You’ve heard, right? There is a war on women being fought, and it is being fought by”¦ the Democrats. At least, that’s what Fox News is saying, and this week’s Takedown crapdate capitalizes on this nonsense.
And the text that goes with it:
Hey Liberals and Democrats….
As Rosy the Riviter [sic] said….Why don’t you redistribute this!!!!!
Americans are becoming tired with Liberals redistributing their wealth instead of their work ethic, of taking their money and not cutting spending. Its time to TAKE BACK AMERICA from those who would take from us what is not theirs!! STAND UP AMERICA!! TAKE BACK AMERICA on November 6, 2012…you have the power, and United together no one can stop us!!! Stand up for America!!!
First of all. If you are going to appropriate Rosie the Riveter, at least pay her the respect of spelling her name right. For fuck’s sake.
The We Can Do It poster was not called Rosie the Riveter until well after its intended use, which was to promote morale among women workers in Westinghouse Electric in 1942. Since the 1980s, she has been used to promote feminism, and The Liberty and Freedom Foundation Facebook page owes her an apology for defacing her so.
Liberalism is not the same as socialism. Barack Obama is not a socialist. If you think that Barack Obama is a socialist, it just means you have a very tenuous understanding of economic systems. Barack Obama did say to Joe the Plumber back in 2008 that he thought spreading the wealth around was a good thing. And you know what? It is. From the Huffington Post:
The top-earning 20 percent of Americans – those making more than $100,000 each year – received 49.4 percent of all income generated in the U.S., compared with the 3.4 percent made by the bottom 20 percent of earners, those who fell below the poverty line, according to the new figures. That ratio of 14.5-to-1 was an increase from 13.6 in 2008 and nearly double a low of 7.69 in 1968.
So? Who cares if income inequality is rising? I mean, it’s not going to affect the average person, right? Well”¦ according to this paper from the London School of Economics:
After controlling for personal characteristics, country and year fixed effects, more people are found to favor revolt when inequality is high and their net incomes are low.
I don’t mean to sound alarmist. If you happen to be looking for alarmist, you can check out this book, written by a Yale School of Management senior faculty fellow, which is frightening even in its description. I am, however, trying to sound pissed off. While the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, people are packaging “redistribution” as an evil that is socialism and will bring us all down, when, actually, spreading the wealth around is a preemptive antidote to the revolution and socialism that is so feared by so many.
Socialism happens when poor people finally look around and say, “Hey, that guy over there isn’t working as hard as me, and he is 200 times as rich, and I can’t seem to work my way out of it,” and they have a revolution, and socialism seems like a great idea to make up for all of the earlier inequalities. Spreading the wealth around prevents socialism.
And here is what makes me really mad. The people I know who post this stuff are the ones who should be the most angry. One guy works full-time at overnight shifts at Walmart, and then goes directly to substitute teaching jobs during the day. He is working his fingers to the bone, and yet, he buys into this idea of “hard work will get you somewhere.” His hard work is getting him less and less far; meanwhile, venture capitalists make a gazillion dollars by evaluating companies and deciding to invest money into them. I don’t want to say that they don’t work hard, but they also aren’t getting osteoarthritis from standing on their feet too long. This absolute fear of spreading the wealth around is being pushed by the incredibly rich onto the incredibly poor to keep them from putting up a fight. And the poor are buying it.
And using Rosie the Riveter to spread it around? When the Republicans want to redefine rape, redefine victims of gendered crimes as “accusers,” make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortions, cut a billion dollars worth of aid to low-income women and children, let women die if it means preventing an abortion, end funding for low-income preschools to force their mothers to get back in the kitchen, and cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood, which only differs from hospitals that provide abortion in that it serves primarily women? And then saying that Democrats have a war on women because Obama used to only golf with men and women have lost jobs in the recession?
No. You can’t have Rosie, GOP. We don’t try to appropriate Ronald Reagan to further our political agenda, you can’t have her. Not when you so clearly think that women are vapid, stupid creatures who can’t be trusted to control anything, least of all their own bodies and health, and not when you oppose the Violence Against Women Act, and not when you think that it’s a-okay that women are only making a fraction of what men earn for the same work. Rosie the Riveter belongs to us.