General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe stuff of nightmares --
Copied from Debra Porta. The stuff of nightmares --
"Justice Alito's invocation of Sir Matthew Hale in his leaked majority opinion is so, so much more fucked up than people realize. I'm a professor with a PhD, and my area of expertise happens to be women and gender in the early modern era (1500-1700). Here is what you need to know.
Hale therefore wrote in his posthumously published book Historia Placitorum Coronæ (1713) that marital rape was totally legal. In fact, because a man owned a woman's body as it was an extension of his own to do with whatever he willed, he was incapable of marital rape.
The logic was that you can't rape something that isn't considered an independent human being. Your wife's body is yours and you can't rape yourself. This is the logic Alito is upholding when he invokes Matthew Hale. But it gets worse.
Let's say a woman vocalized her opinion and it ran contrary to her husband's. She didn't want sex. Hale believed that this put her in violation of her marital vows. She was literally breaking the law. Women who denied men sex needed to be punished.
There was a whole set of laws at the time specifically on the punishment of women who spoke up against the men in their lives. They didn't have the legal authority to say no to sex because they were not legally independent human beings.
Keep in mind that Hale and others also viewed a father's role in a similar way. The daughter had no bodily autonomy, & it was a father's duty to "correct" his children as long as he did so within the law. Daughters were groomed from an early age to be obedient to future husbands.
It should be no surprise that Hale was responsible for the trial and execution of women for witchcraft and that his legal opinion would be used as a base for the execution of women and children by the state both in England and the Americas.
The big witch trial Hale was known for was the 1662 trial of Rose Cullender and Amy Duny. It followed many of the trial conventions of the day with bonkers stories of toads, vomiting pins, etc. Both women were widows and found guilty.
Women who were executed by the state for witchcraft were overwhelmingly poor and single. Most were widows. Hale & his contemporaries found independent women to be a serious threat in society. She was not owned by father or husband, which meant that she was an unnatural presence.
Women without a man to tightly control their behaviors were viewed as extremely susceptible to immorality and becoming a Satanic force in the community. Hale believed it was in society's best interest for men of the state to step in and control these women.
A woman's primary purpose in adulthood was to be married, be obedient to a man, & to have children. Alito invoking Hale in his opinion made it clear that he also thinks this too. It's his duty as a man to put the bodily fate of women in the hands of states run by white men.
Keep in mind that Hale was only talking about white Christian women. Women who didn't fall into this category were debated as even being women. They were viewed as less than human with even less rights. The rule of thumb didn't apply; they weren't worthy of such restraint.
Are you starting to see why Alito's invocation of Hale is so deeply, deeply fucked up on so many insane levels that there isn't a way to possibly overreact to how shitty his legal standing is here? Rage, horror, disgust, etc. are not deep enough reactions to his legal opinion.
And if you think Hale being invoked by Alito was something out of left field, think again. Hale is all over our legal system. The easiest application to find was the Salem Witch Trials, but his influence on our laws is much more insidious than that. Marital rape was not completely outlawed in the United States until 1993.
When Alito talks about going back to what the founding fathers meant, he is talking about all of this shit. Women's bodies being legally owned and controlled by men. He knows many Christian white women are groomed theologically to agree and will vote for this patriarchal control.
Alito knows that by kicking reproductive control back to the states that he is putting an incredible amount of power in the hands of the men who control these communities. He knows that white men are disproportionately in charge of these places.
Alito knows how much power and influence local churches have on local leadership. He knows most of these institutions are controlled by men. He is counting on it. He knows the biggest threat to women are the men in their homes and communities.
Justice Alito and men like him do not see women as independent human beings with their own human rights. They see us as incapable of making our own decisions. They consider men to be divinely appointed to rule over women.
This is not an exaggeration. If they think of white Christian women this way, imagine what they think about women of color, women of non-Christian groups, or trans women and men. The utter disdain towards them is deep, disturbing, incomprehensible, and violent.
@Literature_Lady"

Atticus
(15,124 posts)Delphinus
(12,180 posts)educational, though thoroughly disgusting.
I do not know what we have become as a nation.
Justice matters.
(7,857 posts)And nothing is, has been, and will be done about it.
multigraincracker
(34,823 posts)on to only church(bought) approved divorce.
Magoo48
(5,870 posts)if the majority of citizens do not muster the active enthusiasm to put forth whatever amount of effort required to defeat the corrupt minority.
