Right-wing media mock Reid for linking unemployment to rise in domestic abuse
Doocy, RedState, Hoft suggest Reid will abuse his wife if he loses his Senate seat
Right-wing media figures have seized on comments Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made linking unemployment to a rise in domestic violence by suggesting that if he loses his re-election bid, then Reid, whose mother was a victim of domestic abuse, will subsequently become abusive toward his wife. Moreover, on Fox & Friends, Laura Ingraham dismissed a 2004 study, which found that "the rate of violence increases as the number of periods of male unemployment increases," to claim that Reid's comments were "lunacy" and "stigmatize the unemployed"; in addition to the 2004 study from which Reid was apparently citing, several other studies and experts indicate that there is a link between abuse and unemployment.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Right-wing mock Reid for linking domestic abuse by men and unemployment
Doocy: "I wonder how abusive he would be if he's out of work after this next election." On Fox News' Fox & Friends, after hosts Steve Doocy, Brian Kilmeade, and Alisyn Camerota aired a clip of Reid's "stunning" and "controversial" comment, Doocy remarked, "I wonder how abusive he would be if he's out of work after this next election." [Fox & Friends, 2/23/10]
Ingraham dismisses a "2004 study about unemployment and abuse" that "some staffer gave" Reid to claim his comments are "lunacy," "insane," and fly "in the face of, obviously, personal responsibility." In a later segment on Fox & Friends, after Kilmeade asked what Reid is "building off of," Fox News contributor and radio host Laura Ingraham said:
INGRAHAM: Well, I guess some staffer gave him some 2004 study about unemployment and abuse in the United States. And he said, oh, I've run out of ideas and I'm saying the same thing all over again all the time and it's not working, so I'm going to throw out this domestic abuse line.
First of all, it totally -- yeah, it totally flies in the face of, obviously, personal responsibility. Men shouldn't hit women regardless if they're rich, poor, out of work, in work. And it also stigmatizes the unemployed. I mean, because you're unemployed, you're going to whack, you know, your wife across the face? I mean, it's just -- it's so insane, and I don't know how much lower Harry Reid can go, but I imagine that Robert Gibbs and someone at the White House today is going to have to come forward and once again try to clean up Harry Reid's mess. And here we go again. I mean, this is just -- it's lunacy. But this is, you know, where his head is at.
Jim Hoft: "Harry's wife ought to take this as a warning come November." In a February 22 blog post on Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft wrote: "While he 'was home dealing with domestic abuse' (at his home?) Harry Reid said domestic abuse has gotten out of hand. His approval rating at home is at 33% after all." After citing a portion of a February 22 The Hill blog post that quoted Reid's remarks, Hoft wrote, "Harry's wife ought to take this as a warning come November." [emphasis in original]
RedState.com: "Soon-to-be ex-Senator Harry Reid ... arrested for fear of domestic abuse after he loses his job in November 2010." RedState.com posted a Photoshopped picture portraying a mug shot of Reid holding a sign that says, "Soon-to-be ex-Senator Harry Reid ... arrested for fear of domestic abuse after he loses his job in November 2010." It also linked to The Hill's blog post about Reid's comments.
Drudge: "Harry Reid Unleashed." On his website, Matt Drudge linked to The Hill blog post with the headline, "Harry Reid Unleashed: 'Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive.'" From the Drudge Report:
Conservative media suggestions that Reid will become abusive come despite Reid's defense of his mother from domestic abuse
In his autobiography, Reid discussed protecting his mother from abuse. In his book The Good Fight, Reid wrote of an experience in which he and his brother restrained their father after he struck their mother. On Page 52, Reid wrote:
One day, when I was about fourteen, my dad obviously had had something to drink. It was summer, because I was home from my first year away at high school in Henderson. It was daytime. He was being mean to my mother. He started hitting her. That was it. I just looked over at my brother and said, "Larry, let's take him." So we did. We jumped him. I took him high, Larry took him low, and we pinned him to the floor. He was like a rock. My father was a big man, and I'd always been afraid of him. "Get offa me!" he yelled as he kicked and writhed.
