Regarding the ECONOMICS of Griswold/Roe and Male Resentment...
Last edited Tue Feb 22, 2022, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)
Ruth Bader Ginsberg went to Law school in an era where deans used to invite the young men students over for “tea” or dinner, as a way of socializing them, introducing them around, and so forth. Maybe they still do that at elite schools, where making connections is of paramount importance. But I doubt they still do this, as they did to RBG: Any woman who managed to make it past the huge barriers to be there in the first place would be asked, upon introduction to the group, to please explain why she felt justified in taking the place that belonged to a man..
As women gained personal control over their fertility and could choose when or if to have a child, they were increasingly able to move into education and job categories that men believed belonged to men.
And a great many men (not all, please understand) have resented it like hell. From pathetic incels to the dean of a prestigious law school, to the US Senate, that resentment has not gone away.
It affects the military, the civilian police and firefighters, all manner of well-paid blue collar skilled crafts. These are men’s jobs; what makes a woman think she belongs here? Harassment remains, both subtle and blatant.
It affects choices for the SCOTUS right now. It’s the misogyny in the Senate. As Shirley Chisholm once memorably said, she suffered worse from misogyny than from racism.
And if all else fails, there is always rape (see: US Military and Military Academies). Because rape is not about sex — it is about control and domination. And what does rape do? It deposits the seed of the dominator into the body of the conquered. That is why it is and always has been a tool of war.
To return and to be 100% explicit: allowing women to control their own fertility allows them to impinge on economic and social territory some men believes is theirs by right. Just as if those women had a right.
I’m better today. I’ve regained my footing, and I am angry.
This is how it hit me yesterday
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216379304
= new reply since forum marked as read
I mentioned the 3 Michigan AG candidates who want to overturn Griswold in my Women's History class today. I teach mostly retired adults. They were as aghast as we are.
Do you think it's too big a statement to say, "War exists so men can rape"? I believe this to be true albeit sometimes in an indirect way.
From the myth of Eve being the temptress who led to Adam's and therefore 'mankind's' downfall, to the burning of so-called witches throughout the centuries, women have suffered for men's impotence and inability to singlehandedly perpetuate the species.
Random thought: If the dynamic of a harem were reversed and 100 women *had a man, instead of the opposite situation, this would represent a much more sensible way to reproduce and would probably ensure the survival of homo sapiens. All you have to do is flip the 'ownership' angle around.
Love you Hekate. 