I will suggest, at the risk of being roundly criticized for demeaning Dems, we have not yet come close to levels of the above mentioned active enthusiasm currently required.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)Keep them thinking they still have rights, far more than they actually do. And do it across a wide scattering of life aspects. That way it only affects individuals not groups. Except the "wrong" groups; they're attacked overtly but they are also "other" so again people don't see it affecting themselves.
We're nearly there, 2022 and '24 will be the crossing point, I believe. If the GOP maintains power they will have the pieces in place to do so indefinitely.
keithbvadu2
(40,915 posts)Jesus spoke strongly against divorce and possible resultant adultery from remarriage.
That's one of many parts of the Bible that can be ignored.
multigraincracker
(34,823 posts)Reagan came along. He was divorced, remarried and passed no-fault divorce in Ca. So, they dropped that issue and took up gay marriage.
MuseRider
(34,445 posts)like this was more than a mistake away. I was right. I remember the days when you could be threatened or even treated badly and nobody was there to help you find your way out. It was always a shrug and the attitude of "what are you going to do about it, it is what it is." All of that followed by a pat pat on the head and a shrug that the "little lady" just does not quite get it...yet.
Joinfortmill
(17,188 posts)Would be masterbation. And I suspect he was against that. His was: Logic of the Loonies.
NullTuples
(6,017 posts)The advantage in this situation of religion over logic is that the rules of religion don't have to make sense.
Response to babylonsister (Original post)
Joinfortmill This message was self-deleted by its author.
OldBaldy1701E
(7,151 posts)Alito knows how much power and influence local churches have on local leadership. He knows most of these institutions are controlled by men. He is counting on it. He knows the biggest threat to women are the men in their homes and communities.
And yet, we still allow men to pretend as if they are the greatest thing since sliced bread. We also keep on giving the churches that power because we keep deferring to them even as we have evolved past them. It is not progress and change that is going to destroy this country. It is the stodgy refusal to realize that our society changes and that 'going back to how things were' is just a euphemism for 'I want things like they were when me and mine had all the power!'. That is all it is.
ZonkerHarris
(25,577 posts)Alito is by nature a fucking coward.
NowISeetheLight
(3,993 posts)This must be the history Alito is referring too when he wrote only historical traditions should be protected by the constitution.
Lonestarblue
(12,226 posts)Many were monks with no real knowledge of women or religious leaders with their own backward ideas about how women should be treated. They lived in ages when men totally dominated women, who had few rights, and accusations of witchcraft were made to control and punish women. I have never believed much of the Bible because the story of Adam and Eve was written by a man or men who obviously hated women and their influence on men, and I believe in science too much to think it possible for Eve to be formed from a rib.
But the story of Eve became a convenient means to blame women for leading men astray. Is it any wonder that women are blamed for the sins of man, or that even today in extremist religions like Islam and white evangelicalism women are believed to have no purpose other than sex and bearing children. Weve all heard or read the excuses of the domestic abusers who blame the woman for causing him to beat or or the rape apologists who say how a woman dresses causes rape or that victims should just lie back and enjoy it.
I am so disgusted with where we are as a country today, and where were likely headedback to the Dark Ages indeed. The religious right is determined to turn the US into a dystopian reality.
Ferrets are Cool
(22,078 posts)Disgusted and extremely angry with a certain sect of people.
wnylib
(25,183 posts)an excuse for centuries for devaluing women.
Sociologically, the story is written by a society of nomadic tribal herders and reflects their reaction to the fertility religions of the agricultural societies and cities around them. Snakes were fertility symbols.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Brenda
(1,463 posts)I recall a former gym friend who began a campaign to convince me that as a middle aged woman there was still time and ways for me to have a child. At first I politely told her I never wanted children and never would. She was so well groomed to believe women MUST be mothers in order to have any worth (or chance to see Jeebus) that she ignored every thing I said. Finally I just ignored her and left that gym. Saw her recently and she looked beat down, way older than she should look and she was shocked I didn't hug her. Nope.
If I can't control my biological destiny then I am not a free human being. And fuck you for trying to take away my freedom.
babylonsister
(171,810 posts)welcome to DU!
Brenda
(1,463 posts)I can't believe the rapidity with which the world is changing for the absolute worse. I used to be worried about how climate change was going to dictate our daily lives but the religious nuts are obviously trying to make social issues affect us first.
Are they all prepping for the End Times?
