The barrage of late, regarding reproductive legislation shouldn’t be viewed as an assault only on women, but an attempt to curtail and contain the entire population, men included. It’s a broad, scorched earth policy that won’t end with this patchwork of bills.
They hate us for our freedom, and I’m not talking about the “terrorists”.
To be clear in this, I would say that one could be sympathetic in the past with those anti-abortion individuals who seemed sincere in their belief that it was wrong, even if you disagreed with them. But here’s the thing -- those beliefs never seemed to be combined with a desire to provide easily accessible birth control or even an acceptance of a sexuality that didn’t result in procreation.
The more recent assaults further flesh out their worldview. They are going after not just abortion, but the very funding that prevents unwanted pregnancies. It’s an ownership ethos that is punishing and immovable.
Those with these ideas seem to feel something of a punitive pull -- another may be less restrained in some manner, and they can’t abide that -- I’m not free they exude, and in something of a hazing mentality, want others to go through what they did, and be just as miserable. It goes beyond sexuality and broaches the very limits of what we call free will.
It’s not really a shocking development when you consider that we are all considered simple consumers by most in power. Ownership and boundary issues stem from that, and can become cherished topics of the authoritarians. The bodies of women are simply easy pickings. You are pretty freaking vulnerable waddling around at 8 ½ months, and forcing that upon the many is a magnificent control method.
It has morphed into something beyond abortion, into private sexual behavior -- an area the “anti-government” types can’t seem to get enough of. Freedom of any kind is feared. Any hint of anarchism (and I’m talking about the lack of external controllers on individual freedom -- not the more skewed and corrupted notion of that word) is terrifying to those in power. I suspect that this was the main reason for some of the brutal Occupy take-downs.
Sure, they didn��t want wealth disparity being discussed, but I think they also feared a model of concern for communal well-being. That goes against the constraints that cause us all to stand in line for the latest hideous cubicle job, and step on each other to get it.
The inconvenient fact that the US government was built on a notion of the separation of church and state is not a concern to these types, either. They can’t fathom that they would ever not be in power -- that their own rights could truly be at risk.
This exposes the hypocrisy of their constant bellowing out as victims. If they really perceived their station as such, they might push for protective measures against the will of a tyrannical group being thrust upon others. It’s an amazing unstated assertion that they have no true fear of anyone else ever really being in control -- the railing against Muslims/Buddhist/Atheists/Others is pure theater.
And the true believers seem to be carrying water for those who just want the populace under control -- they benefit from that arrangement, and will never have to live under the same rules. They know their wealth and power would preclude that. I suspect they enjoy the show.
This control can force men to stay at awful jobs to support the family, just as it can do to the woman. You are certainly not likely to become an activist during dangerous times if you fear for the survival of your children.
And having kids sometimes ties individuals into a lifestyle they would otherwise not choose. This is not to say that children are entirely punitive! But it’s a statement of fact that upon having children, most do become a more malleable and frightened follower of social mores. And it’s one thing to enter into this voluntarily, but quite another to be pushed into it.
Author Daniel Quinn had a term: “erratic retaliation”. He posited that unpredictable responses from certain individuals or groups could elicit better behavior, overall. You would have to consider that someone might react in an unpredictable manner to your own overarching behavior. I would term individuals who quit easily over labor abuses to be “erratic retaliators”.
This sort of thing can make an employer more cautious when they consider extending future unreasonable requests on their employees. High unemployment serves in the same manner, as do the chains of student loan debt. Give folks few options and many mouths to feed, and they will not retaliate in any manner.
And I’m speaking, of course, about those who respond in a clean and decisive manner that they will not tolerate abuses -- not full-blown psychotic episodes that hurt others, such as going postal. We seem to still have those capacities sadly intact in some of our population. That’s just the flailing out of angst with no redeemable quality behind it.
I would extend that this being termed “a war on women” is not entirely accurate. It’s really a war on the very nature of freedom and the ability to use your life as you see fit -- for men and women.
Don’t be lulled into a false sense of security if you lack a uterus. The women will, of course, suffer more in all of this, but make no mistake that this is just another method to own and control those of us they see as nothing but cogs in the enormous machine. And that machine churns out endless growth and gluttony for the few.
As it is with most things, there is a broadness that encompasses and swallows everyone in the interconnectedness -- the diminished humanity and loss of freedom will not observe boundaries.