Survey: Self-identified "pro lifers" are generally contemptuous of women

Originally published at:


Well this changes everything!




As a thought experiment, suppose people had to spend at least 5 years raising a child (could be a foster child, etc.) before they were allowed to vote. Would we have voters who were more focused on the future? Would we have voters more aware of how life really works instead of how they imagine it works in their imaginations? What would these opinion poll numbers look like bifurcated along the lines of “has spent at least 5 years raising a child” vs. “has not.” I used to be more judgemental about other peoples’ parenting until I became a parent. I used to have much more simple and pat answers to life’s questions until I became a parent.


It seems really important to look at the roots of the movement, how it was a non-issue until a core of pro-segregationists got a hold of it in the 60’s.

Its really no that much of a leap from controlling black peoples bodues, to controlling womens bodies.

Bh the time you rope in the anti-immigration crowd, and the pro gun’s rights crowd, it seems like a pretty well rounded inventory of everything wrong with the country.


I came here for this. Thumbs up.

1 Like

100% agreed. I would be amazed if the research came out any other way, and I have no doubt the conclusions are accurate.

That said - I would have had no idea how to answer some of those questions, because none of the important words in the question actually have definitions that I can assume I, the researcher, and other respondents would agree on.




not really



No shit Sherlock.


the 95% of republicans supporting whatever horror trump does week after week says the problem is far worse than this

they are just waiting for him to replace RBG

I hope we never get to find out what they’d do after that but it may be far too late

Self-identified “pro lifers” are generally contemptuous of women


I think this question and its answers, in addition to the obvious conclusions about conservatives, shows a less obvious problem with progressives and the American “left.”

I’m not suggesting that having more women in positions of power wouldn’t be an improvement, but just asking that question presupposes that there should be positions if power, such that your demographic being underrepresented in them would essentially guarantee that you would be oppressed.

I would say that the very fact that this is the case shows that the system is inherently fucked up, and we should do something a lot more different than maintaining the same system of power, coercion, and oppression while just changing the demographics of the people using the system to abuse people.

This ( I often suspect deliberate) myopia is what leads to a situation where people are willing to support mass-murdering warmongers, corrupt DAs, and the like and assume that the fact that they aren’t white and/ or male makes that ok.


Or to put it another way:


  1. Has there ever been any form of government in which no person occupied a position of power?
  2. Has there ever been a group of people whose interests were well looked after despite being grossly under-represented in government?

Having equal representation doesn’t guarantee you’ll get a fair shake but it’s a damn good place to start.


Fred Phelps and his family of litigious tr*lls are all the rebuttal anyone needs to the idea that parenthood makes you a better person.

Interesting as it might be to speculate on the moral tonic of child-rearing, it seems entirely irrelevant to an article which is about illuminating the misogynist underpinnings of pro-life beliefs.



the fact that the trump administration was going to deport children who were here under a compassionate entry to receive medical treatments unavailable back in their home countries, thus condemning those children to die once they were sent away from their medical care here and not one, single, solitary “pro-life” group made any kind of protest or even commented on it told me everything i already knew about the forced birth contingent.


This might be the least shocking headline I have read in a very very long time. This is absolutely baked into the system, and why when the right holds hearings on women’s health issues (it has happened a time or two) they notably invite only non-women to testify. Women exist to produce men and to pleasure and serve men. Any ambition shown to to anything beyond this is smacked down with vigor. I swear to god, Margaret Atwood did not think she was writing an instruction manual, but there we are.