Swiped jobs

There was a big event today. I carefully ignored it, even turning off hourly Canadian news reports (a perk of living in Detroit is we can get the national Canadian radio system). This afternoon I went off to a movie – Moana, quite enjoyable. The only news of the event that I heard was at 6:30 this evening during the beginning of NPR’ s economic news program Marketplace. And that was plenty.

In the bit I heard the nasty guy talked about how all the jobs have fled overseas and he was going to bring them back. That made it sound like China came here and swiped jobs. While China’s labor costs were indeed a factor, it was American corporate leaders – such as the fat cats in the nasty guy’s cabinet – who actually terminated jobs here and created them there. And they did it for their own pockets.

Another little segment on the show was a small business owner saying the cost of health insurance has recently been larger than his profits. He’s looking for relief from the Affordable Care Act. To me this sounds like a great reason to question why health insurance is coupled to employment. It is time for universal health insurance, otherwise known as Medicare for all.

A progressive exchange

For more than a couple decades we’ve had to deal with the success of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, which writes model legislation to implement hard conservative ideas, then sends them out to GOP controlled state legislatures for enacting. An example (that I’m thinking about because I just read about it in one of Dad’s old issues of Mother Jones) is the Stand Your Ground laws that shield citizen shooters if there is even the slightest hint of firing in self-defense. Many anti-LGBT bills have also come out of ALEC, such as the various Religious Freedom Restoration Acts that are essentially a license to discriminate. Both corporations and legislators buy membership in ALEC, though the recent round of RFRAs prompted several corporations to withdraw.

And on the progressive side? Similar organizations to ALEC have sprung up, but usually fail to gain traction. Maybe not as many corporate members?

Many progressives have hopes for SIX, the State Innovation Exchange. It is now a couple years old. Though it doesn’t write model legislation it did inherit from a predecessor group a library of 2000 progressive bills enacted in various states. SIX has developed a blueprint, what it calls a 100-day project. It calls for: clean energy, equal pay for women, raising state minimum wages, crack down on wage theft, make tax systems more progressive, and more.

Cling to guns, religion, and tribe

Since the election I have withdrawn from reading most news (including gay news) blogs. I do listen to NPR, but I’m quick to turn it off when they let a Republican talk. A great deal of that withdrawal is because so much of the political news is so discouraging. A part of me wants to say you voted for him, you reap the consequences. Perhaps next time you’ll listen to what the Dems have to offer, even if it is a woman.

Blogger Dallas Taylor wants to knock that idea out of my head. In a post written just before the election (you should know by now that some things can stick in my browser tabs for a long time) he wrote (and I didn’t edit for purple language):

The problem, aside from the damage done and the many, many steps backward that will entail, is that human nature doesn’t work that way. A progressive society is contingent on prosperity. When people ain’t got shit, they start looking out for them and theirs, and fuck everybody else. They cling to their guns and their religion and their tribe harder than ever, because if there ain’t enough to go around then they’ll make damn sure they and theirs get what they need first, and the rest can go hang.
…
You know why shit’s so dysfunctional? Because the goddamned Republicans put party before country, and have sabotaged and vandalized and obstructed every fucking thing that might make things better. They have to, because their whole thing is that government can’t work and is never the solution and if you elect them they’ll prove it to you, as they fucking have for decades now.

More free speech

My friend and debate partner has said many times that the answer to free speech that is offensive is more free speech, presumably by offering arguments and stories from the opposing (community building) view. An example of this idea is to keep Confederate memorials and add to them counter-memorials that tell the stories of those hurt by the racism of the Confederacy.

More than a year ago I wrote a post commenting on what Melissa McEwen of Shakesville said. Because she is promoting progressive views (and is a woman) messages attacking her are pervasive. A legitimate response is to refuse to engage. She says by extension it is legitimate to ask an institution to refuse to host a speaker known to be offensive. Her reasoning is something like this: I know I’ll be attacked. I know people I care about will be attacked and will be hurt. I know whatever I say will not stop the attacks, will not change the mind of the speaker. More free speech won’t do any good. I refuse to put myself and those I love through the pain.

My debate partner replied with the expected defense of “more free speech.” I didn’t post his reply because at the time I was preparing for my father’s memorial service.

Recently, Kim Burrell did a homophobic rant. Jason Michael, writing a viewpoint article for Between the Lines, described how he was instrumental in getting Burrell uninvited from the Ellen DeGeneres Show.

There was the usual commentary about the “missed opportunity to talk” to do the more free speech thing. DeGeneres could have offered a safe space for that discussion. Michael replies:

But I see things differently. I believe the time for talking is done. You simply cannot have a meaningful conversation with someone who calls gays and lesbians "perverted." Those are not the words of someone wishing to have a positive exchange on the topic and possibly be enlightened. Those words amount to only one thing: hate speech. And it should not be tolerated. Not on Ellen's show. Not on any television program. Not anywhere in the country.

The time for that kind of talking is over. If you cannot speak to me respectfully then you cannot speak to me at all. You don't get that privilege. If you're going to call me names, you'd be better off keeping that nonsense to yourself.

Michael concludes:

If you attack us, we will attack back. If you dare denounce our moral turpitude, we will come after your livelihood. We will no longer be your patsies. Preaching our demise will no longer fill your collection plates. There are too many of us now. Too many who've come too far to turn back.

This is 2017, and we will no longer debate our equality. Instead we will demand you recognize it. That,to me, is the message Ellen sent by disinviting Burrell to her show.

Sorry, friend, I’m with Michael on this one. Does Kim Burrell have the right to say what she thinks? Yes. Does she have a right to say it on Ellen’s show? No. There are consequences to hate speech.

Looks like life

I’m against the practice that developed in the last decade or so of TVs in restaurants. The constantly moving image is distracting, pulling my eye away from the person I’m with (when I’m by myself I’m pretty good at keeping my eyes on my book). I was in one of those restaurants yesterday with my friend and debate partner and there was a TV directly behind his head – and I’m now convinced the camera work of whatever show was on was designed to attract the eye with its flashing change of scene.

I’m done with that rant. It was just a way of introducing another topic…

The nasty guy’s first press conference since July was on a TV in that restaurant on a screen off to the side. In that position we were both able to ignore it. Conversation with my friend was *much* more interesting.

Melissa McEwen, editor-in-chief of Shareblue watched it, so I didn’t have to. But what she saw was alarming. The nasty guy at first seemed rattled about being in front of all these reporters. But when a reporter looked like he was about to ask a question the nasty guy didn’t want to answer he insulted the reporter and the company he represents. And the nasty guy realized he could be his usual belligerent and bullying self.

Trump’s entire press conference was a brazen statement of rejection of ethical recommendations, combined with evasion of concerns regarding his disloyalty and a continued campaign of hostility and intimidation toward the press.

