It Isn’t Men Against Women, It’s Theocracy Against Democracy
In the current debate concerning the proliferation of anti abortion laws, I keep hearing how men want to control women’s bodies. But this argument is belied by the number of women who support these bills including the governor of Alabama who signed their bill into law almost as soon as it was passed by the legislature.
As a woman, albeit one who is no longer capable of baby making, I can’t help but wonder if the issue isn’t so much about men controlling women, but is instead a matter of those who want to see a theocracy established in the US. For years we have been hearing the claims that America is a Christian nation. This claim is ridiculous since the Constitution prohibits religious oaths and guarantees freedom of religion. Mere facts, though, cannot trump faith among these zealots.
Here in Georgia, our governor is not impressed by demonstrators. He has publicly expressed disdain for such efforts. He and the rest of the Georgia GOP, men and women, have the power to impose their will on the rest of us through voter suppression tactics reminiscent of Jim Crow.
The push toward theocracy is why I think impeaching Trump would be a bad, even dangerous, move. With zealot Mike Pence as president, I fear we could move even closer to what fundamentalist Christians, like those I knew in a homeschool group, have been hoping and praying for.
We can’t be distracted by issues that are not at the heart of things. We could lose our freedoms to people who claim to worship freedom as long as it’s their freedom to control others.
Comments
You are correct ...
In the eighties I was among them. Lots of brainwashed beat-down belittled women believing their only salvation was to bow down.
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
beat-down, belittled men, too
Lots of beat-down, belittled men, too; I was one in the 1980s, myself.
The oppressor is common to us both (the Christofascist-Capitalist Complex) and holy, loving Solidarity between us survivors is the only cure.
edit: In no way, shape, or form is this meant to deprecate your struggle in any way! Au contraire, my intention is to express my Solidarity with it!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
You're a pagan, Than
so of course you feel that way (I do too).
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
A Little History
From Wiki's article on the United States anti-abortion movement:
This Republican strategy of wooing Catholics, in combination with Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy (evangelicals), has created one heck of a monster.
The Wiki article you cite goes on to say that most
anti abortion activists are women. It does say that Roman Catholics are the majority in the anti abortion movement, but also notes evangelicals of various Protestant groups are also involved. As religion is primarily involved in the movement, I consider this to be a move toward theocracy. Facts are distorted in order to justify the religious view. A dangerous way to go IMO.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Oligarchy
I think some of the "oligarchy" would prefer a theocracy. They think it's easier to control people under a theocracy. Look at what the Catholic hierarchy did in Europe during the Middle Ages.
Organized religion
Is basically Catholics, 23%, and Evangelicals, 22.5%. As many people identify as No Religion as either Evangelical or Catholic, 23.1%. That's up 266% since 1991. About 100 churches die every week...The old mainline Protestant churches are on the way to extinction.
I think that's why there is such a big push to make Trump the dictator of a Theocracy...
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
when love fails
When a religion can no longer command hearts and minds -- when love fails -- religions tend to resort to the abuse of State power to compel compliance. This is the sign that the religion is dying.
Truth be told, I'd be surprised if there were any Abrahamics out there except Jews, mellow small Christian denominations, and Rastafarians by 2100 or so. Islam, it seems, is especially bent on destroying itself. (Yes, Virginia, "Islamist" terrorists and Wahhabis are the enemies of Islam, not its friends!)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I guess it depends on
what you call a theocracy or religion.
The left is as fervent in their beliefs as any organized religion, and is becoming as stifling IMO.
dfarrah
Don't you think that this is a little one sided?
It's not just the left that is 'fervent in their beliefs' as organized religion. The right is just as guilty of this as the left is. I would say that they were there first and then the left joined them.
IMO there is a big difference between organized religion and truthful spirituality. One keeps people under its thumb and the other is more free.
That's a good point, but it's also a little beside the point
of this essay. Also, when people in this country overtly push for a theocracy, they're mostly not talking about liberalism.
