Author of Hillbilly Elegy, who is running for senator, believes that women should remain in “violent” unions.

Hillbilly Elegy  If you don’t know who JD Vance is, we have to presume that either you’re either not recently exposing your brain to politics in a friendly manner… or being kind to your head by sparing it from horrible, hollow Oscar bait movies.

 

Vance rose to recognition as the author of Hillbilly Elegy : A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis, which tells the tale of his upbringing in rural Kentucky as a poor youngster and his intimate experience with the country’s neglected citizens through the financial and drug crises. Even a movie starring Amy Adams and Glenn Close was produced by Netflix.

The best-seller has drawn criticism for its logical leaps to conservative talking points about independence and the alleged problems of assistance systems, as well as for its generalisations about rural poverty. See, he may have embellished his entire “lifting himself up by his bootstraps” origin tale, like countless conservative icons before him. Vance didn’t truly start at the bottom to get into Yale because he wasn’t really from the East Kentucky mountains; he only spent a few summers there. Actually, he was raised in a Cincinnati suburb.

He is essentially the Hilaria Baldwin of the Appalachians, as far as we can determine. Call it hillbilliaria.

 

So, keeping that in mind… Trump adores this individual. And because to that admiring recommendation, he was able to secure the Republican candidacy for the Ohio Senate.

Related: Jason Momoa was involved In a terrifying head-on collision in Los

He provided a response that is just now becoming public again courtesy to Vice at a speech he gave at Pacifica Christian High School in Southern California last September as part of his campaign. He discussed the importance of marriage and the benefits of staying married. And he made care to firmly emphasise throughout that divorce isn’t the solution, even if the relationships are abusive! He stated:

“This is one of the great tricks that I think the se..ual revolution pulled on the American populace, which is the idea that like, ‘well, OK, these marriages were fundamentally, you know, they were maybe even violent, but certainly they were unhappy. And so getting rid of them and making it easier for people to shift spouses like they change their underwear, that’s going to make people happier in the long term.’”

Despite the fact that historically it was exceedingly difficult, are we making it easier for women to leave violent marriages? Hey, it does seem like it will lead to their long-term happiness. also in the near future. Who won’t be pleased with it, you ask? the guys who consider them their property.

Blasting divorce, Vance continued:

“And I think that probably, I was personally and a lot of kids in my community, who grew up in my generation, personally suffered from the fact that a lot of moms and dads saw marriage as a basic contract, right? Like any other business deal, once it becomes no longer good for one of the parties or both of the parties, you just dissolve it and go onto a new business relationship. But that recognition that marriage was sacred I think was a really powerful thing that held a lot of families together. And when it disappeared, unfortunately I think a lot of kids suffered.”

Vice has the full clip:

Without a question, divorce may be difficult for children. However, continuing to put yourself in perilous circumstances and teaching your children to do the same is obviously much worse. Additionally, it is demeaning to the women who have endured such marriages and harmful to those who are still too afraid to leave to suggest that the notion is some BS dreamt up by hippies. In the same breath as praising Christian “family values” and referring to marriage as “holy,” he minimises the suffering of battered women. It is simply another illustration of a platform where women’s experiences are downplayed, and their rights follow closely after.

(If you’re curious, the answer is that he opposes abortion in all its forms. Even in circumstances of rape and incest, he has stated that he believes women should be legally required to carry their pregnancies to term. He applied the quaint adage “two wrongs don’t make a right” to the circumstance. You won’t believe it, but he’s also anti-gay, stating that marriage is particularly “a lifetime commitment between a man and a woman” and not merely “holy.”

The fact that Vice questioned Vance about his belief that “it would be better for children if their parents stayed in violent marriages than if they divorced” is why the phrase is so popular right now.

Related:The Rock Johnson in the “Black Adam” teaser The world is saved by

His response? He basically asserts that although it is wordy, individuals who are living in sin and in unmarried relationships are more likely to experience domestic abuse. Do those who are married in some way avoid being abused after being purified at the church?

The Republican who maintained that women who became pregnant must not have been raped because “if it’s a true rape, the female body has methods to try to shut that entire process down” also adhered to this magical thinking style. You everybody recall that?

Anyway, here’s Vance’s furious response:

“I reject the premise of your bogus question. As anyone who studies these issues knows: domestic violence has skyrocketed in recent years, and is much higher among non-married couples. That’s the ‘trick’ I reference: that domestic violence would somehow go down if progressives got what they want, when in fact modern society’s war on families has made our domestic violence situation much worse. Any fair person would recognize I was criticizing the progressive frame on this issue, not embracing it.”

He has previously stated that he is “criticising the progressive framing,” which he defines as the false notion that it is desirable for women to be free to leave violent partners. That is what he objects to. such a “myth.” Sigh.

He concludes:

“But I can see that you are not a fair person, so rather than answer your loaded and baseless question, let me offer the following: I’m an actual victim of domestic violence. In my life, I have seen siblings, wives, daughters, and myself abused by men. It’s disgusting for you to argue that I was defending those men.”

No one seems to have objected when he stood up for those folks. Just that he was advocating on their behalf to achieve what they want—their mistreated spouses remaining with them—was all.

Yes, that is completely illogical to us. But his book didn’t, either, so there you go.

As to the truth of his comments, well, as it turns out simple math proves he’s actually just wrong. From Vice:

“The rate of reported domestic violence in the U.S. has actually significantly declined in recent decades, decreasing from 15.5 per 1,000 women and 2.8 per 1,000 men to 5.4 per 1,000 women and 0.5 per 1,000 men between 1995 through 2015, according to data from the Center for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Justice.”

His spokeswoman responded by citing his earlier remarks in response to the outlet’s follow-up question on whether “he feels individuals in violent marriages should normally stay together or get divorced.”

We still don’t believe his earlier remarks were very kind, and it seems that others do too, since several people have brought up them this week.

The good news is that Vance “does not favour changes to present legislation with relation to divorce,” according to a spokesman for his campaign. He thus has no desire to make it more difficult for women to divorce their spouses lawfully. Vance asserted that he supports a provision that Hungary’s right-wing government implemented that provides married couples with interest-free loans that they are not required to repay.

Connecticut senator Chris Murphy tweeted in response to the news:

His opponent, Senate candidate for Ohio Tim Ryanposted:

Leave a Comment