I've been following the front page diaries about women's rights vs. the texas legislature the past few days. I have to say, I like the passion and enthusiasm I'm seeing - but there's something I have to take exception to, and that's the language we're using to describe the other side.
I know this argument has been said before - but, to be fair, so have all the arguments I'm responding to. But right now, I'm seeing a bunch of us saying that republicans hate or don't give a damn about women, and I have to think: how does saying this help our cause? It's not going to convince people who are on the fence. It's not going to convert people from the other side. And it certainly drives us deeper into our own little group think, causing us to not question our assumptions and pushing us away from the main stream.
Do republican policies hurt women? Yes. Do they hate women? No, they hate abortion, which is, in fact, different. Do they honestly give a damn about women? Quite possibly not, but this brings me to the crux of my argument: saying that helps no one. When we have those conclusions, we need to walk people through to them with us logically, step by step.
Republicans are known even by moderates to be unsympathetic to things they don't have experience with. Those who have experience take more liberal positions, like Rubio on immigration and Cheney on gay marriage. Most republican legislators don't have the experience of being poor and needing an abortion. This is obvious, I know, but it bears repeating because repetition of this logic will help us sound sane to people who aren't already on board with us. It's good practice to always go through our case, rather than to just jump to our conclusion knowing we're among like minded people.
That's my piece. You may now carry on.
EDIT: I originally stated republicans don't have experience being poor and needing abortions. I was wrong to say that, and was thinking of republican legislators at the time. I have amended my diary accordingly.