However, the issue you bring up is very important and deserves its own essay.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
"Southern strategy" typically refers to appealing to racists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
Nixon also used "silent majority".
The Christian South
When Republicans flipped the South from Democrat to Republican, a lot of evangelicals came aboard because it was the South. It's difficult to separate the South from religion--it's part of the culture. I agree the racist appeal was part of Nixon's Southern Strategy.
The women who are also anti abortion..
could it be because of their religious views? Or part of it? Some women who have had one become some of the strongest anti abortionists for some reason.
Yep. This would be scary to have Pence as president. There is a huge support network behind this push towards theocracy. Any time gays get a break on things the Christian Right is right there saying that there is a war on Christianity and Christians here. I could understand people who are against it if they were against everything that made women's lives worse. The Alabama governor who said that "all life is precious" would have made more sense if she hadn't signed an execution order right after signing the bill. It's the hypocrisy I can't stand.
Georgia executed a prisoner between the time the
heartbeat bill was passed and when it was signed into law. They only protect “innocent” life l suppose they would say. Never mind that not everyone ever executed has actually been guilty.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Yeah that's another thing that drives me nuts
as I said in Friday's EBs. The pro life folks have no problem with our wars of aggression and our death penalty. The military is a force for good don't ya know and people who are put to death deserve it because they did the crime. Same with people shot by cops. They first did something wrong and then they didn't listen to the cops. Everything is neatly tied up in black and white for them.
The concept of innocence fades when the child is
“collateral damage” in war. Pro life is a very uneven concept, or just straight out bs.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
Catholics generally
don't believe in war, the death penalty,or abortion.
dfarrah
True...maybe
But the Catholic Church sure could do a hella lot more addressing poverty and other issues that affect the poor. By this I mean that the Vatican and the priests don't have to have such rich vestments and all the trappings in the Vatican and church. The Vatican has trillions tied up in art, real estate and other mortal things.
Then there's its support for the Nazis and other unsavory characters over the millennia.
My thoughts exactly. And I strongly feel that if anyone wants to force women to have children then they should also want them to have access to health care and support in all aspects after the baby is born.
Hopefully people read article Joe posted in tonight's EBs about the declining birth rates and the timing of the anti abortion bills. If you haven't read it you should.
my partner is anti-abortion
She is not anti-choice. Therefore, we have no problem.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
There's this lovely utopian vision of theirs
there'd be no baby-killing if they just simply made abortion illegal. All the women who would otherwise have abortions would instead happily carry their babies to term like God intended. Aw how sweet. What happens when they start to do research on what actually happens in places where abortion is illegal?
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Isn't their vision punishment for those who
engage in abortion--clinic owners, doctors, pregnant women, etc.?
We all know that abortions have always been performed whether or not they are against the law at the particular time and location. Those who would like to eliminate reproductive choice are not uniquely insulated from that knowledge. If nothing else, it's been a main or subsidiary story line in any number of US films and television series.
Laws against murder, theft, adultery, etc. have existed since before the Bible. No doubt, laws deter some crimes by some individuals who simply don't break laws. However, laws have yet to eradicate murder, theft, adultery, littering or anything else that laws may prohibit. Rather, laws expressly direct and/or empower government to punish those who break laws.
If we didn't have laws against murder...
I know at least half a dozen people that I would shoot. And when I was a teenager only the death penalty stopped me. So it does deter some, but obviously not all.
The less than seven year sentence handed to the Chicago cop convicted of shooting an unarmed man sixteen times who was fleeing the police is less than the typical burglary sentence.
I had lunch with my hard right gun collecting 85 year old lifelong Republican friend last week. He was appalled at that sentence, reminding me that another cop had to restrain him from reloading and shooting even more. My friend is a law and order guy, but he really means it. it's not a cover for authoritarianism.
