Cashing in on gendered smear

It’s not news that Republicans have made some pretty horribly sexist and/or ignorant comments about women in the past few years.

No one can forget Todd Akin, then a Republican candidate for Senate in Missouri, and his “legitimate rape” fiasco. Or let’s remember the countless off-color comments about Hillary Clinton’s weight, as if it actually affected her ability to lead in any way.

Most recently, let’s not forget the nickname of Wendy “Abortion Barbie” Davis, Democratic candidate for governor in Texas.

The fundraising machine on the left has found a way, using targeted social media campaigns, to monetize the public’s outrage over sexist comments by urging people to make a contribution to win the political battle against whomever made the most recent unsavory remark.

As a progressive, I think it is good these candidates are punished for their ignorance and bias against women.

However, as someone who wants to see a more honest and informed political conversation in this country, I am a little unsettled at the idea of cashing in on flimsy and temporary Internet outrage.

This quick turn-around of quotes for cash perpetuates an inability to focus on topics that are substantive. Rather than simply repeating an offensive quote and then asking people for money, the fundraising machine should explain why the quote matters.

Instead of cashing in on people’s ignorance, it is necessary to explain the consequences of a candidate saying there is such a thing as “legitimate rape.” Dig into both the political and the policy implications instead of dumbing down the conversation.

The American people deserve a better political conversation, and I believe there’s a way to improve it.

Take, for instance the fact that more state abortion restrictions were passed between 2011 and 2013 than in the entire previous decade, according to the Guttemacher Institute.

If abortion rights are something you care about, and a Republican politician says something offensive about women’s rights, explain the consequences of his line of thinking. Turn to the facts of the matter — ignorance and ideological biases about women’s health lead to bad policies that hurt women.

Explain the details and consequences of passing restrictive abortion laws and then let people choose to give money to your cause or not, instead of taking advantage of peoples through emotionally charged mass email.

Then, the tone of political conversations would revolve less around the latest ignorant comment a Republican politician made about pregnant women being mere “hosts” for their babies, and more around actual laws being passed with serious consequences for women.

Although I’m a supporter of punishing lawmakers and their surrogates for saying mean and sexist things, I’m uneasy about the prospect of churning their political bile into money while ignoring the more important underlying consequences — laws that are bad for women and bad for the American people.

­sydhoffe@indiana.edu
@squidhoff10