[...]
He wasn't a bad man. But I'd be damned if he was going to do that to my mother again. It was the first time that we had ever done anything like that. We'd never been big enough. We didn't want to hurt him, we didn't want to hit him, but we took him down and weren't about to let him up.
Studies link abuse and unemployment, show increased abuse toward women when their partners are unemployed
Study: Rate of violence against women with unemployed partners is higher than those whose partners have stable employment. A 2004 study by Michael L. Benson and Greer L. Fox -- funded by the National Institute of Justice -- found that "the rate of violence increases as the number of periods of male unemployment increases" and "[t]he rate of violence among couples with high levels of subjective financial strain is roughly three and a half times as high as it is among couples with low subjective strain." From the study:
Two indicators of economic distress also are related to the risk of intimate violence against women. First, the rate of violence increases as the number of periods of male unemployment increases. In couples in which the male is always employed, the rate of violence is 4.7 percent. The rate rises to 7.5 percent when the male experiences one period of unemployment and to 12.3 percent when he experiences two or more periods of unemployment between waves. Second, a strong relationship is found between subjective feelings of financial strain and the likelihood of violence against a woman in an intimate relationship. The rate of violence among couples with high levels of subjective financial strain is roughly three and a half times as high as it is among couples with low subjective strain (9.5 versus 2.7 percent).
New England Journal of Medicine study: "Women at greatest risk for injury from domestic violence include those with male partners who ... are unemployed or intermittently employed." A 1999 study published in The New England Journal of Medicine concluded that "[w]omen at greatest risk for injury from domestic violence include those with male partners who ... are unemployed or intermittently employed." It stated: "We also found that intermittent employment and unemployment (both recent and long term) of the partner were risk factors. Possibly, the stress of finding work or of unemployment (alone or in combination with other factors) increases the risk that a man will physically abuse his partner."
Study: Women who are unemployed also have great risk of abuse. Another 2004 study funded by the National Institute of Justice also found a link between women's employment and socioeconomic status and their risk of abuse." From the study:
There is also significant variation in risk based on employment status. First, risk is generally lowest among those who are retired (78 % report no violence) and those who are homemakers (62.2 % report no violence). Second, risk of isolated violence is generally similar across employment types (with the exception of those retired and homemakers). Third, risk of parent-partner violence is greatest among those who report "other" as their employment status. Fourth, risk of multifaceted-multirelationship violence is greatest among those who are unemployed (6.9 %) and generally low among those who are employed full-time (2.8 %) or in the military (0.0 %). Combined with the comparatively low percentage of unemployed women that report no violence (44.2 %), this may reflect the effect of economic disadvantage on risk of violence.
Experts, reports link current recession to a rise in domestic abuse
National Network to End Domestic Violence, Jane Doe Inc. heads: "Economic stresses often lead to more frequent abuse." In a December 2008 op-ed in The Boston Globe, Mary R. Lauby, executive director of Jane Doe Inc., and Sue Else, president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence wrote: "Economic stresses often lead to more frequent abuse, more violent abuse, and more dangerous abuse when domestic violence already exists. Domestic violence programs report that victims experience an increase in abuse in part because out-of-work abusers have more opportunity to batter. Rhode Island, for example, has recently seen a 25 percent increase in felony-level domestic violence crimes. Victims end up with fewer opportunities to contact programs for help, attend support groups, or get away from the batterer."
The Atlantic's Davidson: "[P]rofessionals in many states [say] that the frequency and severity of abuse they've been seeing has increased significantly." The Atlantic correspondent Christina Davidson wrote in December 2009 that "[s]olid statistical analysis of the recession's impact on domestic violence won't be available for a year or more, but I've been told by professionals in many states that the frequency and severity of abuse they've been seeing has increased significantly." She quoted two experts on domestic violence and social services who agreed that recessions exacerbate abuse. From Davidson's Atlantic article:
While the recession has made it harder for victims to leave their abusers, it can also lead to greater violence. Solid statistical analysis of the recession's impact on domestic violence won't be available for a year or more, but I've been told by professionals in many states that the frequency and severity of abuse they've been seeing has increased significantly.