BTW: People are always surprised that we are friends. But we mutually decided that the other was a good guy unfortunately very politically mistaken. And who is to say that we are not both mistaken? His family were small businessmen who went bankrupt during the Great Depression. He blamed it on Roosevelt not allowing them to cut prices. He curses the name of Roosevelt, but no longer around me. as I told him, "In my family, Roosevelt was like a god. I won't have you running him down."
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
As my prior post stated:
Sure.
But that's not how they see it. Remember John Winthrop, and his invocation of the "city on a hill" in Matthew 5:14 in a speech made in 1630? Well what was the standard recipe for the Massachusetts Bay colonists? Step 1: loaf off of the native peoples Step 2: slaughter the native peoples Step 3: establish the shining city on a hill upon their land. Never mind that they pretty much had to kill anyone who defected to the native peoples (since it was so tempting -- this story is covered in Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States"), and that life on the shining city on a hill could only be made palatable through large quantities of alcohol ingestion (this was the point of Johnny Appleseed). Well, never mind any of that. It's a shining city on a hill, a utopia. And there will be no abortions in our utopia; Jeezus said so.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
I think many do see abortion as my prior post stated,
for the reasons stated in my prior post. IMO, too much said, both fiction and non-fiction, about "back alley" abortions and the infamous hanger abortions for anyone to assume that anti-abortion laws eradicated abortion. Books, magazines, films, etc. as well as political debate. So, we just disagree on that one.
Forgive me, but I am not seeing the connection between, on the one hand, Winthrop's "city on a hill" speech given as people were preparing to come from England to live in "the colonies" and, on the other hand, whether or not the religious right realizes that laws prohibiting abortion didn't/don't eradicate abortions.
Matthew 5:14 provides:
(KJV)
The point of Winthrop's speech/sermon was that about to be colonists needed to behave themselves or God would punish them.
The connection --
in case you missed it -- was between the city on a hill and the imagined world without abortion.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Yes, obviously, I got that you intended some kind of
connection or other to your claim that the religious right assumes that laws against abortion will result in a world without abortion. However, as my prior post to you indicated with some specificity, I don't know what connection you believe exists.
Your response, for which I thank you, however does not address that. Moreover, the way that you believe the religious right imagines world without abortion is a claim by you, with which I've been disagreeing. But thanks, anyway.
"City on a hill"
True, but the meaning of the biblical phrase "shining city on a hill" as used by Gov. Winthrop has been co-opted by the neocons and neolibs, who have distorted the meaning so as to support American exceptionalism.
It started with Reagan, who used it in his 1980 campaign and later speeches as president. More recently, Obama has referred to it.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
JFK used it before Reagan.
IIRC, that info is at the link in my post upthread in which I discussed Winthop's city on a hill speech/sermon, but I can't swear to it. I do know for certain that I learned that JFK (or his speechwriters) had used it when he ran for POTUS a few years ago from one wiki article or another. I am sure many others have used it as well. My own opinion is that Reagan used it in an attempt to emulate/echo a President whose name, by 1980 was all over the USA, schools, streets, post offices, airports, etc.
My only question was exactly how citing Winthrop's city on a hill speech/sermon supports the claim that the religious right believes that outlawing abortion will end abortions. I am still not getting that.
Are you unable to realize
that some people truly believe that abortion is murder? It has nothing to do with some vision you write about.
I am pro-choice, but I can certainly face up to the fact that abortion kills a human being.
There are plenty of pro-life people who believe that civil rights should be extended to the life in the womb. I thought years and years ago, that as humans began to recognize animal and environmental rights more and more, sooner or later, they would become pro-life. It is just a natural trajectory (to me). And lo and behold, that trajectory seems to be happening.
dfarrah
Here, let's take that sentence and change some words around
"Are you unable to realize that some people truly believe that the Earth is flat?"