Those are not features of the leader of a free democracy. They are the behaviors of despots.

Trump’s changing demeanor during the press conference, from nervous to belligerent, is very concerning. As he managed to bully through questions and exhibited stunningly troubling behavior without consequence, his back stiffened with empowerment.

This was a turning point. A very alarming one.

Fannie Wolfe of Shakesville wonders if we would recognize the onset of authoritarianism. By “we” she means those who are not already oppressed and subject to violence in our society. In other words, the white men who were core voters for the nasty guy. Wolfe notes that the rest of us are told we need to empathize and understand these white men. But the white men are not being pressured to understand and empathize with us – women, LGBT people, immigrants, people of color, etc.

But back to the question. Tom Pepinsky, professor of Government at Cornell University, answered that question for Wolfe. Many of us have watched too many movies of events leading up to WWII. We think of authoritarianism and imagine jackbooted thugs. But life under authoritarian rule looks a lot like … life.

Everyday life in the modern authoritarian regime is, in this sense, boring and tolerable. It is not outrageous. Most critics, even vocal ones, are not going to be murdered like Anna Politkovskaya, they are going to be frustrated. Most not-very-vocal critics will live their lives completely unmolested by the security forces. They will enjoy it when the trains run on time, blame the government when they do not, gripe at their taxes, and save for vacation. Elections, when they happen, will serve the “anesthetic function” ... Life under authoritarian rule in such situations looks a lot like life in a democracy.

But will people accept authoritarian rule?

The premise upon which this question is based is that authoritarianism is intolerable generally.

Most of the time we’re thinking about daily life and if most things happen as they should – trains run on time, highways are patched, water is drinkable – we’re good.

If authoritarian life looks so much like life in a democracy how do we tell? We usually learn we’re not in a democracy

not because The Government Is Taking Away Your Rights, or passing laws that you oppose, or because there is a coup or a quisling. You know that you are no longer living in a democracy because the elections in which you are participating no longer can yield political change.
…
It is more likely that democracy ends, with a whimper, when the case for supporting it—the case, that is, for everyday democracy—is no longer compelling."

Democracy is no longer compelling? I wrote about that back in August 2009 as the Tea Party was gaining steam.

Commenters of Pepinsky’s post provide more insight.

Democracy may not be compelling if under authoritarian rule you have a job, plenty to eat, and a comfortable social life (see Singapore) while under democracy those things were kept from you.

There are those of us who haven’t enjoyed democracy. Been to Brightmoor in Detroit? Heard of the war on drugs (and understand who that has been a war against)? What about Stop and Frisk? Notice who was not prosecuted for causing the Great Recession? Did you lose your house?

If you’re white and not poor you don’t have to notice those things. It won’t look like an authoritarian state if you’re not the one being stepped on.

As for elections no longer yielding political change… Many corporations donate to Democrats as much as they do to Republicans. Would some of our big issues, such as poverty and a lack of opportunity in rural areas decimated by WalMart and factories gone to China, be much different under Democrats?

As for what the current GOP is doing (usually in the middle of the night) in working to get rid of of the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security – yes I think people will notice that. And for many life will be much harder. Which brings us back to whether the next election will bring politcal change.

My religion over your rights

Several states used Texas to file a suit against the sex nondiscrimination requirement of the Affordable Care Act. The rule that came with this requirement “forbids discrimination on the basis of ‘gender identity’ and ‘termination of pregnancy.’” The states chose Texas because federal courts in Texas are more conservative. And they got what they wanted. A District Court judge ruled that a doctor’s religious freedom and independent medical judgment was more important than our need for protection against discrimination. The ruling stated it overturned the rule not just in the district covered by the court, but nationwide.

Michelangelo Signorile, writing for Huffington Post, explains the consequences. This ruling was based on the Hobby Lobby decision made by the Supremes in 2014, which expanded the use of religious freedoms. I wrote about the Hobby Lobby decision here and its implications here. This district judge has now set the precedent that religious freedoms can indeed be used to block nondiscrimination laws across the country – and our opponents will certainly bring lawsuits against our protections.

The 5th Circuit Court will not overturn this decision. They’re also quite conservative. That leaves the Supremes, which by the time this case gets there will have at least one new conservative justice. Couple that with the nasty guy’s pledge to sign a First Amendment Defense Act – a national Religious Freedom protection law. Their goal is to make it legal to discriminate against LGBT people based on religious beliefs.

Make enough noise

There was a lot of news earlier this week about a secret GOP meeting to fold the independent Office of Congressional Ethics under the House Ethics Committee. The secret vote put the OCE change into the usual establishment of rules at the start of a new Congressional session. This change would have restricted the authority of the OCE, meaning ethics were whatever House members wanted them to be.

Also in the news was that there was such an outcry the OCE change was deleted from the overall establishment of rules. And this means, says Melissa McEwen of Shakesville, the GOP has confirmed that if we make enough noise they will back down.

Inherently deceptive

In the week following the election I wrote about various people sifting through the tea leaves to declare What It Means. In that post I presented an answer by Aphra Behn of Shakesville that can be summarized as: If your analysis doesn’t feature racism and misogyny it is wrong.

Fannie Wolfe, also of Shakesville takes up the call. Yes, it was misogyny. And that produces rape culture. Wolfe includes a definition of rape culture from Melissa McEwen, the primary writer of Shakesville:

Rape culture is the myriad ways in which rape is tacitly and overtly abetted and encouraged having saturated every corner of our culture so thoroughly that people can't easily wrap their heads around what the rape culture actually is.

One aspect of rape culture is the portrayal of male sexuality as “inherently predatory” and women are given the task of taming male violence. And if she fails and is assaulted it is her fault. Then if she complains she is being deceptive.

The nasty guy fits in very well with rape culture. He admitted to groping women – the better word is “assault” – and that didn’t matter to over sixty million voters. Consider the reverse scenario: A woman candidate admitting to groping men, accused by men of sexual misconduct, and leering as men paraded before her in a male beauty contest. And that woman winning over a more competent man. Right.

A large part of rape culture is that women are inherently deceptive. Bernie and his supporters suggested, perhaps even claimed, that the only way a woman could win is if she dishonestly rigged the system. All through the campaign was the issue of Clinton’s emails, with far more coverage than any other issue, with the refrain there just has to be something deceptive in there. While the habitual liar was given a free pass. On to the emails hacked by Russia. One reason why these gained so much traction is it supposedly allowed the media to get to the “real story” beyond the supposedly constant Clinton deception.

Before Christmas I wrote about how the media chose to portray Clinton in a negative light and never challenging the nasty guy’s nastiness. Included in my conclusion:

Media companies chose to turn Clinton’s transparency against her. … Media companies chose to portray Clinton as a liar worse than the nasty guy.