Brian Namey, communications director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, reports that his organization has been receiving similar feedback. "Anecdotally, we've been hearing of shelters across the country being maxed out to capacity, also that the frequency and severity of abuse is getting worse."
Except in rare cases, like some of the sensationalized incidents of familicide this year, financial stress does not create domestic abuse. One DV counselor in Indiana describes the recession as "fuel to the flame of domestic violence."
As [Connie] Sgarlata [assistant executive director of Family and Children Services of Central Maryland] explains: "Stress related to the economy is increasing stress at home. As stress increases at home, the tendency for violence increases. "
Namey agrees: "We know the economy does not create abuse, but it makes it worse. While shelters across the country have increased demand for beds, at the same time resources from the government and from corporate donors are down. Demand is up, support is down."
Domestic abuse shelter CEO: Economy is having an "alarming impact" on abuse victims. In April 2009, Susan Miller, the CEO of a shelter for victims of domestic violence in Kansas City, MO, wrote in an op-ed for The Kansas City Star that the economy is having an "alarming impact" on abuse victims and that "research indicates that unemployment puts domestic violence victims at an even higher rate of increased lethality." From Miller's op-ed:
Rose Brooks Center has provided shelter and services to victims of domestic violence for the past 30 years. As the current CEO, I feel compelled to write this letter to provide insight on the alarming impact the economic stress is having on the women and children we serve.
We all know that our nation is facing one of the most serious economic challenges it has seen in decades. We also know that this economic crisis has caused the unemployment rate to be the worst it has been in years, causing financial strain on everyone.
What many people don't realize is that during these bad economic times a batterer's level of violence towards his victims escalates and becomes more deadly.
While the economy does not create or cause domestic violence, research indicates that unemployment puts domestic violence victims at an even higher rate of increased lethality.
It's saying that prolonged unemployment can lead to abuse.
Fact
Must be wingnut blocker
But I guess those that do can thank the likes of Harry Reid, and the liberals here, for a little soothing comfort for their violent actions. After all, if they were only working.....
I completely agree with you. And, maybe I am missing some of what Reid said, but I did not take it that he was suggesting anything other than adults taking responsibility for their actions. I don't think recognizing the factors that lead to certain facts within a society necessarily are excusing anything.
Having said that, I do not get Reid's point completely. I don't think the government should be looking to lower unemployment because it leads to spousal abuse. I think they should be looking to lower unemployment because our society as a whole wins when unemployment is low.
Willful stupidity at his finest.
That's a fact? Uh huh, that's an excuse.
also underemployment (lower wages)
HIGHER CRIME RATE LINKED TO LOW WAGES AND UNEMPLOYMENT, STUDY FINDS
Neither is Harry Reid.
Theft, abuse, violent attacks and murder all have contributing factors.
Contributing factors are not excuses.
"The Yankees scored more runs than the Red Sox"
"That's no excuse the Red Sox lost!"
Now, the right-wingers like to take shots across the aisle to score political points, so they would like people like you to think it's a justification, when it's a statement of correlation. So in fact, if there's a direct correlation between unemployment and domestic abuse that suggests higher unemployment leads to more domestic violence, then the opposite might hold true as well, that less unemployment leads to less domestic violence. Again, this is not Reid's work, this is an outside study, and further, it doesn't claim that unemployment is the only cause of domestic violence, just a factor in some cases.
Reid points out a scientifically verified link between unemployment and abuse, and you think he is excusing the abuse rather than indicting the unemployment - that says a lot about where your mind is on the subject actually.
The point is, someone who is economically stable and has a propensity towards domestic abuse is more likely to act on that propensity if they are unhappy, depressed, frustrated, worried, etc.
