Henry Rollins: The GOP's Disdain for Women Is Appalling

Facty

Only one woman who attended the Seneca Falls Convention lived until women gained the right to vote. Charlotte Woodward Pierce was 90 years old when she could finally, legally vote - 72 years after the Seneca Falls Convention. http://www.nps.gov/wori/historyculture/charlotte-woodward.htm

JR100

1 Like

In his younger years, Henry Rollins, had proven to be quite sexist. Even in his 30s he voiced some dangerous but all too common ideas. It's wonderful to see how he's evolved. Good on ya, monsieur Rollins. This is beneficial as you are in the unique position of being able to broadcast ideas far and wide.

b.kenna

Henry writes of politics in terms of black and white when it is shades of gray (this is obvious to most Henry). Rand Paul and Rick Perry are as representative of republicans as Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are of democrats. What? Elected officials have opinions? Thanks for the news.

kissmymango

1 Like

Bang on. Perfect. And also loving all the bitter, angry misogynstic republicans who can't muster a single bit of evidence that you're wrong. Because, of course, everyone knows you're right.

chris1944

2 Like

For about the last 20 years, the Republican Party has almost universally been this party of dudes w/"Jesus-Whiplash" (purported chronic scofflaws turned overnight born-agains ).

There's no balance to these dudes -- it's either/or. First they fck themselves up; then they flop religious and find they have a new construct that enables them to direct their inherent fcked-up-ed-ness at a lot of other citizens.

Who gets the "tab?" Like Henry Rollins said: Women (particularly the less intelligent ones, in my opinion). Also minority citizens and intelligent people in general. Why? Because that's what a team of pale-faced, scrawny, perpetually-unwashed, parchment-scrawling dudes wrote a few millennia ago...

heydudage

shut up henry rollins. fame abuse.

Lorenzo Esteban

1 Like

I look forward to reading his column every thursday.

godoggo

3rd try:

Rand Paul is occasionally right about some things, tough.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/02/06/rand_paul_on_drone_memo_only_lawyers_could_define_imminent_to_mean_the_exact.html

Christ it's a pain in the ass trying to comment here.

godoggo

2nd try:

Rand Paul is occasionally right about some things, tough.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/02/06/rand_paul_on_drone_memo_only_lawyers_could_define_imminent_to_mean_the_exact.html

Christ, it's a pain in the ass trying to comment here.

Alex Bone

Henry Rollins knows nothing of what he is talking about.

fallout2man

1 Like

@Alex Bone

Then by definition YOU DO if you are in fact qualified to say he knows nothing...and you know exactly what now? With all that one sentence you took to blurt that out you should've taken some time to actually sound off on WHAT HE DOES NOT KNOW to prove you were doing more than being a simple-minded reactionary.

Well, how 'bout it? No time like the present to make up for past mistakes. ;)

kissmymango

3 Like

@Alex Bone IOW, you're exactly the type of whiny ass bigot he nailed in the post and that makes you sad. Your tears are delicious, bigot.

Scott Carlson Was Laxson

What an ass

Chiclet Vavoom

I say, Sir Henry, should head to the Cali beaches for some sun...

Alexandra Datig

Picking apart the words of a few out-of-touch Republicans does not represent the entire GOP. I am not reading anything in this article that speaks to helping women. It just further exploits the stupid comments made. That's like the toss pot calling the kettle black. If the LA Weekly would like to talk about a Republican interested in helping women, who has actually done so, you can contact me on Facebook.

fallout2man

5 Like

@Alexandra Datig

First of all, let's get real here. If you want to refute Henry's CENTRAL POINT then you need to do a lot more than vaguely complain he picked a few bad examples. You are practicing a lot of sloppy thinking and it needs to be cleaned up if you want to sound like you've got a legit criticism.

Your criticism should answer the following questions to be valid.
1: What did he say that was wrong?
(Cite specific paragraphs or sentences, don't just harp on words but also talk about the abstract concepts he is attempting to create with those words)

2: Why is what he said wrong?
(This is where you point out all of the errors made. In this case you would explain how the Republican party as a whole does not advocate and vote predominantly for anti-choice anti-reproductive-freedom bills and explain how Henry was wrong about them changing. This is the hardest part because you're not trying to simply invalidate his evidence superficially. You need to create your own antithesis to his thesis and use your examples to point out how not only his thesis is flawed but your antithesis is correct. You actually have TO DO WORK to prove someone wrong. Sorry, that's just how it is.)

3: Was there another, better way Henry could've written this?

(This is where you complain about semantics and context. Context/Framing is all about how you present an argument, word use, metaphors, etc. This is where you can explain how he constructed his arguments poorly or otherwise was arguing from stereotypes, etc. The point is once you've established your antithesis is correct you need to explain how someone would've written the same thing as Henry using your antithesis instead of his thesis.)

4: Would that other, better way have been plainly obvious to the average person?

(This is the final part, if you make it this far. This is where you collect all of the evidence from the above and make an argument as to whether or not Henry should've known better. If you've done 1/2 right you've established yourself as correct, and item 3 establishes how the correct answer would've looked. This is where you then argue whether or not he should've known this all along and then if you're really lucky you get to say something moralistic and condescending if and only if you're actually able to successfully argue this far that the vast preponderance of evidence indicates Henry was arguing in Bad faith from the start or at least sufficiently appears to be.)

If you can answer all four of these questions then what you have is actual constructive criticism. If he offends you, you can even say something constructive while still front-loading it with sarcasm to underscore how much this misrepresentation you claim offended you.

However it is simply pathetic and lazy to tell someone they got it all wrong when you can't even explain how or why it's wrong. It reeks of disingenuity and is only going to make everyone else suspect you are arguing in bad faith and actually have no point whatsoever to anything you say. Especially if your point is that the other person is the one being dishonest. If you want to say someone is dishonest it requires YOU PROVE IT if you want someone to believe you. When you do not Occam's Razor tends to mean we're all just going to suspect it's the one who refuses to offer any proof of their claims that is the person being dishonest in all this.

In the future I'd recommend considering the above before posting. Next time you might not get such a relatively benign response. ;p

Rodz

2 Like

@Alexandra Datig A few out-of-touch republicans? Like Rick Perry, John McCain, and Rand Paul? These are some of the most popular elected leaders in today's GOP . . . that would be like saying Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton don't represent the Democratic party.