So, okay, fine, people believe that abortion is murder. I'll concede that point. If we're getting picky, we can ask this question: about those people who believe that abortion is murder -- what do they think of miscarriages? How about fetuses that endanger the lives of their mothers? What does the belief system say about that? Or fetuses that are carried to term and die as babies? How about fetuses who are brought to term and who can't be saved in their separate lives because our screwed-up system of political economy won't support their mothers? Or what happens when we can manipulate genes to create human organs that can live outside of bodies -- if we terminate those organs, is that murder?
My point is this. People believe all sorts of things. Outcomes matter.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
The flat earth thing
is not remotely analogous to abortion. It is an unquestionable fact that a life is being stopped.
Your gish gallop notes a lot of very difficult situations. The fact remains that some people think unborn babies should have civil rights, and as you know, civil rights are not always black and white when they collide.
dfarrah
Some people think that zygote has legal rights.
And the logical extension of that is that appendectomies and such should be outlawed because potentially each "murdered" cell can become a human being.
I do believe that a fetus is a human being, as a matter of fact, but I don't believe a zygote or a blastula is. It may be logical to call a zygote a human being, but something is fallacious in that logic.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Yes, some people do. I believe that they came to that, though,
because it has been preached to them for a very long time, and more frenetically since Roe v. Wade. Had churches and religious leaders been indoctrinating their flocks that reproductive decisions should be up to the mother and father or only the mother, not government or religion, I believe with all my heart and mind that the religious right congregations would have adopted that position.
And, yes, I, too, see how they could accept the murder view as God's will, even though the Bible never mentions abortion, while identifying as sin everything from gossip (according to Solomon, gossip is the sin most hated by God!), to "pulling out" during intercourse, to mixing wool and linen.
In any event, the Bible directs believers how to conduct themselves, not to be control freaks in the lives of others or to get laws enacted. In the NT, a parable ascribed to Jesus seems to direct believers that God is the one who will separate the wheat from the tares. And then there is that famous OT instruction, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" and the several OT and NT admonitions against judging others and making yourself perfect before you go after others. (And of course, humans cannot make themselves perfect, so that is basically an admonition to Christians to STFU and mind their own beeswax.)
The only place I've found in the Bible wherein words attributed in the Bible to God or Jesus direct anyone to attempt to control the behavior of others was an OT direction that everyone in Israel should observe the sabbath "including the stranger within your gate." (I assume that means that even non-Jews who were in Israel on the Sabbath were to be made to observe the Sabbath as a day of rest.)
I have little doubt someone with a mind so to do could torture some Biblical language to say otherwise, but they can't reconcilie their interpretations with the very specific and clear language of the Biblical provisions.
The bible doesn't mention abortion?
Sure it does. Numbers talks about it quite explicitly.
In short, if my wife cheats on me, I'm supposed to take her to the priest and get her an abortion.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
how awful ...
which bible is that? I hope the Martin Luther German bible doesn't say this like that. Sorry to say that I never read the bible (other than some short passages as a teenager) and can't take the words literally.
My chosen verse for my confirmation was this one and I still think it's one of truest.
There are many version in the translations of various bibles in English and German, but I like the original old German Lutheran the best. Matthew 7:14.
Never listen to anyone but your own guts, (and even not to some godly words, brought to you by some folks who think they know what God wants for or from you) when you consider an abortion. It is nobody´s business to comment on another woman's decision.
This discussion seems not to be my cup of tea. Sorry that the text of your comment triggered my reaction.
https://www.euronews.com/live
We are in total agreement
Just so I am totally clear, I think that the most fundamental of all "property rights" is the right to one's own body. I think the decision about abortion is entirely and solely up to the woman in question. Frankly, I don't even think doctors should get a vote.
Now that my personal position is clearly stated, I was just being amused that the ONE place in the bible that abortion is mentioned, it is pro-abortion.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
Solely the woman's decision
That may be, but if she has a life partner she should consider his opinion and make him part of the process, or their relationship will not go well. I can't think of anything more damaging to a relationship than, "I'm killing this thing you put into me." unless, of course, she can convince him that she is taking the right course, to save their other children for example, or "the poor thing is so damaged it will be in pain for it's whole life."