That’s because rape culture claims that women are inherently deceptive.

Yes, this election had a large component of misogyny.

Discrediting campaign

Yesterday I said I was intentionally ignoring a lot of news, especially the blogs I had been reading. Even so, I still have several articles in browser tabs to share with you.

The nasty guy had his big meeting with the intelligence agencies to explain to him that Russia was behind the hacks on the Democratic National Committee and used what it found to defeat Hillary Clinton. I understand the nasty guy finally said, well perhaps Russia was behind the hacks, but that has absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election. Perhaps his ego won’t allow him to admit the win wasn’t because of his own fabulousness.

Melissa McEwen of Shareblue sees something more in the whole episode. Senior advisor Kellyanne Conway said in an aside about the intelligence community:

He absolutely respects the intelligence community. He’s made very clear he’s going to put his own people in there as well.

McEwen responds:

Trump’s plan is simply to replace the intelligence community with yes-men. That is fundamentally incompatible with the role the intelligence community is meant to play.

So if the nasty guy can’t overturn the intelligence community – he wants to because it’s politicized, don’tcha know – he will discredit it by refusing to believe what they tell him, recounting old failures, claiming they are unprofessional, or putting deeper trust in people like Julian Assange.

And why would he want to do that? McEwen wrote:

It is one play in a long game that ends with Trump turning the intelligence community into an extension of the White House — which itself is part of a comprehensive strategy to erode public trust in every institution, to wholly eradicate checks and balances on his power.

He has waged similar discrediting campaigns against military leadership, against career bureaucrats, against the press, and against the integrity of our elections. The objective is clear: The decimation of public trust.

That is a strategy of authoritarian leaders throughout history, who then proffer themselves as saviors from the very chaos they created.

And why is Congress putting up with that? Some members aren’t. There is pushback. My answer: Many, especially the leadership, are ignoring these dangerous antics because they want one thing from the nasty guy: his signature on every extremely conservative bill they can come up with. To get that they’ll put up with a lot. Of course, they don’t consider how the nasty guy is sacrificing the integrity of the country because they are also sacrificing the integrity of the country.

Breeding grounds for insane politicians

The Stateside program on Michigan Radio recently did an 11 minute segment on gerrymandering in Michigan. It talked to Tom Perkins of Metro Times who reviewed the basics, including Democrats received 18,000 more votes than Republicans for state senate seats, yet the GOP has 57% of those seats. Perkins brought up two more important points:

* Gerrymandering creates “breeding grounds for insane politicians.” He mentions Dave Agema, who has quite a reputation in Michigan for being a vocal racist, and who has gone on to a job in the national GOP.

* Politicians from gerrymandered districts can push through unpopular legislation and it won’t affect their chances of being re-elected. An example is the disastrous emergency manager law for financially struggling cities. Voters repealed it and legislators recreated it in that same lame-duck session.

Perkins says gerrymandering is a “legal form of election theft.”



I had reported that the GOP in North Carolina had severely restricted the powers of the new Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper. One new law restricted the governor’s control over the election board. A judge in the state has stayed the law, pending a more thorough review. The judge said the law was unconstitutional because there is a risk to free and fair elections.

Those power-stripping laws bothered Andrew Reynolds, a political science professor at University of North Carolina at chapel Hill. Reynolds had designed a democracy rating system as part of his work in helping 25 countries with issues of democratic design. He applied that rating system to his home state – and it failed. North Carolina is no longer a democracy.



There’s a simple reason why I haven’t been posting as much lately. The political news has been so discouraging I haven’t wanted to read it, much less write about it. So I’ve stopped reading a couple news blogs. And evenings when I would normally write I’ve found other things to do. I will still write about broad ideas, though probably less about daily news.

Progressive nation

Before the last election Roger Smith wrote a special report for the January 2017 edition of The Washington Spectator (this article online eventually). Smith tackles the “big lie” peddled by conservatives that a solid majority of the country holds conservative views. He does this by looking at the poll results of respected polling organizations on a wide range of issues and over a decade or two. He then sometimes contrasts the type of legislation Democrats have passed (or been thwarted from passing) with the type the GOP has passed. He doesn’t look at election polling, but at issues polling – not who people vote for but what they believe. Smith’s conclusion: we are not a conservative nation.

The obvious question: If we aren’t a conservative nation why are conservatives in control of the federal government and the governments of 2/3 of the states? Why do our beliefs not match our votes? Alas, Smith leaves these questions for others. In addition, what he did write is 6½ pages of an 8-page newsletter. Another article for another time. Here’s a summary of what he did write about:

* Lower the cost of student loans: 82% in favor.

* Increased spending on infrastructure: 75% in favor.

* Raise the minimum wage to $12: 66% in favor. Even 60% of small business owners are in favor of increasing the minimum wage. In 2014 four solidly red states passed increases to their minimum wage rates.

* Raise Social Security retirement age to 69: 66% against.

Yet, in 2014, when the party that opposed all of the above ideas swept into Congress 53% of those polled said they were “happy” with the result.

* Limit campaign spending by Super PACs: 78% in favor.

* Limit campaign spending by individuals: 77% in favor.

* Support of same-sex marriage: this year 61% in favor, a massive swing in 20 years from 27% in favor in 1996.

* Belief that immigrants “strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents”: 59% in favor.

* There should be a way for undocumented non-criminal immigrants to stay in the country legally: 74% in favor.

* “Build a Wall”: 62% opposed with opposition growing the more Trump talked about it.

* Legalization of marijuana: 58% in favor.

* The Affordable Care Act: The GOP likes to trumpet that polls show that 58% said they oppose it. The GOP, of course, leaves out a crucial piece: 43% oppose it because it is “too liberal” while 15% oppose it for not being liberal enough. This last group is looking for Medicare for all. Smith criticizes Dems for failing to explain the ACA, allowing the GOP to define it.

* When asked about Medicare for all, meaning a government-funded single-payer health care system, 58% of those polled are in favor. Thanks Bernie!

* Equal pay for women: 84% in favor, including 77% of Republicans. This is another issue Democrats have failed to seize and adequately explain.

* Tax supported universal child care: 59% in favor. The GOP wants to do this through tax deductions, meaning it is available only those who itemize deductions – which is rarely the working class most in need of it.

* Economy – “Are you making more than five years ago?”: 68% said yes. So maybe this past election wasn’t about the economy?

* Taxation fairness: 64% say they are “bothered a lot” that corporations “don’t pay their fare share” of taxes. 61% say that wealthy people don’t pay their fair share.

* Global warming: In 2014 59% said they felt strongly enough about climate change to support limiting carbon emissions. This year 64% said they worry about climate change “a great deal.” Dems haven’t countered the false GOP claim that we can battle climate change or we can have a healthy economy, but not both.

