Skip to main content

Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy
Let's do the time warp again.

A new study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior reveals that social conservatives truly don't live in the same decade, much less the same century, as the rest of us when it comes to the role of women in society. Think Progress reports:
They found that the people who believe that casual sex is wrong also tend to believe that women need a partner to support them financially. Within that worldview, sex outside of a serious monogamous relationship is simply too risky. If women don’t have “paternity certainty,” then how will they know who they need to rely on to support them and their future child?

The researchers conclude that this outdated attitude toward women’s pregnancy risks and financial needs hasn’t totally gone away, despite the fact that modern contraception, legal abortion rights, and greater workplace equality have created an entirely different society.

"The beliefs may persist due to cultural evolutionary adaptive lag, that is, because the environment has changed faster than the moral system," the paper concludes. "Religious and conservative moral systems may be anti-promiscuity because they themselves arose in environments where females depended heavily on male investment."

Of course, these social conservatives are also adamantly opposed to all of the things that have led to women's advancement in the past century: modern contraceptives, abortion rights and workplace equality. Are they opposed because they think they contribute to sexual promiscuity, because they challenge the male dominance or simply because they're inherently misogynistic? Probably all of the above. It's an interesting sociological question that has unfortunate, concrete political consequences.

Five male justices of the Supreme Court are caught in this time warp, which in the case of women being able to make their own decisions about family planning means that the whole country is, too.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 10:56 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (57+ / 0-)

    "The NSA’s capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything. [...] There would be no place to hide."--Frank Church

    by Joan McCarter on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 10:56:34 AM PDT

  •  I think you've just posed (12+ / 0-)

    a chicken/egg question above.

    I don't know that being inherently invested both personally, morally and professionally in male patriarchal authority and privilege is exactly the same thing as being inherently misogynistic ... since that would also imply that one would put females at the center of something if one had a strong anti-female bias.  Rather I've always assumed that these types have such a limited understanding of females because females are so unimportant to them, that most of their positions come from a driving need to preserve the male privilege that their entire worldview is infused with and built upon.  

    Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

    by a gilas girl on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:12:22 AM PDT

  •  Frankly, I think you are being too kind. (19+ / 0-)

    Those five men are bigots, plain and simple. There is no excuse for their behavior on this. None whatsoever.

    SPES MEA IN DEO EST.

    by commonmass on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:14:02 AM PDT

  •  Deadly threesome (8+ / 0-)

    An outdated attitude toward women's ability to take care of themselves; ignoring the present even with enough intelligence, education and awareness to see the difference; and either an unwillingness to see women as independent moral agents, or a complete lack of empathy.

    But I have to agree that those seem present in the Supreme 5, and in the vast majority of GOP politicians.

  •  sex without having babies & babies without sex (12+ / 0-)

     I'll never forget a line in a medical drama (St. Elsewhere, IIRC) where a female patient is undergoing IFV.  She somewhat laughed as she said when she first became an adult that women were happy medical science finally allowed them to have sex without having babies, and now it allowed them to have babies without having sex.

      As often the case, the science is ahead of society.

    My Karma just ran over your Dogma

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:17:47 AM PDT

    •  When you think about it, (5+ / 0-)

      this "cultural evolutionary adaptive lag" explains the opposition to marriage equality as well, especially from those who still claim that marriage is all about procreation and the babies.

      You've got people who are still stuck in the Ozzie and Harriet paradigm -- or maybe Adam and Eve if you want to go way back.

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:38:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I walked into a Hobby Lobby once just (12+ / 0-)

    to scout around. If the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby decision is a result of "cultural evolutionary adaptive lag" so is Hobby Lobby itself. It's like taking a trip back to an all white neighborhood in the 50s, or maybe the 30s.  I really wondered if I had fallen though a wormhole and exited in an earlier time.

    Just check out your local HL, and you'll see what I mean.

    Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

    by RhodeIslandAspie on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:20:38 AM PDT

    •  Thank Ceiling Cat, we don't have any local HL's (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LynChi, RhodeIslandAspie

      Which is a little strange since they tend to pop up like mushrooms in the Bibludgeon Belt.  I suppose our time is coming.  I can wait.

      I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

      by mojo11 on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:10:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think I'll go back and take some pics. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        eyo

        Sounds like a hilarious diary. I can even record myself asking some of the help for products I know damn well they don't have.

        Excuse me, do you have anything with a Grateful Dead motif?

        Excuse me, I'm looking for a gift for a Muslim friend?

        Excuse me, I'm looking for a gift for a couple of ladies I know who are getting married?

        Excuse me, I can't seem to find anything with a wiccan theme?

        Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

        by RhodeIslandAspie on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 02:00:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Pre 1963, Pre Beatles, Pre Pill, Pre Civil Rights. (9+ / 0-)

    2 of the KRATS are from that generation.

    2 more are the very oldest boomers who were already entering adulthood when these changes were breaking, an easy age to have identified with the past. That leaves only Roberts of the KRATS young enough into the boomer generation to have had a chance to mature in the new era.

    --Obviously he didn't take that choice.

    There are plenty of reactionaries from all generations for the RW to be kicking our ass politically all these years, but the older generation now in retirement who came of age before the America entered the civilized world are as a generation the most conservative voting generation and lean solidly backward on the culture issues.

    Also both Protestant and Catholic authoritarian religion have consistently fought cultural values newer than the early 60's.

    The strong generation of that mindset are all of retirement age. As a liberal boomer who's had them beating me politically for my entire adult life, I wish every one of them a healthy, private and immediate retirement.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:22:29 AM PDT

  •  A cool and informative interactive (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joan McCarter, tardis10, wader, Wee Mama, eyo

    "Last week’s controversial Hobby Lobby ruling sparking heated debate across the web. The furor over the decision inspired visual agency Column Five to visualize The Supreme Court Database in one easy to navigate interactive that tracks Supreme Court rulings from 1946 to present time"

    http://www.visualnews.com/...

    'A civilization flourishes when people plant trees under whose shade they will never sit' Greek Proverb

    by janis b on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:23:00 AM PDT

  •  born in the 1950's, teenager in the 60's and 70's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    whaddaya, historys mysteries

    I was taught the entire time that casual sex was wrong (taught that way in school, in church and at home).  And now, 40 years later, that early education is still with me & still forms my attitudes to some extent (although I think I know better now).

    Of course, these social conservatives are also adamantly opposed to all of the things that have led to women's advancement in the past century: modern contraceptives, abortion rights and workplace equality. Are they opposed because they think they contribute to sexual promiscuity, because they challenge the male dominance or simply because they're inherently misogynistic? Probably all of the above. It's an interesting sociological question that has unfortunate, concrete political consequences.
    Some of it is just "unbreakable" training and inertia.  I hope younger people than I have been taught better, but I'm afraid it may be a several generation evolution.
    •  I was also taught that casual sex (9+ / 0-)

      was wrong -- which is why I always dressed up to go on a date. ;-)

      Seriously, while I feel like young people especially should wait to have sex until they're emotionally ready to deal with the consequences (I'm not just talking pregnancy/STDs, but also when the relationship eventually ends), I leave those decisions up to the individual conscience and advocate taking all necessary precautions (contraception/safe sex methods). I'm not interested in playing God over other people's lives...I have enough trouble keeping my own in order.

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:45:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I was born in 79 (0+ / 0-)

      And got the same darn thing too.  Maybe not the same degree, but that's all it was while growing up.  I think the difference may have been the seriousness with which it was taught.  The instruction was always delivered with a "I don't believe it, but I'm required to tell you this" kind of tone to it.  Even the "educational" videos were ancient and got a bit of mockery from everyone (teachers and students) for being way out of date.

    •  I am much younger, (0+ / 0-)

      but my parents tried to teach me no sex til marriage (or at least very far into a long-term relationship).  

      Luckily, a girl I met did a good job of changing my mind.  I know I won't be saying the same things to my kids.  