Partners don't make decisions of this magnitude without bringing the other partner into it. I even discussed career moves and going back to school with my wife and she could have vetoed my plans instead of telling me to go ahead.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I'm actually pretty into men's rights
And I've thought about what rights the male ought to have in this situation. I'd love to say that the male gets a vote but that puts women into the forced incubation business. Now... if we someday develop artificial wombs then I'd be perfectly willing to demand that women go through some [relatively] safe and unobtrusive procedure to extract the fetus. But as much as I wish men had some say in this, the whole "womb thing" just makes that a non-starter right now.
Insofar as the pragmatics of a happy and healthy relationship, none of these questions would even arise in such a situation. My wife and I make virtually all decisions jointly.
A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard
in theory I'm in favor of men's rights
in practice, the groups that advocate for men's rights tend to be terribly toxic. I think that's a shame and wish that other voices would prevail.
However, men have no rights over my body. Sorry. I take the life-threatening risk, he doesn't; therefore, as cruel as it seems, I'm the one who gets to say whether that fetus comes to term or not.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
A voice, not a veto
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Well, I'm not even bringing
religion into the mix.
And way back before abortions were done, through the ages, I'm sure that people just killed their unwanted newborns or abandoned them.
dfarrah
Yes, the ancient Greeks exposed defective newborns.
They didn't even kill them quickly and cleanly with minimum pain. They left them to die of exposure or to be eaten by predators.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Do you truly believe that we are in an era
characterized by the expansion of human rights?
Do you believe that the people who have been in power for the past few decades, and still are, are interested at all in the expansion of human rights?
What rights await the baby as it emerges from the womb?
What rights await it when it reaches the age of majority?
Are we in a world where the phrase "human rights" means anything outside the ethical imaginations of some people?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Yes, in the sense
that more people are recognizing more rights for more people, and people are recognizing animal rights and environmental rights. I also think science has contributed to the greater regard for the pre-born, since we know what happens when.
I'm not saying that these rights are accessible by all by any means.
dfarrah
If a right can be easily taken away, violated, or deferred
by the powerful, is it a right at all? I'm not sure.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
What happens to the babies?
I think all that is a load of shit designed to make them feel better about the fact that they are bullying people.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Tragedy, all around ...
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/alabama-georgia-abortion-la...
* meant as a response to Cassiodorous
Oh that's a winner.
Send that one to all the composition instructors you know...
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Can you
explain your comment. I haven't gotten it, and I'd like to understand.
This is what happens:
The students in comp classes are often allowed to write argumentative essays on topics of their choice. Some of them choose to write upon "why abortion should be illegal." This topic can be stopped if it is caught in time.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
So, you think
the topic should be suppressed? Am I interpreting you correctly?
dfarrah
If you were a composition teacher --
would you want your students using your class as an opportunity to reaffirm their anti-abortion beliefs?
As an instructor, if I wanted to suppress such a topic I would ban such papers outright. I don't do that. Instead I ask them to do some research on what happens in places where abortion is illegal.
The ruling classes need an extra party to make the rest of us feel as if we participate in democracy. That's what the Democrats are for. They make the US more durable than the Soviet Union was.
Then why give the students a choice
if their choice bothers you? Why don't you just provide a list of "appropriate" topics?
Or you could ask them to research and make opposing arguments.
And how do you discern those who are using your class to re-affirm their beliefs generally from the ones purportedly using your class to re-affirm their pro-life position?
dfarrah
Thanks Cassiodorous for the clarification.
Understood.
That's more liberal than Alabama's law!
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Of course, I agree with freedom and reproductive choice.
