Joan Walsh has a fascinating column out about why right wingers chose to declare war on women, right now, in 2012, even as it clearly is working against them politically. She presents the argument that on some probably unconscious level they fear that Big Gumbint is trying to steal their womenfolk.
I want to emphasize that this is probably subconscious. But what we’re looking at are deeply insecure men (and some women) who resent, even fear, anything that helps women be less dependent on men. Their nonsensical rhetoric about how “government dependency” is tearing families apart actually makes some sense if you understand that somewhere in their heads, “tearing families apart” translates into “independent women will reject me”
Be sure to read Walsh’s whole column for the argument.
I enjoyed Walsh’s article, it rings true given the insecure conservative men I know. It also gave me cheer, as this is the only answer Romney and especially Santorum (who I bet will be Romney’s VP) have to offer. Great way to paint yourselves into an irrelevant, medieval corner, guys.
Brilliant article. Thanks for the link, maha.
Here’s a quote from Murray that I wanted to shine some light on.
“[Liberals] will have to acknowledge that the traditional family plays a special, indispensable role in human flourishing and that social policy must be based on that truth.”
No, we don’t have to acknowledge any such thing!
What we Liberals are saying, or at least I am, is that we believe very much in the concept of “family.” We’re the ones saying that all of the people, and the creatures on this Earth, are part of one big ‘family.’
What we are saying it that the term “family” can be expanded beyond the traditional, “Me man – me go to work! You woman – you work in home! Me – bread winner! You – make dinner!” model.
What we believe is that two homosexuals or trannies, can provide as loving and nurturing a family environment as the traditional male + female model. If you look hard enough through history, there are many examples of homosexuals raising children. They just weren’t open about it – not because the didn’t want to, but, with the exceptions of a few societies, they couldn’t.
And the fact that Conservatives are scared, and are lashing out, is proof that more and more people are coming to accept the same thing.
For millenia, men have used government and organized religion to gain and hold power over women.
Now, they’re losing their grip. And that’s a GOOD thing. Frightening, in the short term – and long term if they continue to win. But, eventually… eventually, men will either learn to accept women on equal terms, or they will separate themselves farther and farther from the mainstream – which is flowing away from them.
The thing is, when it comes to family “traditional” means a lot of different things. Whose tradition are we talking about? The role of family in society and civilization has shifted all over the place throughout history. In western/European civilization the idea that the nuclear family is some kind of cornerstone of civilization is relatively recent, going back maybe two or three centuries. Before that, “family” was only important to the nobility, and then it was more like a business, and marriages were mergers. Parentage determined who could claim what.
In Confucianism the family really is the cornerstone of civilization, but traditional Chinese families were polygamous, I believe.
It is heartening that today’s youth, even in a Republican bulwark such as my community, are just naturally rejecting the Republican bigoted foolishness as a matter of course. I do believe this is proof that this type of belief system must be actively taught and continually refreshed to maintain its existence, and is in no way natural or obvious, just as us liberals have said for decades if not millenia.
Yes, way back, Chinese families were polygamous – for those who could afford it.
And the “traditional family” in America of a more recent vintage. Think if the Revolution meets Currier & Ives meets Norman Rockwell. And a lot of kids prior to Ol’ Norman worked from and early age either on the farm or in some factory.
Liberals and Progressives made that ‘traditional American family’ you Conservative idjits now claim to revere possible – mostly through changes in childhood and labor laws fought for by Liberals.
Most churches didn’t give a cr*p what the kiddies did, as long as they attended services with their parents, and that the parents tithed or contributed in some way.
So, Conservatives, get off your f*cking high horses!
Without liberalism, today’s traditional American family would consist of one or both parents dead or sick, a few children buried due to childhood illness and/or overwork, and the living ones working desperately to keep the rest of the family and their siblings alive, fed, and sheltered.
So, Conservatives, you can kiss my fat Liberal ass!!!
I do believe this is proof that this type of belief system must be actively taught and continually refreshed to maintain its existence, and is in no way natural or obvious…
I wish that were so, Dan. The kind of belief system the GOP teaches has its roots back in the times when a male’s natural advantage in brute strength placed him in the traditional, dominant role these people glorify. They can’t handle the various kinds of equality women can enjoy in an age where brute strength doesn’t mean as much, or is even counterproductive in getting along.
I’d go one step farther than Walsh, by saying that given how the modern GOP is all about destroying modernity, it really represents a not too thinly veiled effort to go back to earlier times when a man’s brute strength was important and made him dominant. “So simple, a caveman could do it” – isn’t too far removed from the way these people think.
It is heartening to see young people reject this straitjacket of a future for themselves, but I wouldn’t kid myself when it comes to saying that the GOP’s longings for an ordered past are unnatural. The kind of society they long for was very natural before technology leveled everything between the sexes, and they’re doing all they can to recreate it.
What I remember about the 60s and 70s is that was the time when it was discovered that all those perfect traditional marriages weren’t so perfect after all. It was discovered that women married to low wage earning men and women married to prominent men and wives in between were being beaten up regularly by this “man of the house.” It was believed for a long time that women just had to live with being beaten up. This is what part of the women’s movement was about. Also, some of those so-called happy “traditional” families were a result of “shotgun” weddings because the women (without birth control) would do it because they loved the man and got pregnant; but, he didn’t love her let alone respect her in the morning. He was just looking to get a piece of the action. But, the mores of the period forced him into a marriage he did not want. Additionally, in these nice respectable “traditional” families, children were being beaten and molested. Is this what we really want to go back to? I don’t think so. And one other thing about those “traditional” marriages and families, it was okay for the man to be a philanderer. To be continued.
There seemed to be a spike in this trend (worse than the usual everyday Republican misogyny) right after the whole Komen debacle, which the Republicans thought they could get away with. But they didn’t get away with it, being a huge public outcry about it, which probably took the Republicans aback.
So I’ve been assuming the recent spike has been a sort of “payback” for the outcry about Komen. What the Republicans don’t get is that its a losing battle.
I guess they’ll have to find out the hard way.
It’s the economy that’s tearing/tore traditional families apart. And Santorum’s a jerk.
It’s like they say…Politicans are like diapers, they need to be changed..and for the same reasons.
I think somebody gave Ricky a reach around in gym class, and it effected him severely. Who knows, maybe Father McGinty put a move on him.
Swami,
Not only was Rick a Catholic alter boy, but he went to Penn State – and we all know what went on there with Sandusky, don’t we? ‘Ground ‘n Pound.’