      I understand it.  Before women widely worked and before the pill it would have been a disaster to get pregnant.  It was basically a shotgun wedding or a woman would be doomed to be in poverty.  

      These days it is different.  Maybe not as different as it should be, but women are much more independent financially than they used to be and a lot of parents would be a lot more supportive.  Also it is much easier for women to control whether they get pregnant.  

      •  Exception to the rule: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Batya the Toon, OldDragon
        It was basically a shotgun wedding or a woman would be doomed to be in poverty.
        Yes, there was a lot of that, unless you were rich.  In which case you could be "sent away to boarding school" for 9 months, or simply go for a "cure" in Europe or some place where evolution hadn't been put on hold.

        There have always been different rules for those who could afford their own.

        I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

        by mojo11 on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:17:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I should hasten to add (0+ / 0-)

          that being rich didn't mean that you WOULD use one of these options, just that you COULD -- something denied to the unwashed masses or even the middle class (yes, there was a middle class then).

          I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

          by mojo11 on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:18:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's important to recognize, though (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OldDragon, historys mysteries

            that unless you were wealthy in your own right -- as opposed to being the daughter of wealthy parents -- the decision about whether your pregnancy would be discreetly taken care of or would be grounds for throwing you out of the house and publicly disowning you would not be yours.  It would be your parents'; practically speaking it could be either or both who would decide, but legally I believe it would be your father.

            And there weren't many ways you could get to be wealthy in your own right, aside from being a wealthy man's widow.

            •  Good points all (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Batya the Toon

              I suppose you could be an heiress, but that's not so far removed from widow.  There probably isn't any empirical data available to tell us, but I'd guess that more often than not, these "delicate matters" were handled with discretion in the interest of keeping up appearances.  Often, no doubt, if the boy were deemed suitable, there would be an arranged (and often doomed) marriage.  But if Missy decided to jump the fence for whatever reason how often would her parents make "other arrangements"?

              It would be a fascinating study, I think.  It would also be interesting to see how the attitudes of those girls who found themselves "in trouble" compare to similar situations today.  I wonder which side of this debate you'd find more of them on.

              I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

              by mojo11 on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:40:14 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  One thing I haven't noticed in all the (10+ / 0-)

    hoo haw is how men think about the Hobby Lobby decision.  The commentary has been focused, so far as I've seen, on women.  

    You'd never imagine that men had a stake in any of this.  The husband in a low-income household is not likely to welcome the prospect of more expense added to the household budget.  And many millions of men are supportive of women's rights.  I can't imagine they are sanguine about this.  

    We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately. B. Franklin

    by Observerinvancouver on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:33:48 AM PDT

    •  As a man who supports women, (15+ / 0-)

      I do have a stake in this.  The stake is: the right of woman to health care without interference from business or government.

      More broadly, it is the slow, insidious creep of religious faith and "rights" trumping other rights, a form of endorsing a religion without even doing so

      Hobby Lobby is a hugely significant and dangerous decision for those of us who strongly believe in the Constitution's separation of church and state.

      "The truest measure of compassion lies not in our service of those on the margins, but in our willingness to see ourselves in kinship with them." Father Gregory Boyle, Homeboy Industries

      by Mr MadAsHell on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:44:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Men like sex. (4+ / 0-)

      Men don't like condoms. (I'm saying this mostly from personal experience.)

      Condoms are necessary to prevent the spread of some common STDs, but they're a hassle, they're messy, they can break the mood (both before or after the act). Nothing worse than finishing up and being ready to cuddle when the guy has to hop out of bed to dispose of the evidence (even worse when you're not quite done and get left behind to finish up yourself).

      Contraception restored spontaneity to relationships, both the marital relationship and those less formal.

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:57:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They can break the mood (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        historys mysteries

        or simply break.  I confess, I never liked them.  But being in a monogamous relationship (of a "less formal" variety) I don't have worries over STDs, so all that was left was to avoid an unintended pregnancy.  Enter my urologist, stage left, with scissors.  Done and dusted.  And the spontaneity of which you speak is magnificent!