However, for the sake of accuracy, the Constitution of the US does not prohibit religious oaths. If it did, every Presidential inaugural oath, where every modern President fecklessly adds, "So help me God," to the oath could occasion a lawsuit.
In a number of direct and indirect ways, of course, the Constitution indicates that the Framers wanted to keep religion and the federal government separate, but that is not one of them. You may be thinking of something that could be described as a prohibition against a religious test for a Presidential candidate.
You are correct. I was sleepy when I wrote that.
The Constitution bans religious tests, which to me says that there is no requirement to be a Christian or anything else for that matter.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
The Constitution prohibits a religious test only for POTUS.
It does not prohibit all religious tests.
The establishment Clause certainly prohibits Congress from establishing a religion. I think that may be a stronger argument against, "The US is a Christian nation." But, that is when you are "preaching to the converted." Evangelicals who have heard their pastor preach otherwise are unlikely to be persuaded.
The Constitution prohibits ALL religious tests for office.
False. All religious tests for Federal public office are prohibited and have been so as long as the Constitution's been in force.
The exact text:
-- Constitution of the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 3, still in force
source
The passage specifically states "any Office or public Trust under the United States". This means that the States were subject to this Clause for their Offices, too, before the Civil War Amendments (13th through 15th) were created. That's right, the States are prohibited from requiring a religious test for public office, and the States which exclude atheists from their ballots (Arkansas, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) are indeed in full violation of the Constitution.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
At a deep level,
I do believe there is truth that it is men against women. Women are taking their jobs. Women are taking the positions of local, state, national government. When will women stop trying to be human beings? They are "hosts" that raise kiddies. Period. They are not about life in any way. Love the fetus, hate the child, but raise that damn kid regardless of your situation, circumstances. Just stay out of the workplace where it is a man's world!
I do believe this is changing and that the Christians of the world have great influence, as well. However, until men stop trying to tell women what to do with their bodies, I will believe that it is men against women - that they are trying to stop women from being thinking, contributing human beings.
IMHO, it is women who domesticate the world. Why do we have endless war? Look who is in charge - all men. 'nuf said.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
It's a combination of factors.
Another one that I think most leave out is that there's a group among these assholes that actually believes in the whole 'White Genocide' nonsense. The online Atheist community joined that shit like white on rice.
Modern education is little more than toeing the line for the capitalist pigs.
Guerrilla Liberalism won't liberate the US or the world from the iron fist of capital.
I agree, completely, Aspie.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Unfortunately, that belief
exists among some black people as well. I've had plenty of black men tell me that I supported choice because I wanted to exterminate black people from the face of the earth.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
That is a very sexist attitude.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
The attitude has come about
over my 66 years of observing male behavior. I know it is a very general statement and that there are exceptions, but we need to get away from the male dominated society and become a female dominated society. If you think it is sexist, I can't stop you from how you think.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Then how do you explain Alabama’s female governor
signing their bill into law much faster than Georgia’s male governor signed our bill into law? Many Catholic and fundamentalist Christian women oppose abortion. Do their husbands make them believe that? That hasn’t been my experience.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
I never said that religion
isn't a factor. I think it is. However, I think our male dominated society is the greater danger to women. It's my opinion. You are welcome to disagree, it's still my opinion.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
With so many women involved in the anti abortion
movement, I think it could hurt our argument to put the onus on men. You are entitled to your opinion of course.
I have been noticing the women standing behind those supporting these anti abortion laws as well as women like the governor of Alabama. These images seem to weaken the argument that men are responsible. Again YMMV.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
I believe those women
allow themselves to be dominated by their “man.” My opinion.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
OMG, do
you realize how patronizing and insulting to women you sound?
It's really horrible that you were hurt so badly by some men somehow.
But all men are certainly not the ones you experienced.
dfarrah
Why does either have to dominate?
