Whenever I come across one of these 'I am women hear me roar' posts I immediately assume the person is trying to hide the truth and manipulate me.

Just because you're melodramatic or emotional about something doesn't make you right. The dramatics are designed to frighten off criticism. It works in real life because people like to avoid conflict but the internet allows people to speak their mind. There's an honesty about it. So the 'I am women' routine really just comes across as a mad rant.

Squeers,

Your link is somewhat disturbing. It seems that the religious right in the U.S. is quite capable of fanaticism - and perhaps Jennifer is alluding to this fact when she criticizes the GOP leadership for courting this section of society. This sort of mindset seems to spread like wildfire - almost as an hysteria. Obviously not all religious adherents in the U.S. would support leaving poor people to die, yet this libertarian/fundamentalist viewpoint appears to encourage such notions. The flip side is the concern for the sanctity of life in the womb, where "human life" is apparently lauded in the highest.

I do get Jennifer's sense that this parade of GOP religious integrity may be the thin end of the wedge for a violent swerve to the right in U.S. social arrangements. As it stands now, many lower- middle and middle-class citizens are bankrupted by their health-care bills. The system stinks in that country. At least the very poor can rely on some sort of support. If this is rescinded there will be people dying on the streets.

Regarding the contrasting concern of the fanatics between the sanctity of life for a poor person and a foetus, one is led to suspect that if "all" life is not held in the same regard, then perhaps the intimidation of those seeking abortion "is" the first step in a move to control and restrict their access to safe procedures....anything that proceeds from that point would radically alter the status quo for women and society in general in that country.

Poirot,

it is disturbing seeing the rise of right-wing fanaticism, but it goes hand in hand with the economic fundamentalism that drives it. And while the inconsistency of the right-to-lifers--save babies but let the rest die--is stark to us, as I'm tired if saying, people can rationalise anything. Indeed many of the working classes being screwed by the system will join the ranks of the conservatives, since intolerance knows no borders, and as history attests when times are tough there tends to be just the sort of groundswell towards paranoia and fascism that we're seeing around the world. Yet while democracy is a failure on global warming, and would be if women's rights over their own bodies were compromised, it's still better than libertarianism wherein all ethical concerns are redundant and the market is given free reign. The free market would no more agonise over abortion than it would global warming--indeed Swift's "Modest Proposal" might be realised and we'd all in time come to see unwanted foetus's as a valuable and hitherto wasted resource; for stem-cell research, fertiliser, pet food--in time maybe even gourmet restaurants..
Now that's "freedom", no ethical constraints on anything, just free choice. It might sound dark but that's where we're heading.
Democracy is our only hope, but it has to be an educated, ethical, engaged and self-reflexive democracy (paedia, in a word), wherein the vicious GOP's would gradually be converted and see the light, or otherwise shrink and die. Sadly, our democracy shows no sign of becoming more enlightened in this way; devolving into Morlocks seems much more likely.

Squeers,

I'm inclined to believe that fanatical libertarianism is chiefly economic in mindset. It translates, however, into a narrowing of social liberties. It's code for stepping over the downtrodden and the white-anting of social democracy. Look at the trouble Obama had to win even a few modest changes to the health-care act. He was forced to include tax deals for the wealthy by a GOP dominated Senate.
Ironically,it's elitism of the kind that Jesus preached against, but because it's linked to some sort of religious righteousness, tunnelled-vision adherents are apt to condone it as socially acceptable.

I'm a bit of a fence-sitter in this respect. On the one hand, I'm concerned at the social aspects of a society that dumps its children into institutions in such numbers so it's "working-age" members can stampede in their hordes to the "workplace". On the other, economic libertarianism is likely to have the opposite effect on the social "freedoms" that have been enjoyed by society since WWII. In my mind, it's almost a given that women will experience a restricted version of their present state if right-wing religious fervour is embraced by majority vote in the U.S.

Yeah well encouraging boys and girls to show some restraint and prevent disease, psychological damage and degradation does seem a bit abhorent to feminist and many secularist. They do not at any cost want their own ruined lives exposed by commonsense. They would rather the promotion of fatherless families, countless sexual partners and an abundant supply of porn enslaving the young and old. They call this freedom and those living with some restraint bondage. Thankfully many now are voting with their feet and money by sending their kids to schools that at least re inforce some resemblance of morality. No wonder the godless now want to control the private system with their own failed dogmas. Look at the lives of many of our Pollies and you get the drift.

Yes Squeers, those woman are misogynist too. It didn't occur to me when I wrote the article to point out that women are deeply involved in the religious right's subjection of women as well as men, because I take that as a given. Clearly, others don't, and I must remember in future to state it.

Whether or not the women I cite agree that there are misogynist women I don't know, but my guess would be that they do, especially Hillary Clinton. I in no way hold "men" solely responsible for the current bizarre focus of the GOP on women's bodies and their reproductive functions.

Women have always paid for their abortions in the US system, with a few exceptions. The use of federal money to subsidise abortion outside of those exceptions has always been illegal. Women are buying this service. As Roe v Wade is not likely to be overturned any time soon, women will continue to buy this service. What other medical service requires that a woman be legally forced to undergo intimately invasive physical and emotional procedures against her will, before she is allowed to purchase the service?

The obnoxious legal changes are occurring at state level, after last April the Republicans almost brought the US to a grinding halt with their demands at the federal level for withdrawal of funding from Planned Parenthood clinics, only backing down at the last minute. I link to this story in the article.

Obviously the question of abortion (and contraception) is a central concern for many US voters, otherwise I doubt we'd see Republican Presidential candidates running so much of their campaigns around it. I doubt they'd give much of a damn if there weren't votes in it, even if it was against their personal ethics. Romney, for example, used to be overtly pro choice, but when he realised that wasn't going to work for him became "pro life."

I also agree with the dismantling of hegemonic masculinity and the gender roles it imposes, and have argued for this many times.