* Is free trade good or bad? 37% said it is good, 39% said it is bad.

* Defense spending: Those saying to cut back rose from 30% to 35% in five years. Those saying to increase rose from 13% to 35%. Even so, we’re tired of war.

* Who do you trust to handle foreign policy? In 2008 (after Bush II) Dems were favored at 48%. This year the GOP is favored by 40%.

* Abortion: 56% say abortion should be legal either “always” or “in most cases.” 59% say abortion should be legal in the case of rape or incest.

* Gun control: 85% are in favor of background checks at gun shows or for online sales. 79% are in favor of banning guns to the mentally ill. 70% are in favor of a federal database of gun sales. 50% say it is more important to control gun ownership than protect the right to own a gun. 47% say the reverse.

* Capital punishment: 49% in favor, down from 80% in favor in 1995.

A conservative country? Doesn’t look that way. Yet conservatives push that idea. And the people most receptive to that idea? Democratic politicians, led by Bill Clinton and his move towards the center in 1995.

Democrats do not have to accommodate the right. They should embrace – and adequately explain – progressive issues.

On the road ... again

I leave in the morning for a road trip. First stop is Dad's brother and wife in northern Ohio. I've got stuff from Dad's house to give my uncle, such as old tools. I've also got stuff to share with my aunt and uncle such as annual class photos of their small school as they were growing up -- Dad graduated in a class of ten. I'm pretty sure I can pick out Dad in these photos, I'm not so sure about picking out his brother and sister.

In mid afternoon I head on to Pittsburgh to spend four nights with my brother and his wife. I'll spend a couple hours each day visiting Mom.

I'll take along my netbook computer so I can keep up with email. I don't know whether I'll have time or motivation to post something.

Three steps and a backup

For about 18 months the National Organization for Marriage (theirs, not yours) has been rather quiet. But with the nasty guy headed to Washington NOM is rolling out their plan to undo marriage equality. And in spite of that wonderful ruling 18 months ago, an undo is possible. Dear sister, alas this won’t make you feel any better.

In a five minute video Matt Baume explains the three steps:

1. Weaken protections. Arkansas Supremes ruled that certain rights can be withheld from same-sex couples, such as permitting only one parent on a birth certificate. In Houston citizens are working to deny benefits to same-sex spouses of city empolyees. Though the state must issue a license, it doesn’t have to treat a couple as married. Definitely separate and unequal. Unconstitutional? Likely. But that means a trip to the Supremes.

2. They nasty guy’s likely nominees for the Supremes have surely been hand-picked by Mike Pence and thus are extreme homophobes. The nominees for other top jobs, such as for Dept. of Justice, are also in that category. As Attorney General, Jeff Sessions could bring a case on behalf of the federal gov’t.

3. In addition to the constitutional conflicts mentioned above our opponents have installed their allies in courts and Dept. of Justice. They are ready for that trip to the Supremes.

Backup plan.

First Amendment Defense Acts in various states will allow other citizens to not honor a same-sex marriage license. These acts would generate constitutional conflicts for years, ready for the right justices to be appointed to the Supremes.

A marriage license currently comes with a suite of rights and protections. But those rights and protections could disappear depending on where you are and who you are talking to. The GOP and the Fundies behind them had complained that we were redefining marriage. They now plan to do exactly that by gutting all those assumed rights and protections.

All of it a choice

T. R. Ramachandran wrote a four-part series of posts for Shareblue explaining how the political news from mainstream medial during this past election campaign caused Hillary Clinton to lose and the nasty guy to win. He explains why I ignore most mainstream media. The posts were written in response to an article by Susan Glasser, an editor at Politico.

Glasser wrote:

Journalism has never been better…
The truth is that coverage of American politics, and the capital that revolves around it, is in many ways much better now than ever before – faster, sharper, and far more sophisticated.

Ramachandran responds by wondering why isn’t accuracy in the list of ways to judge the quality of news? It should be at the top of the list.

He first expands on that by saying bias and accuracy are different. It is possible to be biased and accurate and claim to be unbiased and not accurate.

He then looks at a few examples. According to fact-checking sites Clinton was rated as one of the most honest candidates. The nasty guy was rated pathologically dishonest. But news media didn’t report this. They portrayed Clinton as the more dishonest and then used polls to repeat that the public thought she was more dishonest.

Clinton disclosed everything: income and sources, taxes, emails, meetings, Foundation donors, etc. Trump disclosed almost nothing. Electionado provided a table of transparency, shown on the Shareblue page. Yet, Clinton was portrayed as more secretive.

Clinton did nothing illegal with her private email server and with her Foundation. There is documentation that the nasty guy’s Foundation broke laws and was corrupt. Even so, the media led people to believe Clinton’s actions were illegal and the nasty guy’s actions were not.

According to Brian Beutler a key part of journalism is framing and contextualizing – not just providing new data points, but explain what they mean in the larger scheme of things. The Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy add that in this election cycle the media reported all the ugly stuff they could find and left analysis to the voter. For example, they did not distinguish between the seriousness and importance of allegations aimed at both the Clinton and Trump Foundations. The public disqualified both candidates and chose not on fitness for office but on such things as unrealistic promises.

These inaccurate portrayals of Clinton – the media ignoring their duty to accuracy – was what prompted many Bernie Sanders supporters to vote for someone other than Clinton, enough to make the difference in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, giving the Electoral College to the nasty guy.

In part 2 Ramachandran expands on that idea of a lack of accuracy by examining the Clinton email “scandal.” With so much coverage of the story – in the news nearly every day for 600 days – one would expect the story to at least be accurate. The media certainly had time to run down every detail to make their reporting accurate – if they chose to.

But the vast majority of the stories were false. Ramachandran reviews nine accurate aspects of the story, such things as Clinton didn’t violate any secrecy or classification laws.

Ramachandran reviews three kinds of reporting that routinely deceive the public.

* Stenographic repetition of claims, such as “Hillary Clinton enters the summer damaged by perceptions that she violated the law...”

* Exclusion of important and pertinent facts from independent analyses and expert sources, such as the fact-checking sites mentioned before.

* Gratuitous stenographic inclusion of comments by partisan Republicans, such as “If that was anyone else in this world, they would have been gone.”

And an example: WikiLeaks hacked the Democratic National Committee and dribbled out the emails it found. Rarely (if at all) was it plainly stated these were not emails from Clinton’s server (which was never hacked).

If the media isn’t interested in accuracy, what drives them? In part 3 Ramachandran says what media organizations crave now is speed and access. In this internet age there is a tremendous rush to be the first to report an event, even if those first reports often change significantly. The scoop is everything.

The big example of this is the pile-on when in the last two weeks of the campaign FBI Director James Comey announced a renewed investigation into Clinton’s emails based on no evidence at all – something Comey himself admitted the following week.