Forgive my utopian 1960's ideas of equality. One sex must dominate. One race must dominate. One generation must dominate. I see why the DNC is so successful.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
I don’t know why men
feel the need to dominate but they do. It’s a mystery.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
No, it is not a mystery.
Survival requires certain abilities. The instinct for survival and the neurology and evolution behind it has not disappeared just because women are now legislatively protected.
dfarrah
They feel the need to dominate other men.
In pre-civilization times that was the way to gain access to women and the choice cuts of meat. It is present in every mammalian species that I can think of.
Which reminds me that wild horses have two leaders. A stallion who dominates breeding and engages in dominance fights and a lead mare who determines the direction of the herd and where they stop and graze.
By dominance a male can increase his breeding success but a female can't do it that way, she can only increase her breeding success by having helpers and a good pasture. A stallion for protection is good too. Evolution works by mathematics, not by morality.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Don't blame men for the Magdalen Sisters in Ireland.
Left to their own devices, women are quite capable of creating odious hierarchies; of greed; of status-seeking; of bigotry; of sadism; etc etc. Jeanne d'Arc was a religious fanatic who gloried in the burning of heretics, which renders an ironic tragedy her own immolation for the heretical crime of cross-dressing.
Whether men are running things or women are running things, the basic problem is that the worst people -- the narcissists, the sadists, the sociopaths, the psychopaths, the authoritarians -- tend to seek, obtain, and then abuse power. This, I suppose, is the motivation for the various pro-humanism anarchist philosophies (not to be confused with libertarianism, which sacrifices human wellbeing on an altar of the delusory abstractions of "property rights" and "individualism").
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
women and men of quality
You've been accused, in this very thread, of being sexist and of being a man-hater. Now, I know better than that, and I respectfully submit that I know you better than that, Raggedy Ann.
But reading this that you wrote:
reminded me of where our real problem lies: with dominance addicts of both sexes.
This attitude is being planted in the minds of working-class men by those, men and women alike, who beLIEve, falsely, that it is in anyone's true interests to have women and men at each other's throats. It is these people who perpetrate the nonsense beatific bovine excreta that any dominance of one sex or gender over any other has any positive value of any kind. With the pecking-order systems we now have in place, were we to go to a female-dominant society, the women doing the dominating wouldn't be the peace-loving nurturers you envision (and that most women are); rather, we'd get women like Golda Meir and Hillary Clinton deciding war and peace while the reproductive rights of all women would be decided by the very women who are the principal driving force behind the anti-abortion/anti-choice movement now.
Two wrongs never make a right. And all sex/gender dominances in public life are wrong. They are to the human race what cancer is to a human body. And the treatment for cancer isn't some other form of cancer; it is, instead, to eliminate all the cancer, every cell, so it can't come back.
There is only one appropriate place for sex/gender dominance games: in the bedrooms of mutually consenting adults. Such things are less acceptable in public than plain old-fashioned fucking, at least in my humble opinion. Egalitarian public sex works for the bonobo chimpanzee, after all!
But then, what do I know? I have striven to conduct myself as a gentleman, a man of quality, all my life. And all persons of quality, whether women or men, struggle continually for complete equality. You've done so yourself, Raggedy Ann, right here in the pages of c99. But then, perhaps, we c99ers as a group are rather rich in quality folks. If that's the case, the thing to do is enlighten everyone else so they will become persons of quality, too. Then we'll have true sex/gender equality (and economic opportunity equality, too!) for the first time in history.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Thank you, thana ~~
You get me and my insufficiently written thoughts on the matter. Great clarification!
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11
Did you not see
above thread where someone pointed out that more women are pro-life than men?
Can you not entertain the notion that some people think abortion is murder?
