Showing posts with label women's rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women's rights. Show all posts

Monday, February 24, 2025

Republican Suppression of Women

 The Republican Party has steadily advanced a campaign to drive women out of positions of power in public and corporate life. But have they, really?

From Phyllis Schlafly onward, the trend has tilted to dump women back into dependent, subservient roles in which their only power comes from their ability to manipulate their heterosexual husbands. Some factions of the party now openly seek to reduce the ability of women to register to vote. A few even talk about repealing the right altogether.

A snippet in a summary of Mitch McConnell's career caught my eye. A woman named Janet Mullens, who worked on his senate campaign in 1984, was quoted as saying, "He intuitively knew that women worked harder to prove themselves. He was woke before woke, I guess."

That's not woke. That's exploitation. Republicans have kept it so that many women would be discouraged from trying, but the few who do try will be so incredibly motivated that they will do four times as much for two-thirds the pay, provided you start them off at half pay first so that two-thirds looks like significant progress.

Sexism being rampant in the male, regardless of party affiliation, Democrats have been slow to inch in the direction of full parity and respect. That said, they've advanced a bit further than the right wing on this, because their definition of liberty encompasses a more realistically diverse population. But the sentiment will remain in the male psyche. Guard against it always. "Not all men" think that way, but the attitude has centuries of cultural reinforcement.

The question boils down to whether allowing all roles eliminates some by default, and how the women filling those roles will be fairly compensated. A woman who chooses to remain childless or delay reproduction to pursue a career or other interests should not devalue one who chooses stay at home with the kids. The reverse is also true. But it keeps getting framed as a war between two monolithic positions. That's without even factoring in sex and gender diversity that further complicates the binary choices so beloved of simple minds.

Compensation extends beyond a paycheck. We've lost sight of that in this world where billionaires strive to become trillionaires while we all watch from below, some in admiration, some in horror. The very fact that no amount of money or power seems to be enough shows that what they devour is almost instantly digested, leaving them craving more. If it was just drugs or sugar, they wouldn't be hurting as many people, but its the lifeblood of economies they're guzzling with vampirish lust.

There's more than one way to play the game. Women seeking power or proximity to power work their way into the existing system as hardworking servants or bejeweled decorations. Many of them you see today on the right have themselves made into caricatures of femininity, to the extent that's medically possible. Sorry, Marge. You'll have to get by on CrossFit and crazy. But the others go for the boob jobs and hair extensions along with their semiautomatic weapons and flamethrowers. They leave behind a trail of dead dogs and goats, sticky puddles in theater seats, and other attention seeking behavior to prove that they are no shrinking violets. Will there always be a place for them in this and every future conservative administration? Or are they energetically building their own prison? And are they secretly looking forward to that?

No woman could stay in the Trump administration without deferring to Big Daddy. As feisty as they act, it's still in the framework of what makes a girl attractive to the menfolk. "Hell, she can shoot a gun, change the oil in her pickup truck, cook supper, and still fck my brains out that night and tell me I was great!" Yeah, then she spends a suspiciously long time shut in the bathroom with her "electric toothbrush," but let's not pick at it too much.

From the women's side, flirtatious behavior is the dangerous game they use to make the men feel generous. Occasionally they'll get too close and have to put up with sexual assault, but that's just part of being a large-animal trainer. You're going to get stomped, or kicked, or bitten sometimes. Maybe some of you die. It's a small price to pay for keeping men manly. 

The tyranny of normality demands that women be that way and support men being locked into the hierarchical world view that has framed every power structure among religions, nations, and corporations throughout history. You're either climbing the ladder or you're one of the rungs being stepped on. It remains true as long as we decide that it must be that way. Perhaps it is genetically inescapable, as conservatives have long asserted. I wonder, however, what some of the shrimpier members of the alpha male booster club would do if they were trapped naked in a locker room with a handful of larger assailants bent on power-raping them to assert dominance. Just you and whatever you were born with, against them. No weapons, only strength and whatever skill you have chosen to cultivate for your physical defense. This is the world you chose.

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

Evolution exemption

The debate over abortion rights and birth control stems from our most basic instincts, filtered through our language and thought processes.

The hardest hard core opposes all abortion and birth control. You copulate, you live with the consequences. That is a very naturalistic viewpoint, albeit frequently espoused by people who claim that dominion over all of nature was granted to us by a deity. We can selectively breed any species but our own. Our own species must proliferate without restraint, to be selectively killed in arguments over esoteric points of philosophy, or conflict over possession of natural resources.

A debatable theory that the use of cesarean section births has already shaped physical evolution points out that pregnancy and childbirth would be fatal to some women. In the naturalistic view, these deaths are necessary to purge those defective genes. If God had meant those women to survive, He would have given them wider pelvises.

From a practical standpoint, if we develop a significant population that can only give birth surgically, we have created a dependent group that will die out if they are cut off from medical facilities at the wrong time. This can happen in a number of ways, not least of which is by cutting health care in a developed nation, or by the collapse of civilization in general as a result of an overblown argument about esoteric points of philosophy, or conflict over possession of natural resources.

Fertility is destiny in a world without birth control. Conceive and be replicated, or conceive and be eliminated. The so-called sexual revolution granted control over fertility to those most affected by it. Horny people, mostly men, hoped that this would lead to lots of recreational copulation. Control-freak prudes seize on that aspect alone to excoriate it as the foulest sin. In all the smoke and chaos of that debate, the fact that fertility control gives women the freedom to live productive non-sexual lives is submerged in the swinging melee of religious symbols and insults.

The control freaks say that a woman who wants to live a non-sexual life can simply refuse to participate in sex. No other mitigation is necessary. Reality constantly refutes this.

Everything that affects birth and death shapes evolution. Because humans react to ideas, not just to the passage of genetic material and the survival of better or worse hunters and gatherers, social and political choices shape whether the species of tomorrow goes upward and outward on intellectual advancement or devolves into superstitious hunters and gatherers again.

Our instincts constantly speak to our intellect in ancient, wordless ways we often do not recognize as the primitive promptings that they are. We call this the subconscious. Sometimes the subconscious draws on intellectual concepts running subroutines, but more often you can find the biological prompting that predates the invention of words. The ancient world called. It wants its species back.