Did the media delve into how inappropriate it was for Comey to say what he did? No, they charged into “fact-free innuendo and scandal-mongering” against Clinton while pushing away the nasty guy’s real scandal of defrauding thousands of people out of tens of millions of dollars through his fake Trump University.

Ramachandran wrote:

The media’s habit of prioritizing speed over accuracy is a serious impediment to an informed public, especially given that people are much more likely to remember the first, often sensational or striking reports, and not pay attention to follow up stories and corrections.

The media prizes access, being a part of the inner circle. But that access “does not usually produce accurate journalism, but rather the reprinting of self-serving or partisan spin.” In addition, a lack of access means the reporter must do painstaking research, which usually results in superior work. They must be more thoughtful about how they frame a story. An example: David Fahrenthold of The Washington Post uncovered the fraud of the Trump Foundation without having access to Trump.

In contrast, Clinton disclosed all relevant information about the Clinton Foundation – providing access – yet these were some of the most inaccurate stories of the campaign.

Ramachandran wrote:

The point here is that many people in the media seem to wrongly equate access with significance. The reality is commonly the opposite.

And what did Clinton get by providing all that access? The media combed through it for “clouds” and “shadows” – evidence of scandal. Clinton’s transparency was weaponized against her.

In part 4 Ramachandran takes on “aggressive reporting,” also known as “adversarial journalism,” not much more than propagating he-said, she-said claims. Rarely is there an attempt to sort innuendo from truth, to present relevant facts, or add critical context so the reader could understand the facts and their significance. The public has no way to judge the significance of such stories.

Ramachandran lays out the details of the WikiLeaks/Russian email hacks to explain why aggressive reporting is bad reporting. He explains how WikiLeaks worked:

* First, they published hacked emails that deceptively looked damaging to those who had no time to research the emails or the full context behind them.

* Second, specific words, phrases, or sentences were taken out of context and highlighted to falsely make the content seem nefarious or corrupt.

* Third, they enlisted a very willing, compliant press corps to distribute their propaganda in the form of misleading headlines, social media posts, and stories.

* Fourth, when challenged, they used the argument that the emails were “not fake”— a tactic that compliant media organizations reinforced by claiming that anything not fake was “newsworthy.”

All this to “annihilate truth.” This technique is only possible when media relies on aggressive reporting and doesn’t look for the relevant facts.

Ramachandran notes that only Clinton was a target of WikiLeaks and Russia and that the nasty guy knew what was going on.

We’ve heard a lot lately about the role that fake news had in this campaign. Facebook is now thinking about what to do about it. But fake news needs mainstream media to supply deceptive “legitimate” news for the fake stuff to stand on. And this deceptive news was far more damaging than the fake stuff.

So, modern media prizes speed and access over accuracy. They believe presenting he-said, she-said claims without facts or context to be great journalism.

There are now lots of calls for media accountability. That’s not likely to go very far. Media companies aren’t interested in self-examination. Reason: money.

* It seems the nasty guy made deals with media companies to transmit his propaganda unfiltered.

* Candidates often have to run ads to erase distortions – and that money is ad revenue to the same companies that spread the distortions.

The issue becomes how to fund journalism so that it prizes accuracy without losing money. That may be hard to do. Even so, the first step is knowing what the mainstream media is doing.

Ramachandran makes a point that I want to reinforce. Media companies chose speed over accuracy. Media companies chose to use adversarial journalism. Media companies chose to not provide context and significance. Media companies chose to be pawns of WikiLeaks and the Russians. Media companies chose to turn Clinton’s transparency against her. Media companies chose to enter deals with the nasty guy to not filter his rants. Media companies chose to portray Clinton as a liar worse than the nasty guy. Media companies chose to profit from the Clinton campaign having to give them ad money to combat the distortions they spread. Media companies chose they nasty guy over Clinton and did all they could to make sure she lost. Media companies chose to work against democracy and against the health of the nation and the world. Media companies chose profit over sound journalism. They did not have to make those choices.

Agreeing to a deal

I’ve written several times about the nasty “bathroom bill” in North Carolina, the one that removes protections for LGBT people, including requiring transgender people to use the restroom that corresponds to their birth certificate.

Before I get to the latest shenanigans around this bill, a bit of history. Before 2016 LGBT people in NC had few rights. Discrimination against them was legal. Several cities had passed local ordinances offering protections against discrimination within their borders. Charlotte did the same in February 2016.

In March the state legislature called a special session so the Senate and House, each taking a mere five hours, rammed through the “bathroom bill” to overturn the ordinances Charlotte and other cities had passed and added a few more nasty provisions, such the transgender bathroom provision.

Reaction was swift. Many corporations declared they would not move to or expand in NC. Many entertainers canceled concerts. Sports organizations moved championship games out of the state. In all, a big economic hit, likely over $600 million.

Over the months since then there were talk of a deal – Charlotte would repeal its ordinance and the legislature would repeal the nasty bill. Charlotte always refused, saying their LGBT citizens needed those protections. The deal meant the lives of LGBT people would be a bit better than now, but discrimination would still be legal.

In November this widely hated bill was likely the big reason why Pat McCrory, the governor who pushed for and signed the bill, was not reelected, losing by a slim margin.

After McCrory finally conceded the deal was discussed again. This time Charlotte agreed. Earlier this week they repealed their ordinance. McCrory complained this showed the Charlotte city council refused only so the issue could be used against McCrory to oust him from office.

And, in another special session, the legislature … punted.

I’m not sure of the details. There seem to be two repeal bills, one for a total repeal, another implementing a half-repeal, I think including a wait of six months to prevent cities from enacting local protections. This caused a bit of feuding within the GOP. Both bills failed.

Position of total irreverence

Hunter Thompson wrote the book Hell’s Angels. Susan McWilliams thinks that while Thompson wrote the words decades ago he had a pretty good understanding of this year’s election.

Thompson would want us to see this: These are men and women who know that, by all intellectual and economic standards, they cannot win the game. So whether it be out of self-protection or an overcompensation for their own profound sense of shame, they lash out at politicians, judges, scientists, teachers, Wall Street, universities, the media, legislatures—even at elections. They are not interested in contemplating serious reforms to the system; they are either too pessimistic or too disappointed to believe that is possible. So the best they can do is adopt a position of total irreverence: to show they hate the players and the game.

Understood in those terms, the idea that Trumpism is “populist” seems misplaced. Populism is a belief in the right of ordinary people, rather than political insiders, to rule. Trumpism, by contrast, operates on the presumption that ordinary people aren’t going to get any chance to rule no matter what they do, so they might as well piss off the political insiders using the only tool left available to them: the vote.

Look for the award nominations to come

I saw the movie Manchester by the Sea today. Definitely well acted and beautifully filmed. But it isn’t a joyous romp for the season.

