Okay, I sort of understand the need of some Macho Men to dominate women.
But what is going on in the heads of women who also support being dominated?
I know that I catch a lot of flack when I say this, but I believe that
thousands of years of being conditioned to believe that there is some
Great and All Wise God, who sent down His word to *MEN to put into
writing, ordering women to submit to men, and men to submit to God,
has totally brain washed the Human Race.
Now I am not a fanatic on this subject. In fact, I find it quite
amusing. I listen to all of those Cubans who fled their country and
settled in "Little Havana", Florida. They all hate that dictator
Castro with unconditional hatred. But they are mostly good Catholics,
praising the Dictator who proclaims Himself to be God Almighty. And
why do they do this? Well simply put, it's because for some strange
reason, God Almighty agrees with mortal men that they should be top
dog here on Earth. Top dog over women and children. Top dog over all
living creatures. Top dog over all life on Earth. And Master of all
that is upon and within Earth.
Of course I can understand wanting to continue upholding such a God,
and such a mandate to dominate everything.
But how is it that women buy into this absolute show of male vanity?
As far as my understanding goes, this arrangement is purely man made.
If there ever was a need for men to dominate women, that day is long
gone. Yet, men dominate women, and women allow it to be. It is
learned behavior, pure and simple. And it can be unlearned if we want
to work at it.
Here's another thought. The Bible teaches that God created Adam and
then took from him a rib from which He made Eve. Eve was Adams help
mate. But in the Garden of Eden, food was plentiful and there
appeared to be no threat to their lives. So what was Adam's end of
the deal? Eve was the one who carried their children, gave birth to
them, nurtured them and prepared a home for their comfort. How is it
that the Bible appoints Eve as the Help Mate, rather than Adam? Today
we can ask the same question. What is Man's responsibility in this
partnership with woman? Could it be that in today's world Man's only
function is to provide the sperm needed to fertilize the woman's egg?
Like the dull drone male bee, Man waits for the call to provide his
sperm, and then his function is over, and he can be driven from the
village, or killed. Is it this fear that drives Men to continue to
bully Women?
It makes some sense, when we also see a Ruling Class that has come to
the place where it is no longer serving any purpose. If it loses its
power hold over the working class, it will be doomed for lack of
anything positive to offer.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/8/16, Roger Loran Bailey <dmarc-noreply@freelists.org> wrote:
> http://themilitant.com/2016/8046/804662.html
> The Militant (logo)
>
> Vol. 80/No. 46 December 12, 2016
>
>
> US rulers' attacks on women's right to abortion
>
>
> Below are excerpts from the new book The Clintons' Anti-Working-Class
> Record: Why Washington Fears Working People by Jack Barnes, national
> secretary of the Socialist Workers Party. This section, which takes up
> the offensive against women's right to choose abortion that has
> continued under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, is
> based on a public talk given in March 2001, just after President Bill
> Clinton left office. Copyright © 2016 by Pathfinder Press. Reprinted by
> permission.
>
> BY JACK BARNES
> Over the quarter century since the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling,
> the political backlash from sections of the bourgeoisie against
> decriminalization of a woman's decision to end a pregnancy has been at
> the center of assaults on the social and economic gains of women. It is
> part of the broader attack on the rights and living conditions of
> working people.
> Despite George W. Bush's election campaign rhetoric, the new
> administration is no more likely than its predecessors to attempt a
> head-on assault against a woman's right to choose. Nonetheless, attacks
> on abortion rights continue, and they've been made easier by the
> character and content of the 1973 court ruling.
>
> Roe v. Wade was based not on a woman's right "to equal protection of the
> laws" guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, but on
> medical criteria instead. During the first three months ("trimester"),
> the court ruled, the decision to terminate a pregnancy "must be left to
> the medical judgment of a pregnant woman's attending physician" (not to
> the woman herself, but to a doctor!).
>
> At the same time, the court allowed state governments to ban most
> abortions after "viability," described in Roe v. Wade as the point at
> which a fetus is "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb" —
> something that medical advances inevitably make earlier and earlier in
> the pregnancy.
>
> Opponents of women's rights have taken advantage of the Supreme Court's
> "medical" criteria from the outset. And they've made the most of the
> fact that the 1973 court decision was handed down while a raging debate
> had not yet been fought out and won by those who insisted that a woman's
> decision on this medical procedure falls under the protection of our
> hard-won constitutional rights.
>
> The Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1868, was a
> direct conquest of the Second American Revolution. Among its provisions,
> the amendment established that neither federal nor state authorities
> could "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
> of the laws" — not to any male person, not to any person of a particular
> race, not just to any person who is a citizen. No government could deny
> those rights to any person — period. That's what the Fourteenth
> Amendment says.
>
> Nonetheless, for more than a century, one federal court after another
> denied women just that. It wasn't until 1971 that the US Supreme Court —
> in an opinion written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, a Nixon appointee
> — finally affirmed that women were included in the Fourteenth
> Amendment's "equal protection under the laws." 1
>
> That shift, of course, didn't come as a sudden "judicial epiphany." It
> was the product of victories won in the streets in the 1950s and 1960s
> by millions of fighters for Black rights, as well as ongoing
> mobilizations against Washington's murderous war in Vietnam. Those
> battles, in turn, gave impetus to a new wave of activity and
> consciousness around the fight for women's rights.
>
> But when the Supreme Court issued its opinion on abortion rights in
> 1973, the justices retreated. They rejected building on their ruling
> just two years earlier affirming women's equal protection under the
> laws. Instead, they issued Roe v. Wade, which — in the words of one
> former US solicitor general — read more "like a set of hospital rules
> and regulations."
>
> Since then, state governments have loaded on more than seven hundred
> laws erecting obstacles to women exercising their constitutional right —
> age restrictions, "consent" by parents, longer waiting periods,
> mandatory "counseling" about "alternatives," safety, and many more.
> Congress and the White House have barred (1) federal Medicaid funding
> for abortions, even those that are "medically necessary" (the 1976 "Hyde
> amendment"); (2) federal insurance coverage for abortions for women in
> the armed forces (except in cases of rape or incest, or danger to the
> woman's life), or use of military medical facilities for the procedure
> even if paid by other means; and (3) US government funding of "foreign
> aid" programs if abortion-related assistance is included in the program
> (the 1973 "Helms amendment").
>
> These "restrictions" have taken a heavy toll. Among other things, today
> there is not a single medical facility providing abortions in a third of
> all cities and nearly 90 percent of the counties in the United States —
> 90 percent! As a result, the extra cost of travel alone means that
> working-class women and those living in rural areas are at a big
> disadvantage in having access to this medical procedure.
>
>
>
>
>
> 1. For the first time since ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in
> 1868, the US Supreme Court in its 1971 Reed v. Reed decision struck down
> a state law on grounds that it violated the amendment's Equal Protection
> Clause by discriminating against women. The Idaho state law in dispute
> gave preference to men over women in appointment as administrators of
> estates.
>
>
> Related articles:
> A victory in pushing back assaults on women's rights
>
>
>
> Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home
>
>
>
>
>
No comments:
Post a Comment