        I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

        by mojo11 on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:27:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I highly support birth control (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Observerinvancouver, mojo11

      as I enjoy having sex with women without having children before we are ready for that.  Also, if I had a couple kids, I would probably continue to enjoy having sex without spawning even more little ones.

    •  I've seen plenty of men (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arlene, Observerinvancouver, ajaradom

      step up and speak out against the decision here... in the media, not so much.  But then, I rarely watch TV either.

      But your point is good, as men we DO have skin in the game, particularly at the lower end of the income scale.  What we ALSO have is a shared responsibility to prevent unintended consequences -- a thing I haven't heard mentioned nearly enough in this discussion.  Having got out of the gene pool years ago, my personal stake isn't quite as big in the fight as it would have been back in the day, but that doesn't mean I don't have one.  We all do.  Because (repeat after me) Women's Rights Are Human Rights.  Same with the rights of all other humans -- irrespective of gender, race or orientation.

      I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

      by mojo11 on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:23:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  When my parents (5+ / 0-)

    sent my sister and me to college they said, "This is your inheritance.  We want you to be able to support yourself."  They also assumed that we would marry and have children.  My sister has been married for 50 years, but she she taught for 40 years.  My marriage didn't last, and I ended up supporting myself and my kids for 25 years alone.  We are both retired, have children and grandchildren and are among the fortunate few with pensions and savings,

    Thank goodness I had forward thinking parents.

  •  What commonmass said nt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Joan McCarter, whaddaya, hulibow

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:43:20 AM PDT

  •  It's embarrassing (9+ / 0-)

    Please do not think that just because I share the same gender as that bunch of constipated old men, that I agree with them in the least.

    It's embarrassing to have that cabal of meshugas on the bench.

    “Hardworking men and women who are busting their tails in full-time jobs shouldn't be left in poverty.” -- Elizabeth Warren

    by Positronicus on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:47:00 AM PDT

  •  We are just "hosts" after all... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Observerinvancouver, OldDragon

    we don't even qualify as people to them. The very worst of the misogynists refer to us as sperm receptacles. How many of these same high profile politicians/judges use prostitutes and have have mistresses. You can be certain they have whatever they want available to the women in their lives. Hypocrites..

  •  nursing home sex: Archives of Sexual Behavior /nt (0+ / 0-)

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:50:33 AM PDT

  •  Generally, organisms which suffer from (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10, Batya the Toon, eyo

    evolutionary adaptive lag become extinct.

    If Reagan was the answer, it must have been a very silly question.

    by shoeless on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 11:53:05 AM PDT

    •  That will probably be the case (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shoeless, JG in MD, eyo

      with this -- younger generations used to access to contraception and reproductive choice will replace the "old guard". Even my oldest sister who turns 65 this year has no issue with contraception being part of health care benefits that people earn through their employment -- then again, she's also a recovering Catholic.

      There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- goddammit, you've got to be kind. -- Kurt Vonnegut

      by Cali Scribe on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:01:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You can throw conservative Catholic into the mix (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tardis10
  •  Another reason they're opposed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BachFan, JG in MD, OldDragon
    Are they opposed because they think they contribute to sexual promiscuity, because they challenge the male dominance or simply because they're inherently misogynistic? Probably all of the above. It's an interesting sociological question that has unfortunate, concrete political consequences.
    Some people just don't like change. I'm that way myself when it comes to things like the kind of mobile phone I use and the version of Windows I've gotten used to.
    But I hope I'm not a control freak who doesn't want anyone to use Windows 8 or buy the latest smart phone.  Those five guys whose pictures are at the top of the diary are the worst kind of control freaks, doing all they can to impose their minority ethics on the country.  The Federalist Society can be proud of them.

    We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

    by david78209 on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:00:15 PM PDT

  •  Sometimes you can over think things (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon

    And sometimes people are just evil fucks who dont deserve a place in society.