The story centers on Lee. We meet him at his job as fix-it man for several apartment buildings. He gets paid minimum wage and given a room. His customer relation skills are definitely lacking. He is called back to his hometown of Manchester when his brother Joe dies. Much to Lee’s surprise, he is given guardianship of Patrick, Joe’s 16 year old son. We see flashbacks to Patrick growing up and the good times the boy had with father and uncle. We also see the horrible event, the reason why Lee had left and why he doesn’t want to stay in town.

There were a few times, such as when Patrick has a meltdown, when I wanted to shout at Lee, sheesh, guy, give the kid a hug. Then again, Lee is emotionally damaged too. The situation is resolved by the end of the movie, but not really in the way I had hoped.

I’d recommend the movie as finely acted, but it isn’t a feel-good movie.

Our precedent case

This afternoon I went to see the movie Loving, the story of Richard and Mildred Loving. They were a mixed-race couple who ended up challenging Virginia’s ban on such marriages all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supremes overturned Virginia’s ban as well as such laws still active in 15 other states. That ruling set the precedent for same-sex marriage 48 years later.

The whole reason for the lawsuit is the ranking and dominator society I mentioned in my report on the Chalice and Blade yesterday. The couple were dragged out of bed and forced to leave Virginia because the white leadership in the state ranked colored people so low that they weren’t allowed to marry and dilute the white race.

Richard, who works as a bricklayer, is as comfortable in black society as he is in white. He appears easily cowed by the white establishment. He is quiet and unsure, not wanting the spotlight. He doesn’t want to fight the system because that means jail time for both of them and she is pregnant. He obviously loves his wife and growing family and wants to be there to care for them.

Mildred, by contrast, may be reticent, but she is also articulate. She is the one who calls for help, by way of a letter to Bobby Kennedy, the new Attorney General. He can’t help them directly, but does pass their case on to the ACLU.

I enjoyed the film and pleased to see it out there. It is a good challenge to the dominator society.

Chalice and Blade, Part 2

This is the second part and conclusion of my summary of the book The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler. You can find the whole series here.

Eisler surveys history through the lens of the balance between dominator and partnership ideas.

Matrist [Partnership] periods are those when women and “feminine” values are accorded higher status. These periods are characteristically intervals of greater creativity, less social and sexual repression, more individualism, and social reform. Conversely, in patrist [dominator] periods the derogation of women and femininity is more pronounced. These periods, when father-identified, or “masculine,” values are once again on the ascendant, are more socially and sexually repressive, with less emphasis on the creative arts and social reform.

One example is Medieval witch trials. History books that mention them usually don’t delve into the reasons for the trials. Many other books explain these women were thought to be witches because of mass hysteria. But these trials were too well ordered to be the response to hysteria. This was a time when male physicians were gaining acceptance. Wise women with knowledge of healing were competition and had to go. Other crimes laid against them were relying on sources of healing beyond Christianity and sometimes simply being sexual.

Another example is the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, the Elizabethan Age. There was a time of awakened responsibility for others, such as the poor law. There was a new love of learning and a funding of colleges. Upper-class women had greater access to education. There was a flood of creative energy, especially in poetry and drama, and also including painting, architecture, and music. Many of Shakespeare’s female characters were learned women.

But there is also Kate in The Taming of the Shrew, part of the dominator backlash, part of a revival of dogmas with new “facts” to justify it. Such facts include the supposed decline in standards of behavior or that the order of society is falling apart. This is usually followed be a call to reimpose the dominator values at all cost.

The Elizabethan age was not one in which women became equal to men to fully restore the partnership model of society. Male supremacy was not completely overthrown. However, it was a time of gains for women, a time when the rigidity of supremacy was lessened.

Perhaps the long reign of Queen Victoria also produced a cultural golden age? In this case the backlash was swifter and stronger. The Victorian Era is seen as repressive. There was lots of talk about the horror of a nation losing its manhood and of bloodshed being cleansing and sanctifying. This brutal contempt for women culminated in World War I.

Researchers have found several other periods in history where the rise of female freedom and corresponding “feminine” values coincides with periods of peace. Another example is America in the 1920s. When the “masculine” dominator values are on the rise, war almost always followed.

One more era to consider: In the 1960s and ‘70s there was a strong rejection of the Vietnam War. It was not seen as “heroic” nor “manly” nor “patriotic.” Many men adopted more effeminate styles of hair and dress. Women rejected confinement in the home. This was an era of significant gains in women’s rights, civil rights, and voting rights.

But the dominator backlash was there too in those fighting against the Equal Rights Amendment. The Moral Majority had its start in this time.

A few thoughts of my own: The Powell Memorandum, which laid the foundation for corporate takeover of American life and the huge increase in economic inequality is also from this era. It is very much a dominator document. And shortly after that came Ronald Reagan, the current deity of conservatives, and Bush I who, my friend and debate partner noted, seemed to need to send the military off somewhere every December, such as the invasion of Panama in 1989.

Eisler reviews the various social ideologies and their effect on dominator societies. As I’ve shown so far, religion may preach partnership, but in implementation religion has been firmly on the side of male supremacy and ranking in general (including “I’m going to heaven and you’re not!”). Democracy interrupted the ranking of king over landowner – freedom replacing obedience – but still hasn’t satisfactorily dealt with ranking male over female especially within the family. Capitalism is an improvement over feudalism, but with its driving force being competition and greed it will definitely not lead to a partnership society. Socialism and communism are both closer to a partnership society than capitalism, but they did not abandon violence as a way to power (see: Stalin) and those in power reinstituted ranking.

Are any ideologies left? Feminism. Alas, it is dismissed as “just a woman’s issue.”

Only feminism avoids the internal inconsistencies by applying principles such as equality and freedom to all of humanity – not just the male half. Only feminism offers the vision of a reordering of the most fundamental social institution: the family. And only feminism makes the explicit systems connection between the male violence of rape and wife beating and the male violence of war.

A lot of people dismiss the idea that male dominance is all of a piece with racism, warfare and general authoritarianism. But Eisler says those on the farthest right, those who actively push for such things as white supremacy, recognize and accept the connection. The problem with the rest of us is we seek the end of war and of racism, yet are willing to get to those women’s issues only when the more important ones are solved. Eisler says that cannot work. The rest of those ranking issues have their roots in the male-female ranking. As long as we socialize children to believe that boys are better than girls and that the father is the boss of the family that learned ranking will extend to the rest of society.

What about the future? Eisler’s analysis of the future of the dominator system is succinct and straightforward. A great number of issues facing humanity and the planet are because of (or at least made a great deal worse through) overpopulation. This includes global climate change, likely food shortages, continued skirmishes over who controls what land and water, grinding poverty for much of the world, huge migration problems, and general crowding. Yet, overpopulation is barely mentioned in public discourse, certainly not discussed as a root problem (something I’ve noticed in the last several years).