The statement wasn't about the link between unemployment and abuse as much as unemployment and mental wellbeing.
Nobody needs to tell me or anyone else the ills of unemployment, and nobody needs to offer some rationalization or excuse for domestic violence - or justify the propensity one might have for it. Ridiculous.
Absolutely, it is nothing more than an excuse. And as someone who always whines to me about being insulted, you are an idiot.
Reid pointed out a proven FACT. A horrible fact, but it's true. Facts don't force people to do ANYTHING; they illuminate negative/positive trends so that people can avoid/seek them.
I would think that you'd be more angry that these talking heads have implied that Reid would commit domestic violence on his wife.
You'd have to be an idiot NOT to notice the increase in men killing their families/themselves during this economic downturn..
Matter of fact, the link btw unemployment/poverty and domestic violence is fairly obvious..I don't even need a study to see that.
There is no excuse, justification, or rationalization for domestic abuse, ever. Period.
When we grow up as a society and start laying down that gauntlet, in those terms with no qualifiers such as unemployment, then those that suffer from it may understand they are not to blame either, as many do.
Domestic abuse rates increase as unemployment rates increase. Statistical fact, proven multiple times. The truth doesn't stop being true just because you don't want to hear it.
It's not about arguing about who has the highest moral high horse to ride around decrying the abusers, it is about trying to protect the victims before someone abuses them and you can ride in with your sanctimonious attitude and throw their ass in jail.
Meanwhile, the victim is already a victim in your solution of throw their asses in jail, but she probably asked for it anyway, right?
You are like people who advocate not telling teenagers about the dangers of unprotected sex because that will just encourage them to have more sex. Oh, wait, that's probably exactly what you believe.
However, I do find it laughable that Ingraham does not think the unemployed are already stigmatized as...you know, unemployed.
Now I know he did it for political reasons, as do most politicians when they make remarks as stupid as this is. But it still is an excuse, a justification of sorts, a rationalization. It's ridiculous. People who abuse their spouses are not entitled to any reasons or contributing factors for their violence, none, period. To do so is not only disrespectful to the victims, but allows "cover" to the perpetrator. Perhaps a small cover, but as I said, they deserve none whatsoever.
Reid was speaking on the floor of the Senate in support of the jobs bill. He was outlining the benefits of passing it and this was just one benefit he has a personal reason to feel strongly about.
The really humourous thing about the way he has been attacked and about this exchange here is that there actually WAS something objectionable about the comments he made, it just wasn't the link between domestic abuse and unemployment.
This is your Sistine Chapel.
Right On or Tommy or whoever you are, take a bow, you've earned it.
has observed that unemployment and financial stress greatly contribute to the incidence of domestic violence. NO ONE is trying to excuse Domestic Violence due to unemployment or financial problems. However, there is a correlation and those are just the facts. When someone denies that these are contributing factors, they are just stupid or deliberately obnoxious. There is not even any pattern of domestic violence that can be traced to a particular party affiliation or religious persuasion or financial group. Mostly, the behavior is related to a problem with rage or a "pile on" of too many problems all at once. No excuse but those are the facts. But I never expect right wind nuts in my own party, you know, like Ingraham, Doocey and Hoft from my own party to have enough smarts to ask the experts before they make this an anti-Reid talking point. Because folks, it just might be your daughter who becomes a victim.
Would you like a crying towel, wrong OFF?
Neither is Harry Reid.
Wow - just wow.
Your attitude reminds me of Simple Sarah during the campaign when asked about AGW...
But it DOES matter what causes it so you can find solutions.
Same thing here, to understand contributing factors in domestic abuse and to hopefully mitigate those on a societal level. NOT to make an excuse for an individual who commits the abuse.
I'll go out on a limb here and say, I don't think the vast majority on the left would want to excuse a man for baeting his wife. I know I don't.
What about a nagging wife? Does that contribute as well? What about suggestive clothing worn by a woman who is raped? Does that contribute as well?
