Summary
House Speaker Mike Johnson erupted after failing to block a bipartisan proxy voting bill allowing parental leave for lawmakers.
Despite once voting by proxy himself, Johnson called it “unconstitutional,” revealing GOP resistance to family-friendly policies.
Critics say this aligns with Trump-era efforts to push women out of public life, consistent with Project 2025’s goal of restoring “traditional families.”
Johnson’s move, including canceling House activity, exposed the contradiction in the GOP’s “pro-family” stance and highlighted deeper hostility to workplace flexibility and women’s equality.
Republican leaders are people who would watch The Handmaid’s Tale and think they’re supposed to agree with the villains
“Anything that doesn’t serve my fascist agenda is unconstitutional.”
“Family Values” has always been code for “Women are Cattle”
*Chattel
I was referencing the parts of the bible that cover animal husbandry and include how to manage women in the same section as the farm animals.
They’re both basically the same word.
“Pro-family”, “family friendly”, “family values”, and similar phrases are pretty much all dogwhistles for “Christian values” but not the values that actually help anyone (love thy neighbor, etc).
These “Christians” would already have shipped Jesus to gitmo.
Something something bootstraps.
Aside from a funeral and a couple of weddings, I haven’t set foot in a church since I moved out on my own. However, I would absolutely sit down for a service where the preacher read passages from the New Testament with the moral of the sermon being “Are we the baddies?”
They would have complained about Jesus feeding the masses because “it’s just going to make them lazy”.
You need the Satanic temple for these actual tenets that they supposedly stand for.
That’s the satanic temple. The church of Satan is a completely different thing.
Yeah sorry, corrected it just around when you posted.
And by “Christian values” they mean “White American Evangelical Protestant values”, not anything that has anything to do with what the Christ of the Bible was talking about.
So not really Christian values.
I mean, they are 100% Christian values though they’re not Christ’s values.
I like this Jesus fellow, but his fan club is the worst.
Paraphrased, and can’t recall who said it (I thought it was George Carlin but can’t find the quote).
There is a quote that often makes it around the internet mis attributed to Ghandi says something along those lines. The most likely origin is speculated to be Indian philosopher Bara Dada in the mid-1920s : “Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians, you are not like him.”
Okay, so this was interesting to me, since Bara Dada isn’t really a name. It literally means elder brother in Bengali. (Although most speakers will shorten it to Borda in everyday conversation.) I did a bit of searching, and the quote seems to come from Dwijendranath Tagore, the eldest brother of the Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore. Rabindranath did refer to Dwijendranath as Bara Dada (Boro Dada would be the better pronunciation) in his writings, and Dwijendranath was a philosopher and poet so it makes sense. The original quote seems to be, “Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians – you are not like him.” which is found in the book The Christ of the Indian Road by E. Stanley Jones.
neat, I learn new things today
I’m guilty of misattributing it to Gandhi
I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ - Mohandas Gandhi
Interesting. Didn’t realize it went back that far - again, I had always (mis-) attributed the quote to Carlin. Thanks for sharing.
But Carlin put his touch on it and modernized the language to make it slightly more digestible for modern peoples. There’s something to that at least.
Unfortunately, these are mainstream American Christian values. They’re not the values of Jesus in the New Testament, but they don’t care about that.
They’re dog whistles for needing more babies to keep the pyramid scheme that is our economy afloat.
Subjugating women, hating the gays, blocking birth control; it’s all to pop out more babies.
Endless growth will be the death of us.
Don’t forget “Traditional values” and “Nuclear Family” lol
They’re never gonna restore “traditional” families if they never support a family being able to actually survive on a single income.
This. I would love it if my wife had the option to stay home. We’re luckier than most, so she probably could, but our budget would be uncomfortably tight if she did. And actually, if she made as much as I do, it’d probably be me staying home and doing the cooking and cleaning and errands. I love that shit and hate work, and the excessive hours I work keep me from helping around the house as much as I would like.
The kind of people we’re talking about wouldn’t let you stay home with the kids.
They expect men to be killing themselves in un-safety-regulated jobs for the sake of increasing the wealth of the billionaires while all women stay home playing Suzy Homemaker and popping out white babies.
That’s their vision.
Why would any woman stay home when the husband is going to ditch you and leave you with no way to support yourself. Never rely on a husband.
To Republicans that’s a women problem. They’re trying to make no fault divorce illegal. And they’ll keep pushing beyond that as well, martial rape will be relagalized, women won’t have bank accounts, etc.
They’ll solve that by making divorce illegal, obviously.
This isn’t evening a joke. That’s actually part of their plan.
You okay? Did something happen to you?
Will you commit to paying alimony when you decide to marry your secretary? Fuck depending on your spouse, thst’s insane.