It’s not mentioned because most such things associated with male supremacy aren’t mentioned. We’re taught that’s just the way things are. Male supremacy means the things that might threaten male supremacy are suppressed.

As long as men think the purpose of a woman is to give birth to babies, then overpopulation and all these other issues cannot be solved. Under male supremacy changing the idea that a woman is for something other than having babies means giving the woman something else to do. Which means making her equal to men.

In male-dominated societies there are two fundamental obstacles to formulating and implementing the kinds of policies that could effectively deal with our mounting global problems. The first obstacle is that the models of reality required to maintain male dominance require that all matters relating to no less than half of humanity be ignored or trivialized. This monumental exclusion of data is an omission of such magnitude that, in any other context, scientists would immediately pounce upon it as a fatal methodological flaw. But even when this first obstacle is overcome and policy makers are provided with complete and unbiased data, a second and even more fundamental obstacle remains. This is that the first policy priority in a male-dominated system has to be the preservation of male dominance.

And the next step…

When their elected leaders fail to solve economic, social, and political problems, people look to others for answers. In the dominator mind, valuing above all rank-orderings and conditioned to equate right with might, these answers tend to be equated with violence and strongman rule.
…
In its methods of control and its basic structure, modern totalitarianism is the logical culmination for a cultural evolution based on the dominator model of social organization.

A dominator society has at its core

a creed that – starting with male and female – divides humanity into in-groups and out-groups that must forever be at war.

That a dominator system is still considered a viable solution shows how powerful and entrenched the dominator system has become. As long as we believe the blade – violence – can be an instrument of deliverance…

A dominator future is therefore, sooner or later, almost certainly also a future of global nuclear war – and the end of all humanity’s problems and aspirations.

It doesn’t have to end that way.

Hierarchies maintained by force require defensive habits of mind. It poisons all human relations. Many people in many societies are recognizing that male dominance and warfare are not inevitable. We can choose partnership.

A new science is developing, one of relationships rather than hierarchies. That implies less overcompartmentalized, mechanical, and logical thinking and more intuition, of drawing conclusions from all simultaneous impressions. Put another way, science needs more women.

We need new ways to view and understand conflict. We must move away from viewing conflict as violence, a clash between hierarchies. Rather it must be a chance to reexamine the goals of all parties in the conflict. Gandhi said the aim is to transform conflict rather than suppress it or explode it into violence.

We must also redefine power. We can’t think that I must control another or they would control me. I deserve power over myself, but that is different than power over others. Many boys are now taught their sense of worth is supposed to be defined by their power over others. When these boys, perhaps now men. realize the dominant role isn’t getting them what they are taught is their due, they may become violent. It is much better to teach them they are complete in themselves, their worth isn’t dependent on their position in a hierarchy.

There is also power of affiliation, of linking. How can we make a situation win-win, rather the dominator solution of win-lose? Our ethics need to change to become cooperative rather than confrontational. Harmony, rather than conquest, would become our basic ideal. When confronted by an enemy we must work against vanquishment and for reconciliation.

Eisler has shown that war is an integral part of dominator society. If we successfully move away from domination then we should be able to get rid of the armed forces and the defense budget. There are plenty of other things we can do with the money, such as quality schools for all. As relationships shift from domination to partnership we will be less interested in buying things as a substitute for satisfying relationships. Our economy will have much less waste. Most of all “women’s work” – the care, nurturing, helping, and loving others – will be integrated into the economic and political mainstream. Institutions will have the goal of leading all of us to our highest potential, to a quality of life.

As I mentioned, this book was published in 1987 at the end of the Reagan era. The effects of the dominator system looked pretty dire then.

Nearly thirty years later we’ve seen great improvements in some areas, one of the largest being rights of LGBT people – at least in Europe and America.

But I fear we are deep in a backlash against a partnership system. We have an ongoing battle in women’s reproductive choice, a core part of the dominator system. The rise in inequality over the last 30 years is all about ranking (we can’t let you challenge our place at the top of the heap), as is corporate control of our lawmakers. The GOP and its shakeup of control of Congress in the 1990s and their heavy gerrymandering after the 2010 census is also about control and ranking – with them on top. And to me the rise of Donald Trump is all about ranking and dominance – the earlier comments about strongmen sounded appropriate for today. Will we avoid strongman rule? Will the domination be resisted? I don’t know.

I’ve long written about the dominator system, though not by that name, and I’ve known how strong it is. I’ve understood that it is behind such things as bullying, the abortion issue, the treatment of LGBT people (if a man marries another man which one dominates?), the corporate takeover and the GOP takeover, and many other aspects of life.

Even with that understanding I’ve learned a couple things from this book.

I had wondered where our need to dominate comes from. Do we get it from religion? Our culture? Do we get it from simply being human, where a male has to do something to stand out and attract a female’s attention? Is it natural and innate? The answer from this book is that domination is not innate. It is learned. And a great deal of our culture, including religion, is set up to teach it.

The other thing I learned from the book is how lethal a system of domination is to our species. We have pressing problems that cannot be solved with domination in place. And if it goes unimpeded it leads to all-out war, which today can mean nuclear war. Lethal indeed!

So go learn how to be a feminist.

Chalice and Blade, Part 1

I usually have a book in the car to take into restaurants and other places to have something to read. I try to have a book that allows reading in short moments spread over a long time, so I usually don’t put novels in this role.

The most recent book I’ve had in the car is The Chalice and the Blade by Riane Eisler, published in 1987. When my pastor was moved to a new church last spring, he put most of the books he had accumulated over seven years on a table for us to peruse and take. I ignored most of the religious and church-building books, but this one caught my attention. It is a scholarly book, complete with lots of notes. It is also quite readable with an audience beyond other scholars.

Eisler begins her thesis in archaeology and its description of the dawn of civilization 6000-9000 years ago. Sites and artifacts from this period had lots of female imagery, including worship of a Goddess. Archaeologists, mostly male, interpreted this as a time of matriarchy rather than patriarchy, a time when women were in control rather than men.

But Eisler, along with with many other female researchers, determined that the opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy, rather the opposite is partnership. Patriarchy is rule by men, it is male supremacy. Partnership is led by women, but leadership is not rulership.

Patriarchy is about ranking: men over women, priest over supplicant, king over duke over commoner. Once that is firmly established the ranking is extended to citizen over outsider, one nation over another, one race over another, straight over gay, and on and on. Attempts at stepping out of this hierarchy, or, even worse, trying to take a higher position in the hierarchy, is usually met with violence. The ranking and the dominating of one half of humanity over the other half is enforced and maintained through power, frequently a blade. A lot of technological development in such a society is for destruction and war.