How far do you want to go with these "contributing factors"?
Not that it will get through - but the examples you gave are ones whereby the victim is blamed. Not a liberal attribute that I've seen. They are also individual circumstances. Studies like the one being discussed look at the BIG PICTURE. Not to excuse the behaviour but to better understand and perhaps mitigate it's occurrences. I mean, a study such of this would be a good reference during times of high unemployment in order to, as a society, be prepared for a particular ill outside of the strictly financial consideration of those unemployed. You know, perhaps increasing funding to organizations that work at domestic violence prevention, fund shelters, etc.
How's that snow in Copenhagen?
You can't accept the analogy or defend yours so you cling to an old argument you lost, once. That is pretty pathetic.
At the same time, you make me sad because you can't make a proper analogy or read for comprehension. Try Sylvan.
Saying losing a job is a valid excuse for beating the hell out of one's spouse by dodging the word "excuse" and replacing it with "contributing factors" comes easy for liberals, but the rest of us know it's baloney. And I love that about you.
One more time - no one says it's an excuse. Trying to understand something does not mean excusing it. DUH.
You would rather react AFTER a woman is abused rather than trying to provide an environment whereby such an assault is unlikey (never happens would be better, but probably not realistic). I'm sure the abused spouse would be quite thankful that her abuser is locked up rather than never being struck at all by him.
As I said, it's a valid excuse to you. You just admitted it. And all your whining previously was just for what, show? To argue with me? Wow - just wow.
Nope - never stated anything like that. You keep talking about specific instances.
Sorry, where did I state it's a valid excuse?
That's waht I thought, I stated no such thing.
You can lie and backtrack, but it's all there. Wow - just wow, I mean WOW.
See, try and stay with me, if a husband hits his wife and then claims it was cause he's unemployed, that would be an excuse. And I don't think anyone posting here thinks that individual should receive a free pass based on his employment situation.
Trying to figure out ways to prevent abuse happening in the 1st place is what I was referring to. See - not an excuse, but understanding.
Now I'm sad again cause you will be too stupid to realize how foolish you just made yourself look.
Sore loser? But YOU were the one that claimed it would snow in Copenhagen on Christmas day and it didn't, so I'm the loser?
Whatever you say dummy. That isn't a pejorative, but a rather a term praising your intellect. See, I can make up my own meanings to words too!
Do weak men tend to beat their women when they feel emasculated because of issues in their life like money? Sure. I just don't think that is necessarily the reason we should be using for fixing the unemployment issue. There are many others that I think are much more useful reasons.
And by the way, advanced idiot, listing clothes "contributing factors" would be blaming the victim. This is not. Once again, the right false equivalency meter is set to explode.
EPIC FAIL.
Ahem.
This is your best intellectually dishonest thread yet. Gold medal for Tommy!!!
Yes you are, if you are too stupid to see it is exactly that, don't lash out at me.
What if you tell the wife to stop nagging, or start doing exactly what her abusive husband wants? Don't you think that removes the factors leading to domestic violence?
I cannot believe how ignorant some of you are on this? Amazing.
You're arguing about the end problem, but not about what could be addressed to remove some of the building blocks that are used as an excuse for that problem.
until then, i hope the weather is good on your planet.
What I see as the big problem here is that actions have consequences, and regardless whether or not Harry Reid intends to give abusers an excuse for their actions(I don't think he does), he has no control over how his statements are perceived, and used, by others.
It is the abuser who will latch onto this stat, making it an excuse or a justification for his actions, regardless of what Reid intended in the first place. As a result, a simple statement of fact can be twisted into an excuse for evil behaviour by the already sick mind of an abuser.
Neither is Harry Reid.
Ingraham is dead on with this one.
Neither is Harry Reid.
Please reboot your brain, it keeps sending signals to your fingers typing the same bit of nonsense over and over. Unplug it for 60 seconds, plug it back in and see what happens.