Do you just think that all women are secretaries?
What are you talking about? Who has a secretary and is thinking of marrying them?
My spouse and I depend on each other. We’re a team. We’re coequal partners. I think it’s insane not to see marriage that way. We each are individually strong, but even stronger together. Making money isn’t the only thing that can be done to support the family.
survive on a single income.
“PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY”!
Boom, they’ve invalidated the argument. Trickle down & FSD coming at end of year.
That’s how you can tell they lying about their goals.
Is this the guy that’s on Grindr?
Idk, it’s well documented that he has a weird “porn accountability” arrangement with his kid though. Meaning they monitor each other’s keystrokes to make sure the other’s not stroking their sin stick.
I was being a bit silly, but there was a rumor flying around about a week ago about how he’s on Grindr.
I don’t give it much actual credence - but it would not surprise me at all if we did learn it was true…
…This is documented?
If women are supposed to be in the kitchen, why are most short order cooks men? Checkmate…
Restoring traditional families
Always means women can’t think or speak, and black people work their fields in chains
Serious question: They want all immigrants deported, illegal or not doesn’t seems to matter any more. Those “aliens” do the work that the white nobility wouldn’t do in the first place. Then they sent women back into the kitchen which will easily cut another 30% of the work force, probably much more. And then the tariffs are supposed to bring back manufacturing jobs (that said white nobility doesn’t want to do in the first place). How do they think this is gonna work? cut the majority of your workforce and increase the demand of labor all while preventing higher salaries.
Prison labour
Easy, just bring back the 60 hour workweek or child labor.
They’re already working on child labor in some states.
Slave labor.
Boost manufacturing so there are more machines in which to put my wooden shoes!
The machinery yearns for your sabots
When they say pro-family it seems like they mean pro-huaband and maybe pro-kids
pro kids until they are born then they can fuck off and die
Except when they play uncle touchy like Matt Gaetz and the Shitstain-in-Chief
Yeah
“Restoring traditional families”
That probably means they expect me to go to church, negotiate with the businessmans daughter with a dowry, and control the rest of her life while maintaining she shows that she is happy because I technically would feel awful the entire time.
I’m blissfully ignoring what they want as that “traditional” age to marry on purpose. That just makes my stomach churn knowing these freaks
He couldn’t handle a strong woman.
I know where Mike Johnson’s wife can find some recipes.
This gay boy is miserable
So many years of not being honest with oneself.
Cool, so that means you should also have one car that might last 5 years, no cellphones, computers, and back to radio shows only. You can only live and breathe your job with little to no entertainment.
Yeah, it’s great living in the past isn’t it?
You can only live and breathe your job with little to no entertainment.
Not to diminish your point, but back then they still had (often walkable) “third places.” That included social clubs – think the freemasons, shriners, the “water buffalo lodge” from the Flintstones (since that what Millennials and younger are most likely to be familiar with), etc. They also knew their neighbors a lot better than we typically do today: most houses had substantial front porches generating ad-hoc conversions with people walking by, they more frequently had block parties, etc.
TL;DR: they got a lot of their entertainment though actual in-person human interaction.
@TwinTitans @MicroWave I mean I get your point. But how long do you expect a car to last in the US? We have one car and it’s a 2012 reg that we bought secondhand in 2018…
I mean, with proper maintenance they can last a very long time. They are incredibly reliable and resilient compared to cars in the 40/50s which is where I imagine the vision these people have is from.
That was the case but the past 10 years or so have changed and started going back the other way toward short lived cars.
Parts that used to be made of metal are now plastic which are cheaper to make, lighter, but also shorter lived as they age. On its surface this shouldn’t be a big deal because they’re cheap to make so replacement parts should also be cheap. However there are two problems with this line of thinking:
-
Labor costs have increased - so even if the cheap part breaks and is cheap to buy the replacement, modern cars require lots of labor to disassemble cars to the point the replacement part can be put in.
-
Replacement parts are getting VERY hard to get - this is true of not only cheap plastic parts, but also complicated electronic modules (which may need custom programming to install).
“Mechanically totaled” is a fairly common phrase auto techs are having to communicate to customers. This means that the cost of repairs is greater than the cost of replacing the entire car with one its same age and condition. This isn’t just lower end Kia cars (though they are a big offender here) but many cars across Korean, European, Japanese, and American brands.
You’re correct that today’s cars are more reliable than the 1940’s and 1950’s, but even those cars were serviceable with readily available parts and fairly cheap tools and labor. So when they broke, they could be fixed again. That can’t be said for many of today’s cars.
-
@TwinTitans ah ok I see. Thought you were saying 5 years was a *long* time!
Oh yeah ha ha. Definitely not.