Partnership is, instead, about linking. We’re in this together, no one is ranked above another. I use my skills because I am good at them, not because society assigns me a role. I work for the betterment of the community, just as you do. I help you to use your skills and talents, for you to become the best you can be as you do the same for me. If I am a leader it is because I have leadership skills. A symbol of this is the chalice, the common cup. Technological development is for construction and life.

This partnership society existed for a few thousand years and covered an area from perhaps what is now Slovenia to northern India. Evidence of worshiping the Goddess were found in hundreds of sites across this region. All the fundamentals of civilization were developed in this time. These include: growing food and domesticating animals; technology for containers and clothing; crafting objects from wood, fibers, leather, and eventually metals; law, government, and religion and related concepts of judgeship and priesthood; dance, ritual drama and oral literature; art, architecture, and town planning; trade; and administration and education.

This lasted until a series of invasions from northeastern Europe and northern Asia swept into southeast Europe, bringing its society of ranking and imposing it on newly conquered areas. This invasion didn’t reach Crete, where the partnership society flourished, until about 1500 BC, when it too was overrun and a society of ranking was imposed. But in that time there was a vibrant and thriving – and peaceful – culture.

As I read this account of historical conquest I kept thinking it implied that on a field of battle the army of a dominator society will win out over an army of a partnership society. For protection shouldn’t we maintain a dominator society? Eisler answers this question in a way I don’t expect when discussing the future.

Eisler examines this period of chaos. Old myths are still around, but new myths are created and imposed to justify male supremacy. Eisler looks at several instances where she identifies bits of both mythologies.

I was especially fascinated by Eisler’s interpretation of the story of the Garden of Eden. By the time this was written down the writers, who were priests in Israel, no longer felt they needed to mention the Goddess, a female deity. Even so, their intentions are quite clear.

One of the symbols associated with the Goddess is the serpent. Female deities, including Roman
Athene, Ua Zit in Egypt, and Astarte in Canaan, are frequently depicted with serpents. Because a serpent sheds it skin it represents rebirth. It is also connected to healing, which is why the caduceus, a modern symbol of medicine, features a pair of snakes.

Other symbols of the Goddess are the Tree of Life, also a Tree of Knowledge. Both are symbols of the generous nature of the Goddess and the way She imparts wisdom. And another symbol is the horned bull, a symbol of power and of nature.

But in the Garden of Eden story, the serpent becomes the messenger of evil, the one who tricks woman and is cursed to spend its days on its belly. This is saying the old way of partnership and the Goddess is evil. The myth takes it one step further by directly declaring that sin has entered humanity through the woman, making her evil and providing divine justification of male supremacy. The Eden story includes the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. By saying these trees are off limits the story is saying there are some things – like women not allowed to receive knowledge from gods – that are not to be questioned.

That demand to obey without question is the same demand given by totalitarians:

Don’t think, accept what is, accept what authority says is true. Above all, do not use your own intelligence, your own power of mind, to question us or to seek independent knowledge. For if you do, your punishment will be horrible indeed.

Separately, the bull has come to us as the horned and hoofed devil. All of this is clearly saying the Goddess is not to be worshiped and woman is to be ruled by man.

A great deal of the Hebrew Bible, the Christian Old Testament, is written to support a ranking and dominator society. It is a “network of myths and laws designed to impose, maintain, and perpetuate a dominator system of social and economic organization.”

Consider Deuteronomy 22:13-21. What to do if a man alleges that his bride is not a virgin? If her parents can prove she is a virgin the husband pays a fine to the family. If there isn’t proof the husband can take her back to her parents and they have her stoned. She is killed for bringing dishonor to her father and the nation. What is the nature of that dishonor?

A woman who is sexually and economically free is a threat to the entire fabric of a rigidly male-dominated society. Protecting a woman’s virginity protects the economic transaction between father and husband. If the accusation of lost virginity is false, the husband is fined because he slandered the father as honest merchant. If the accusation is true than the woman is now an economically worthless asset – the father can’t sell her to another suitor and she would become another mouth for him to feed for the rest of her life. Worthless assets are destroyed to prevent additional costs.

The Old Testament, of course, doesn’t portray this as an economic problem, nor even a moral dilemma, but the Word of God. The Old Testament defines right and wrong in terms of what protects and what might upset a dominator society. We have been conditioned to think this is correct and proper.

This is the first rule of ranking: Convince those of lower rank that they are supposed to be of lower rank and that their superiors have a right in enforcing their superiority. In the Eden story and across the Old Testament that rule is given the moral authority of being demanded and ordained by God.

The Old Testament isn’t entirely about male supremacy. Parts of it, particularly some of the prophets, speak of the partnership society.

In contrast to the Old, a great deal of the New Testament, particularly the life and teachings of Jesus, promote the partnership society. Jesus doesn’t talk about “masculine” virtues of toughness, aggression, and domination. Instead he promotes the “feminine” virtues of turning aside violence and loving our enemies. He rejected the teachings of high-ranking men, the Pharisees. He had women in his inner circle, including Mary Magdalene, an idea that was a marvel to his male disciples. He encouraged women to full participation in public life.

This challenge to male supremacy as supported by the Old Testament is a strong argument that Jesus was indeed a historical person.

Saint Paul supports this challenge to supremacy with his line that in the community of Jesus there is “neither male nor female.” But there are other times when Paul blows it, such as with the line that “women should be silent in church.”

This foundation for a partnership society didn’t last. Male supremacy needed only 200 years to assert itself again. Leaders declared themselves to be clergy with special powers. And the senior clergy, the bishops, declared which writings about Jesus were true and which were heretical. In the *Gospel of Mary* Mary Magdalene challenges the authority of Peter. Out it went. For various reasons the New Testament doesn’t have Gospels of Peter, Philip, or Thomas. One of those reasons is the idea that knowledge of God is available to all and doesn’t have to be filtered through a priesthood.

I’m aware we still have lots of challenge to the supremacy system in the familiar Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and more in some passages in the letters of Paul. As much of a challenge as these passages are the parts that were excluded are even more so.

The supremacy takeover of Christianity was complete when Constantine, Emperor of the Rome, converted to Christianity. “Christian bishops, previously victimized by the police, now commanded them.” Christianity then spread across Europe through “might makes right.” The alternative to conversion was usually death. Pagan temples and shrines were demolished. The chalice of the Goddess now holds the figurative blood of Christ, shed through violence. The nonviolence preached by Jesus is gone. For the next thousand years the only scholarship permitted was blessed by the church. This was very much a religion based on ranking and supremacy.

Judaism and Christianity aren’t the only religions that support male supremacy. A great number of religions from this region and era are designed to support ranking. Even so, the idea of the Goddess persists, even after millennia. One modern Christian view of her is as the Virgin Mary. But she is definitely subordinate to a male deity.