If men are trying to control women, they sure are doing a piss poor job of it.
dfarrah
Ultimately, the problem of anti abortion laws is involving
politicians in what should be a medical decision. There are politicians who think an ectopic pregnancy can be re-implanted. There are politicians who believe in “consensual rape.” Better to keep such things between a woman and her doctor.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
The problem with the heartbeat bills are that
the beat that they think they hear are still just a clump of cells that if removed from the body would die because there isn't any blood vessels that connects them to anything. If they want to go with the fetus is alive then it should be more formed. And I'm wondering how many doctors are scratching their heads over re implanting an ectopic pregnancy. "Gee I've been doing it wrong my entire career"
Doh!
Exactly. It’s not a true heart beat. But they won’t let facts
confuse the issue.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
What exactly is
a "true" heartbeat?
dfarrah
Read my comment
that Lily O replied to.
Not exactly
Not exactly. We could easily have had a female POTUS, who had already done terrible things in the world as Secretary of State, and every reason to think she would continue doing do as president. Her name is Hillary Clinton.
We currently have as CIA chief one Gina "Bloody Gina" Haspel.
We have female politicians and public servants who show no great signs of compassion, wisdom, and domesticity in their public acts. Betsy DeVos. Dianne Feinstein. Condoleeza Rice. Victoria Nuland. Etc.
As a second-wave feminist from the '70s, I'm all for women's equal rights, including reproductive freedom. I don't discount out of hand the existence of sexual politics.
But I have no illusions that a woman, just by being female, is more respectful of human rights than a man.
I've lived long enough to know that women can be just as horrible as men can be. That's because no matter what gender, we're all human beings with all the foibles that come with the territory.
We've already had matriarchy, and we've had patriarchy. At present, we have oligarchy.
In my opinion, it's time for something completely different.
I don't want women to be dominant. I don't want super-wealthy sociopaths to be dominant. This "dominancy" thing has worn out its welcome. It's not doing us any good. It's killing the human race and the planet.
"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep."
~Rumi
"If you want revolution, be it."
~Caitlin Johnstone
worn out its welcome
You're right. It's time to make anarchy (or at least minarchy) a workable option for our species. Social "order" based on pecking order flatly has to go.
Our bonobo chimpanzee biological cousins have this task mostly (but not entirely) accomplished. It's time we did the same.
Why? Your answer is excellent:
In very deed!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Not enough people in this country take
separation of church and state seriously. The Democrats abandoned it long ago. When Obama had prayer meetings in the Oval office, it was considered benign. Now that Trump does it, it's a problem?
I have worked in the arena of promoting awareness of the coming theocracy (that is now here) for a long time and have seen most people avoid the discussion because it means talking about people's "deeply held beliefs". And what have we got for that avoidance? Mike Pompeo trying to set up the middle east for that apocalyptic second coming of Jesus war.
AND women are losing their reproductive rights.
Time to let religion off the "respect" platform and go after it for what it is and what it is doing to our world. This means pain for non-aggressive religionists, but this is what we all get for being much too accommodating and respectful of religious ideas and claims.
"Without the right to offend, freedom of speech does not exist." Taslima Nasrin
We condemned Iran for its theocracy. Meanwhile,
too many in this country longed for a Christian version of the same thing. We may not be without sin, but it looks like we will fire the first rocket.
"The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?" ~Orwell, "1984"
a better idea
I've got a better idea.
Let's treat religion, and religious groups and organizations, with the respect that each one earns. You know, just like everybody else.
Non-aggressive religionists, both as individuals and as groups of them, would be spared punishments they don't deserve while those who are jerks would get all the disrespect they so rightly earn.
We've discussed this before. You are unquestionably right on one point: the assumptive, un-earned respect afforded all religion because it is religion really does need to go away. For just one example, Scientology deserves no respect at all. But the parishioners of a theoretical Saint John's Lutheran Church, who work to help all and harm none in the name of love, shouldn't suffer for Scientology's manifold crimes. Rather, it's Scientology which should do that.
Like I've said before, I'm theistic. But I'm not Wee Mama. (Truth be told, I want to know what the F got into her; she didn't use to be such a jerk.....)
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Pages