“NO GIRLS ALLOWED” at Scott Brown Event

Utterly hilarious. Maybe Brown's GOP campaign staff went to the same school as the geniuses at Romney's campaign who booked him into a stadium for an event that attracted a relative handful of guests. At least he's got his barn coat. I wonder if he sleeps in that thing. - promoted by Bob_Neer

Here’s a photo of Scott Brown shaking hands at one of his rare, private meet-n-greets…in a room marked “NO GIRLS ALLOWED”:

No Girls Allowed

On any other day, this might have seemed like a humorous coincidence. But the photo takes on a whole new meaning now that Brown has introduced legislation that many are calling a blatant attack on women’s health. Not so funny, after all.

Maybe I’ve lost my sense of humor, but I don’t find anything funny about the Republican Party’s efforts to deny women access to basic medical care, let alone their attempts to silence our voices when we speak out. This isn’t just my personal opinion — constituents and media outlets across the country criticized the GOP for barring women from testifying at a recent Congressional hearing on the very anti-women’s health proposals Brown and Company are pushing.  They might as well have plastered Brown’s “no girls allowed” sign on the door of the hearing room.

Fortunately, women back home refused to keep quiet, and dozens gathered with allies outside Brown’s Dracut, MA event to express their outrage at his attack on women’s health care.

Senator Brown says his legislation only lets the boss deny women coverage for birth control if his religious/moral views get in the way (as if that isn’t outrageous enough.) But in truth, Brown’s bill would allow employers to deny access to any service they object to — even mammograms, cancer screenings, and diabetes treatments.

No matter which way he spins it, Scott Brown’s legislation tells constituents across the commonwealth that our bosses should be the ones making health care decisions — not us or our doctors. Don’t wait for the punchline on that one; it doesn’t exist.



Discuss

41 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. Absolutely a coincidence.

    This is an establishment near me which I patronize with some regularity. The sign (among others in the room) is part of the decor of that restaurant without any meaning.

    • Coincidence, sure....

      Sounds like the point is that the sign takes on a bit of a new meaning, given our senator’s new push to limit birth control access. You’d think his people would have noticed the irony in a coincidence like this.

    • Oh, come on

      Such “jokes” may not mean anything to you. That doesn’t mean the sign doesn’t have any meaning.

    • Suppose there were some other signs ...

      “No colored allowed”

      “No kikes allowed”

      “No injuns allowed”

      Some folks find such signs humorous. Some don’t.

  2. Protesting Brown's Extreme Views

    Point of note: there were more people outside protesting Brown’s extreme anti-women bill than inside “meeting-n-greeting.”

  3. Tom..

    …at least two, and possibly all three (colored being the questiionable one), of your examples use derogatory terms for the intended demographic, which girls isn’t except possibly when grown women are the intended reference, but context would rule that out here. You’ll notice that the “s” in “girls” is backwords, clearly meant to invoke signs that early-elementary-age boys put on treehouses at a point in their lives when each sex is convinced the other has cooties. I have in fact seen “no colored allowed” signs in the context of displays of items common in a different era (and the whole decor of this establishment is from a different era), but it doesn’t actually mean there is discrimination. Certainly this restaurant does not discriminate against females of any age and this has never been a controversy locally as far as I know. This one clearly gets filed under “Lighten Up!”

    • Try it this way ...

      How about “No boys allowed” (with the “s” backwards).

      I’m not saying the restaurant discriminates per se. I’m saying that somehow it’s always “no girls” that’s chosen as the “joke”. In the context of the campaign we’re in — especially in the Republican war on women that seems to be coming to the fore — it’s just another drip in the flood.

      Our culture is filled with sexist and demeaning “jokes” that we’re supposed to excuse or ignore because they’re “without any meaning”.

      I’m reminded of the objections when the Episcopal church revised the Book of Common Prayer to reduce the sexist language that was pervasive in the 1929 liturgies and in virtually all the images of God.

      Lighten up? Sure, ok. It is striking, though, how pervasive the tilt against women is in such “humor”.

  4. I'm actually not sure why I didn't come up with the "No boys allowed" example myself.

    It really wouldn’t bother me in the least, and there were those signs on girls’ hangouts growing up too. This sign has been there forever and is not at all in the context of the campaign. I’m sure the Brown people had no idea it was there or gave it any thought. Let’s focus on actual policy and grow a thicker skin with regard to the symbolic and linguistic.

    • I think our collective skin is thick enough, thank you

      In a week when women have been excluded from congressional hearings on contraception, and while the junior Senator is running full-tilt towards the right wing, I think the “actual policy” is precisely what this thread is focused on.

    • It wouldn't bother you Christopher,

      because white straight men have not had to work hard to earn equality and entrance.
      In the 60′s my family took down the lawn jockey in the front yard. It was not an acceptable decoration – neither is this sign.

    • If you really dont like the sign

      it is for sale!

  5. Missing the point?

    I’m not actually personally offended by the sign. I don’t find it funny, but I don’t much care.

    I just couldn’t pass up the opportunity to point out how symbolic this tableau was in light of what has happened over the last few weeks. Seeing my Senator support legislation that would keep women (and men for that matter) OUT of the decisions about their health and bodies and instead put it in the hands of their employers? Yeah, that bothers me. And I think Brown next to a sign that says “No Girls Allowed” pretty much sums that up for me.

  6. Enjoyed the picture ...

    very fitting.

    More information on Brown’s visit, but this video really stood out, real people, real concerns (even from girlz)

  7. The video you embedded in the comment...

    …says it is no longer available. Is it the same as the one in the linked article?

  8. Why should they have to provide free access to everything?

    “But in truth, Brown’s bill would allow employers to deny access to any service they object to — even mammograms, cancer screenings, and diabetes treatments.”

