That's incredibly sexist and just demonstrates why 2012 will be a year in which women once again elect the president. And it won't be Mittens.
You're right - the Julia campaign is sexist and creepy. You may be more right than you know (even a stopped clock is right twice a day) and it's not right about "Mittens".
No. Using the word "Obedience" on a picture of women supporting Obama is sexist, particularly when Romney supports banning abortion and contraceptive access and doesn't know who Lily Ledbetter is...
That you don't give a rat's ass about women is unsurprising and one of the more odious aspects of right-wing gay men.
Yes, because forcing women to take government handouts while restricting alternative private choices is so benevolent to women. Your spin to paint the work you do and others do on the expense accounts and backs of others speaks more to how woefully ignorant you are of the actual value you have.
That the solutions you propose end up making those you claim to advocate for worse off even further underscores how out of touch you are. The term "obedience" on a picture of women is a reflection and accurate depiction of how creepy the Julia campaign is to those who don't live in your bubble.
I'm very clear on the value I provide. It's you who have an inflated sense of your own importance.
And the solutions I propose actually offer women reproductive choices rather than making them brood mares for the right-wing fundamentalist vision of America. In fact, states with comprehensive sex ed and contraception that is easily available have fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions, resulting in fewer women on welfare.
In other words, what I support works and what you support doesn't.