I don't expect much more actually, but it might you a tad less annoying.
Oh never mind.
And yes, I know, it's frustrating to you when your argument is debunked, and when it's easily debunked, like in this case, it's got to be even more annoying.
Too bad, so sad.
IRONY ALERT!
I show my abilities on a regular basis. Everyone knows this, even if people of your ilk don't like it. Too bad, so sad.
Professionals in the field say the same thing that Harry Reid said, and they aren't making any excuses nor offering rationalizations for this behavior.
Neither is Harry Reid.
Unless professionals in the field of domestic abuse are giving abusers an excuse, then neither is Senator Harry Reid giving them an excuse. It's pretty simple. It's the definitive way to stop the argument that Sen Reid was providing an excuse for abusers. Since it's the definitive way to stop the argument, I used it multiple times.
And don't think that everyone else didn't notice that no one was able to refute that argument.
Professionals in domestic abuse to create excuses for abusers. Neither did Sen Reid. He didn't deserve to be mocked by the rightwing media for linking the rise in unemployment to a corresponding rise in domestic abuse.
Have you never seen signs that say "slippery when wet"? Have you never seen a grooved road? Have you never seen ditches on the side of the road, or cut-outs on bridges to let water drain from them?
If you think that highway designers don't try to MITIGATE the risks caused by precipitation, you're a fool.
Just like recognizing the affect that unemployment can have on domestic abuse is wise, using experience as a guide is wise.
Seeing this as a justification in their warped mind, an abuser can then say to himself "Well, there you go. No wonder I beat my wife. It's cuz I got no job! I'm not evil, I'm just unemployed."
The speaker, in this case Harry Reid, has absolutely no control over how his information will be perceived, perverted and co-opted by the end (ab)user for their own purpose.
Reid's comments were probably well-intentioned, but irresponsible.
Abusers have plenty of excuses already. It's never going to be the fault of someone who voices some of the causes for increases in domestic abuse. You're wrong.
Due to high levels of unemployement, more and more unemployed people are turning to cable news networks, such as FOX, for an unending stream of information. Due to the high level of fear and the scare tactics used by commentators and straight news readers of Fox News, more and more of the unemployed are feeling insecure, disenfranchised and fearful. With the heightening of their fear, they have no outlet for their aggressive feelings, which unfortunately manifests itself in a rise in domestic violence. Feeling scared and having a sense of no control over what is happening to them, people take their frustations out on those that are closest to them. Fox News will, and does, disavow any link between their fear laden coverage and the rise in domestic violence, but there has been no comprehensive study conducted between the two, therefore Fox News cannot conslusively state that they are not responsible. Until either Fox News takes responsibility for it's fear mongering and it's link to domestic violence, the escalation of violence in the home will only continue.
See? I made a wild accusation, gave a tenuous link between Fox and violence and then put the ball in Fox's court by putting the burden of proof on their shoulders to show why THEY are not responsible. See how easy this is? Fox does this crap everyday.
So juvenile they are on that program.
What he said includes these nuggets..."I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand. Why? Men don't have jobs."
and this...."Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive,"
Full clip available on youtube.
While a SLIGHT uptick in domestic abuse makes sense statistically with a higher unemployment rate. You cant say so broadly that men are abusive and the reason things are out of hand is that men do not have jobs.
I certainly do NOT think that is what Reid is saying.
Hey Harry, when I get abusive, I choose to use a negro dialect.
Harry Reid in front of a microphone is a gift that keeps giving.
And he wonders why he gets mocked.
Reid is far more thoughful than anyone on the right.
Love how accountable the above liars are and how they and Bush ruined this country for a generation and then some.
Let's hear them be accountable about how they helped Bush double the debt and leave trillions in debt long into the future.
Let's hear them be accountable about how they helped lie a country into war.
The list is endless on how republicans don;t ever seem accountable for anything.
Neither does Harry Reid.
But you sure look like an idiot here, RightON.