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I mean, I know it has been in the works for years, but it just seems like it is snowballing and if we don't keep our heads above water in the November elections, it is going to go downhill even faster. We won't even know what hit us. They will take the opportunity to destroy every gain we have made in the last century.
I can't say I am optimistic. Oh, and welcome to DU!
Brenda
(1,463 posts)Can't say I'm optimistic either. But I'm trying to live "in the moment" so as not to go postal.
Jedi Guy
(3,324 posts)It's certainly the case for the Quiverfull movement, and while not taken to quite that extreme, is also largely true in most evangelical Christian communities, as well as the Catholic Church. They regard a woman who cannot have children as something other than a "real woman," with the usual term of art being that she's not "whole." I've also heard the term "damaged goods." So your "friend's" hot take on the matter doesn't much surprise me.
And it's not just religious communities, either. My wife had endometriosis several years before we met, which resulted in a double oophorectomy. She was given the option to have several of her eggs frozen and she declined, which was met with frank bewilderment by her care team, to the point of having two lengthy conversations on the topic before her wishes were honored. The idea that a woman wouldn't want to have children was viewed as wildly abnormal.
When our relationship turned "serious" (for want of a better term) she was very blunt and direct in informing me that she couldn't have children and was astonished when I responded with, "Okay, so what?" For the men she'd dated prior to meeting me, her inability to have kids was a deal-breaker and they had no further interest in a relationship once they found out.
A lot of people just can't wrap their heads around a concept of "womanhood" that doesn't involve kids, unfortunately.
Welcome to DU!
Brenda
(1,463 posts)I can relate to your wife having suffered from endometriosis since my teen years. However BCP kept it under control for the most part. I was fortunate enough to only have male partners who knew I was not willing and possibly unable to have a child. Unfortunately that attitude about us not being "real" women has led me to live kind of an isolated life. But that's okay, I don't want to be around the fundy nuts!
niyad
(122,093 posts)Women's Rights And Issues? Thanks in advance.
babylonsister
(171,810 posts)bringthePaine
(1,806 posts)Hekate
(96,103 posts)Layzeebeaver
(1,903 posts)Wounded Bear
(61,265 posts)jaxexpat
(7,794 posts)The mentality that permits white men to dismiss women, even subconsciously, digs deeply into the soul of mankind. It, by extension, encourages acceptance of primal injustice and tolerance for any number of crimes against the female, the non-white, the foreigner and the stranger. It's not necessarily in the DNA either. It's in the neo-cortex of the thief and bully. The cunning ones who sneak to high power, fearing and despising their constituency but upholding the pretenses of benevolence and condescending tolerance for their "frailties". It's in the pastor who assumes divinity and its pathway to moral authority just as in the brutal ignorance and stagnation of the Taliban. Same result. The mindlessness of neo-conservatism is the perfect incubational environment, the barren pasture to husband such attitudes and actions. It's too predictable that a society ruled by such daily disproven precepts would cling to anchorage, repairing its leaks and reinforcing its chains, its citizens suffering their pointless little lives in inner dread that the winds and tide will change, and ship would sail.
dlk
(12,557 posts)We have to find a way around the deluge of divide and conquer tactics heaped on women by opportunistic politicians or our country will only continue further in this dark direction. The first step is recognizing whats happening. Thank you for this post.
kiri
(914 posts)One has to wonder how he treats his wife and what she thinks of her position.
They are Catholic, so the usual evangelical tenets do not apply.
dalton99a
(86,338 posts)2naSalit
(95,239 posts)Still believe this bullshit is real because they can't be bothered to learn anything that shows they can't have everything their way. These men believe that women are to be fucked, anything else is gratuitous if you chose to extend such luxuries.
Men who believe this shit or play along because it gets them what they want and hold power over large populations are the greatest danger to our survival on the planet that has ever been.
Upthevibe
(9,400 posts)Progressive dog
(7,353 posts)That is a well written and persuasive essay.
ancianita
(39,564 posts)CrispyQ
(39,025 posts)
Damn! I had no idea it was that late.
Thanks for posting, although reading it made my blood boil.
Botany
(73,176 posts)Count on it.
JudyM
(29,537 posts)Though now we know.
Makes citing the Bible as justification in their opinions (e.g., Bowers V Hardwick, the GA sodomy case that was overturned by Lawrence) seem almost reasonable, by comparison.
Demovictory9
(34,317 posts)Achilleaze
(15,543 posts)