    And sex changes, IVF, aromatherapy, gym membership, cloning, brain transplants, bat-boy hybrids, even electrolysis and tanning. Why should an unelected health czar get to force everyone to pay for access to everything they feel like mandating free coverage for? Is there anything we won’t have to pay for? Dinner? Movies? Where does it end?

    • Here's why:

      Just to piss you off.

      In other words, more or less the same reason you keep posting here.

    • I have a relative who is transgendered

      You keep harping on sex change surgery – you seem to think that transgendered people are opting for surgery as a lark, that it has nothing to do with their health. I can tell you, from personal experience, that it has everything to do with health care, and I’ll thank you to stop demonizing it as if it’s some perversion.

      • Thank you

      • Shouldn't even be legal

        It’s horrible mutilation that shouldn’t even be legal. Perhaps some mental health services should be offered to help deal with feeling the wrong sex or having unusual genitalia. But thanks for confirming that it’s not just contraception, you guys think every radical sexual procedure should be free and we should all have to approve and pay for it, can’t even criticize or mind our own business. Nope, it must be considered part of standard health care coverage and paid for by everyone. Any more relatives we should know about, like maybe an aunt who needs aromatherapy and trips to the beach or the mountains every week? Is there anything you would say should not be covered?

        • Sex Reassignment Surgery

          Under any circumstances, it is not “preventative health care” so it is presumptuous that it is covered under ACA (I’m inclined to think not as I cannot fathom another health care category it would fall under), especially since many transgender individuals never have the operation esp F-M and use alternative methods for their transition.

          The operation itself is extreme, but to call it a mutilation that should be illegal? Well, there are a lot of mutilations out there that are legal. Many may be plastic surgery and as long as it is consenting adults (as opposed to real mutilating monstrosities like female circumcision.), rules are followed (like not doing the surgery until after several years of hormone therapy) and the procedure is safe, let it be.

        • "Perhaps"

          Perhaps you should learn what you’re talking about.

        • This is filled with so much wrong

          as well as total mischaracterization of what liberals might think of the issue besides that, that I am sort of flummoxed.

          Honestly, Editors, I do NOT see much in the way of useful contribution of this commenter.

        • What shouldn't be legal?

          The 21st century? Or just the latter half of the 20th?

          sabutai   @   Sun 26 Feb 7:13 PM
          • Sex change surgery

            Especially the stuff happening to children right now. Turning a perfectly healthy person into an infertile disfigured person. It should be illegal to teach kids that people can change sex, and illegal to offer the fraudulent mutilating surgery, even to adults.

            And it certainly shouldn’t be something everyone is compelled to subsidize, if it remains legal.

            • It should be illegal

              …for you to post on this forum, but it’s not, more’s the pity, since no argument or comment you make have any sort of merit whatsoever.

              Go have some man-on-turtle sex or something.

              I find it really telling that you focus so completely on the sexual habits of non-heterosexuals…makes me wonder if maybe you have something to hide so desperately. It IS a common theme for GLBT haters.

  9. More about this image ...

    This is a great image, full of symbolism for this campaign. I just now recognized some other symbols in it that have been operating just under my conscious awareness:

    1. The column in the left, with the darker horizontal member on it, invokes a Christian cross, complete with little tag (for the inscription, of course). Below is a traditional version (“Old Rugged Cross”) for comparison:

    2. The light jacket with contrasting stripe, at left foreground, reminds me of a white alb with contrasting cincture, like below:

    3. The wood-framed booth at lower center is reminiscent of a pew.

    While I fully understand that all of these are an artifact of this specific image and have NO intentional religious meaning, nevertheless that’s how evocative images work.

    I think this image captures perfectly the present-but-unadmitted role that Christian religiosity plays in the GOP campaign, together with its explicitly misogynist message about women.

  10. Did I miss Something?

    I don’t think anybody should be attacking the establishment for having this sign up. The fact its, however, that its placement in this photo, where Sen. Brown is visible is a perfect example of irony given the Blunt Amendment. The sign, in its typical context is just a bit of kitsch, but with Brown there it takes on a different meaning that reminds us of Brown’s most recent policy position and its implication for women or really anybody who get health care.

  11. Girlz with a "z"?

    Where is this?

    One woman is clearly visible on the right and another just left of center. This seems as if it could be a fake outrage.

    • It's the sign ...

      It’s the sign on the wall at the center right of the photo, and it’s a backwards “s”, not a “z”.

      • A backward s

        does suggest goofiness is involved.

        Just sayin’

        • Well, if it's goofiness...

          then Scott Brown is the one that is goofy.

          He, and his staff, choose that restaurant and that room to hold an event.

          The owner is probably a supporter, and like Brown, has goofy views of women.

          • Can't argue with that!

            .

          • The owner IS a woman

            Ms Shaw has owned and operated that restaurant for years.

            The signs around the store are made by local crafters and are for sale.

            As to the crowd, the place was packed with supporters (the entire restaurant went into a round of applause as he entered the establishment).

            More pictures area available at http://www.dracutforum.net

            As to the crowd out front, I wish I had known they were going to be there, maybe Ms Shaw could have put something entertaining on the streetside sign.. lol

  12. You have got to be kidding me....

    I am half tempted to trail Warren around… oh wait, she was just at Mann’s Apple Orchard” in Methuen, get it?

    Mann’s “apples”? What a sexist place!

    They feature apple pies, a product that is totally demeaning to women!

    She was photgraphed with some overweight people. The symbolism, the outrage!

  13. there is no irony on this site

    and why would i be here if i was a conservative?

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Thu 18 Dec 12:18 PM