That's what has so many of you irritated at me. Oh well.
And, in a show of how the conservative mind works, Right ON reads this as saying:
They're just making excuses for domestic violence.
You can lead a horse to water, you splash the horse with water, you can hold the water right in front of the horses mouth, but if the horse don't want to drink, it isn't gonna drink...then it'll accuse you of never having offered it water.
That IS NOT what Harry Reid said. He outright said "Men, when they're out of work tend to become abusive"....not some men, not a few men, just men. That was wrong.
He also said "It's gotten out of hand. Why? Because men dont have jobs". Again, an over generalized steriotype that is outright wrong.
What a tool to suggest he said anything like that.
Professionals in the field say the same thing that Harry Reid said, and they aren't making any excuses nor offering rationalizations for this behavior.
Neither is Harry Reid.
You wont find me doing the same thing for politicians that do/say stupid things.
What Reid said was STUPID. He didnt say that there is an uptick in domestic abuse because of high unemployment, which would have been true. He said that "It has gotten out of hand. Why? Men don't have jobs."
and "Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive,"
You can take your stats and studies and start a fire with them, I'm not denying the stats and they have they have NOTHING to do with the stereotypical and overdramatic representation of a situation by Harry 'open mouth-insert foot' Reid.
See, that's where your argument crumbles. He didn't say anything different from what professionals in the field say.
He was not saying that all men will abuse. He wasn't saying all men abuse.
You say he didnt say "all"....BIG DEAL!
I can repeat myself as much as you repeat yourself Doll.
He said - "It has gotten out of hand. Why? Men don't have jobs." and "Men, when they're out of work, tend to become abusive,"
He didnt say anything about "some men get abusive" or a "small percentage of unemployed men get abusive"...he said "men" ...get it....men, men, men.
You'd jump all over a right winger even if he said had stats to back it up and said (for example) that "car accidents while texting is out of control, it has gotten out of hand. Why? Because women cant put down thier cell phones" and "women while driving tend to become easily distracted".
Its wrong, its overgeneralized and its sexist, either way.
If I said "well he didnt say ALL women"...that would be laughable of a rebuttal as yours is.
You're cropping what he said in a dishonest way.
He was describing men that commit domestic abuse. Not all men.
This isn't rocket science.
Let me follow your 'illogic' for a minute...
You say that saying men doesnt mean 'all men'
Glenn Beck once said that 'women are physchos'.
So I guess you are OK with that?
PS - I noticed that you didnt have a response for my example....if you cant say that Harry was wrong to say what he said, you lose.
But I would not assume that someone meant that ALL drivers drive negligently because of their use of cell phones if someone said
"car accidents while texting is out of control, it has gotten out of hand. Why? Because drivers can't put down thier cell phones" and "drivers tend to become easily distracted".
Those sentences above don't indict all drivers - just drivers that actually behave negligently. Just like Harry Reid's comments don't indict all men, just those who commit domestic violence.
By the way, I didnt mean ALL women when I said that about cell phones...LOL...I just meant that women who tend to become distracted with cell phones while driving actually do become distracted while driving. See how easy it is to point out the absurdity of what you are trying to defend? I cant wait to jump on the next example of you commenting on something sexist and stupid that a 'right-winger' says. I'll just have to say "well just like Harry Reid, he didnt mean all__________"
now there is a nice racist statement. must suck to be you and have so much animosity towards people of color. especially as you are quickly becoming the minority in this country. i guess you better hope that when people of color do become the majority that they will be more tolerant than you creeps on the right. man, i am so sad for you being the little petty man you are.
I think many of the people complaining may not have the most equitable marriage philosophy in practice. Some of them were probably in complete agreement with that declaration by the Southern Baptist Convention in recent years, saying that wives must "submit" to their husbands.
You just happen to be a liberal basher and take every opportunity to do your little superior dance. Keep repeating the same thing over and over- isn't that the wingnut M.O.?
