broadly written. It unconstitutionally surrenders the rights of Americans who are not Native Americans to racially exclusive tribal courts, potentially violating the 4th Amendment Constitutional rights of American citizens to due process.”
Unfortunately, he is serious folks, but again, I wonder who he holds dear to his heart when espousing such nonsense about the “liberal agenda” and what not. Oh look what Phyllis Schlafly had to say on the subject in 2011: “The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), now up for reauthorization, is in major need of revision. Its billion-dollar-a-year price tag spent by the radical feminists to pursue their ideology and goals (known as feminist pork) … VAWA should be subject to rigorous auditing procedures in order to curb waste and fraud and to establish accountability.”
I’ll give you a hint—feminism and liberal are interchangeable in Tommy’s book of games. Just ask him and watch him run like a “little girl” cause’ he knows I am right. I dare say, my five year old “female” child has more kahunas than him.
Here are a few examples of the VAWA really does:
VAWA has improved the criminal justice response to violence against women by:
• holding rapists accountable for their crimes by strengthening federal penalties for repeat sex offenders and creating a federal “rape shield law,” which is intended to prevent offenders from using victims’ past sexual conduct against them during a rape trial;
• mandating that victims, no matter their income levels, are not forced to bear the expense of their own rape exams or for service of a protection order;
• keeping victims safe by requiring that a victim’s protection order will be recognized and enforced in all state, tribal, and territorial jurisdictions within the United States;
• increasing rates of prosecution, conviction, and sentencing of offenders by helping communities develop dedicated law enforcement and prosecution units and domestic violence dockets;
(Factsheet: The Violence Against Women Act)
I have to ask. Does any of that sound like a “liberal” agenda to you? How about feminist pork?
Tom Cotton and Phyllis Schlafly are so similar in their thinking, writing, and actions, I suggest we play a little game. Can the reader tell who wrote what? Was it Cotton? Was it Schlafly? Who knows! They sound the same don’t ya think?
“Feminists who allegedly speak for women should attack divorce, not its effects. If men have easy access to divorce, many will choose it thoughtlessly. Being married makes a man care more about his family’s expectations and future because he sees his family as enduring. It also makes him more faithful and committed to his partner. It’s true that women who have found men who are already better partners are more likely to marry them, but it’s also true that marriage settles men down.They may not gain true happiness with their new trophy wives, but they certainly will not slide into the material indigence and emotional misery that awaits most divorced women. If restrained, however, men can fulfill women’s deepest hopes.” (Ms. Tommy Schlafly)
Oh shucks, I would tell you, but I’ll just let this stew for a bit, while I await my knight and shining armor to arrive, so he can fulfill all my hope and dreams while beating me to a bloody pulp because there is now a ban on no fault divorce laws. Likewise, Ms. Schlafly most recently enlightened us all in regards on how not to get raped: GET MARRIED. But wouldn’t you know. Cotton suggests the same. If only women would stay in bad marriages enduring psychological and physical abuse they could avoid the pitfalls of poverty because divorce is the root of our money shortage. Not that women are paid less, not that some men do not pay their child support, not that high paying, truly, family friendly employment doesn’t exist, not that our country is the only industrialized nation not to offer maternity leave, not that women lack quality access to affordable childcare, not that women lack access to affordable birth control so they can control their reproductive lives, not that they are burdened with tremendous student loan debt, not that rape, domestic abuse and patriarchal hammers beat women down, and not that the top one percent is robbing our country and our sisters blind. Nope. None of that has anything to do with the poverty level of single women.
And much to my chagrin, Cotton’s voting record does not reflect a solution for any of the aforementioned problems. Instead, he recommends that women “defend these men against feminism, but also demand that all other men accept the lifelong nature of marriage.” The audacity is overpowering isn’t it, and the uncanny similarity to Ms. Schlafly is in fact, nauseating, although Tommy “know nothin’ bout’ women” creates the same symptoms for me—frequently.
Further, and on a different note, if one wants to get technical about plagiarism, I must explain that if a writer uses more than three words in a row, the author must put quotes around it and give credit to the writer, but there is also another rule. When one bases their entire article around the premise of another person’s intellectual property, the writer must credit that author. When reading “Promises and Covenants,” it is quite clear where Cotton got his material, so not only does he not respect women, but he steals from them while telling them to stay at home, make babies, and clean house. How is that for gallantry? Please take the time to read this tom-foolery, not pun intended. http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1997/10/3/promises-and-covenants-pmen-are-simple/
Now, besides the intellectual theft issue, there is that sick notion that Tom Cotton actually believes that women have babies in order to receive SNAP benefits. Single mothers everywhere understand what an utter joke this is, but it isn’t funny. Not. One. Bit. And quite frankly, Tom Cotton should be ashamed of himself for ever writing such a monstrous and untrue statement, yet he is eerily quiet on the subject and when a columnist at the Democratic Gazette asked for a comment regarding all these “brilliant” essays, his communications manager brushed him off with a shameful but joking tone. “Like,” what Cotton wrote in college was irrelevant, but actually it isn’t. In fact, it reflects his voting record of today. Therefore, it would be nice, if Justin Brasell would answer the question. Why does Cotton vote the same way today as what he wrote of yesteryear? And just how much money did Ms. Schlafly’s organization donate to Tommy’s campaign or does she “just” endorse him? I wonder if he has the ovaries to answer, but somehow, I doubt it.