I haven't been to the site in a while and I am surprised at all of the right wing posters here now. Isn't enough that your shills spew lies, hate and invective over the airwaves, now you come here to post your nonsense?
It's time we start fighting back against the nonsense posted by the right wingers, spewed on the airwaves etc. I say we start going to their sites and calling them out on their lies. We should do the same with all the rightwing TV and radio blowhards. This is a war and is one we must win.
Time to grow some cajones and fight back against these trd-blossoms.
Right On is a old poster here. Was once screennamed Tommy. He is a almost obsessive contrarian. But he hasn't taken up a stand like this a while, as far as I know. But I don't come around like I used too, either.
I totally agree with your stand about conservative ignorance and misinformation. But it's almost not even a left-right thing with him. Tommy just likes to take an opinion that really has almost NO leg to stand on and HOLD ON TIGHT.
What makes Tommy, Tommy is own personal need to be the contrarian. It's an end to itself
He's an odd duck and he likes it that way.
Reading you guys trying to defend the indefensible is hysterical. Like global warming... ; )
What authority deemed GW indefensible?
By the way, the progressive group, FAIR, was the one to put that crap out for the media to promote!
Speaking truth to/about progressives with a shout out to 10% unemployed and who know that with the democrat party in power, their chances of finding reid's 'settled science' to be true will only increase. :<
The study is from 1993, and what does it have to do with this post?
Because it highlights the ease with which progressives will conjure up lies just to make a point. They did in back in 93 and they do it today in attempts to make political hay.
As far as Harry Reid's comments, he's disingenuous because he knows this bill cannot address the underlying issues in this terrible enconomy, that government spending hurts job creation where we need it most in the private sector. Whatever money is flushed through this bill to business will be more than made up for in heavy taxation and regulation that will discourage new employment. That's the progressive way...
His bloviating about abuse and jobs were just part of the incessant din of nonesense that comes out of dc. His comments weren't intended to be insightful, just ramblings to hear himself talk and nothing substantive about fixing the economy.
I speak truth to/about progressives and often shout out to the likes of harry reid, whose outburst showed he could use an abusive dialect, when he needs to.
Besides the well pointed out fact that simply naming factors that go into a behavior in order to better understand a behavior doesn't excuse that behavior...
Where does this "excuse" manifest itself, exactly? In the criminal justice system? Do judges say,"oh well, he was unemployed, so let him off"?
Where do the crafty abusers use this "excuse" for us dumb liberals to let them off scot-free?
I would love to know.
And then you will have some like the ones here saying they are only contributing factors and we need to understand better why they beat their spouse, or some such nonsense.
They don't get off scot-free, not yet anyway, thankfully.
Is the scientific (I assume this study falls under sociology) attempt to learn causes of behavior an attempt to excuse it?
It's stupid, whatever it is.
Mine is- It's a scientific study, so I assume was the goal of the authors was to learn more of the world through the scientific process.
I think you are saying that to attempt to learn more of the world through science is somehow dangerous.
In broader terms, lessons learned in liberalism 101.
Here is the profile for Michael Benson, author of the study. He's a sociologist. Sociology is a science.
http://criminaljustice.cech.uc.edu/employees/bensonm
So, this is a scientific study written by a scientist.
I ask again, is science liberal?
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201002240020#746739
Where, oh where are you, fighter for good and light? Where ever can you be in our time of need?
Oh... right. He's not a mentally diseased lefty, so it's okay.
I think that says enough.
Or, maybe its obvious factors like stress and mental illness. Losing your job, and your families livelihood, can lead to major stress which can lead to mental illness. When you lose your job, eventually you lose your health insurance. Stressed out people, off their meds, can lead to dire consequences.
These factors are just too simple for these idiots to comprehend. They don't care about preventing anything. They care about punishing and destroying peoples lives for the mistakes they make. Until, they make a mistake, and then they cry and turn to God to forgive them.
Perhaps the unemployment situation should have been given greater priority by Reid and his colleagues. That's the only criticism I would have.