  •  Politics for $500 (0+ / 0-)

    Culture
    Evolution
    Adapting

    "Alex, What are three things Republicans will never accept?"

  •  Studies like these give me problems. (0+ / 0-)

    On the one hand, I truly believe that the attitudes towards women expressed above are archaic. On the other hand, there is a great deal of data to support the need of single mothers for outside help. A simple look at poverty statistics will tell you that children, single women with children, and single women are always the hardest hit during good times and bad. A simple look at the wages of the vast majority of working class jobs will tell you that supporting oneself (let alone several children) above the poverty line is very difficult. A child is an enormous investment in time, money, love and energy and only a very small percentage of working women will ever be able to support one or more on their salary alone. It is great that women are told to 'Lean In' by a wealthy working woman who can easily afford the costs of childcare but it is an absurd thing to say to the vast army of working women who barely make enough for themselves. Raising children requires a community even if the mother is partnered. It requires grandmothers and aunts and teachers and babysitters and friends and neighbors.

    Now, notice that I said 'partnered'. I was not saying that it had to be to a man. I was talking to a friend of mine (a woman) about why women put up with so much crap from men. Why not simply pool your resources and cut out the need for men altogether? Her answer was stunning to me because it is the same answer that I hear from men on the subject: She did not want to pay for some other woman's babies. If it was in her family or very, very close friends then she could do it but she had no more interest in working to support the breeding habits of other women than men did. She pointed out that while women form communities and alliances to help with childrearing that they are all reciprocal. She will help out when a mother is sick or needs a hand and she expects that mother, at some point, to help her. She supported government assistance for mothers and children but she did not want it formalized into a substitute for a human relationship (husband or wife).

    To be honest, I did not know how to respond. She is an educated, professional, liberal woman whose opinion I respect and she found single motherhood to be a problem to avoid instead of a common situation in which many women find themselves.

    Please do not be alarmed. We are about to engage... the nozzle.

    by Terrapin on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 12:17:37 PM PDT

  •  These anti-promiscuity (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eyo

    People have just as much sex outside of marriage as anyone. They just try to hide it more. Just like non-drinking baptists.

    •  Yeah... funny how many of them are GOP congressmen (0+ / 0-)

      And by that I do mean "men".  Scott Desjarlais come to mind immediately, but I'm sure he's not the only one.

      I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

      by mojo11 on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:32:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think the description (0+ / 0-)

    is too wordy. "Evolutionary Lag" would suffice.

    I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

    by mojo11 on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 01:04:50 PM PDT

  •  But this is wrong. (4+ / 0-)
    If women don’t have “paternity certainty,” then how will they know who they need to rely on to support them and their future child?
    It is the man who needs "paternity assurance".

    This is kind of  weird twist, using evolutionary theory of sexual behavior to expand into social/cultural thinking.

    But this is wrong.

    Women don't need paternity assurance.
    Women give birth to the child so they know it is theirs.
    It is the man who needs the assurance that it is his child, since the child does not issue from his body.

    Totally twisted.
    The woman has to assure the man that it is his, so he can provide for it. But the woman always knows it is her child.

    Hijo de mi hija mis nietos serán, los hijos de mis hijos no se si serán.
    •  Women need 'paternity certainty' (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      quill

      because men need it -- which only makes sense in a larger circumstance where men are the ones expected to provide financial support to their children.

      If the prevailing socioeconomic system requires you to have a man providing for any babies you might have, then you need to be able to prove to said man that your babies are his, because otherwise he won't provide for them.

      Unless you're in a matrilineal system where the man who provides for your babies is your brother, not your husband.  (I wonder how women without any brothers managed.)

  •  CEAL. Good, now we have a pseudo psych/medical ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eyo

    CEAL. Good, now we have a pseudo psych/medical term for what's wrong with, Johnny, Nino, et al. Maybe Big Pharma can come up with a prescription pill for that.

  •  it's not about cultural lag (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eyo, Schneewolfe

    A better analogy (and we are really only talking about analogies here, not serious scientific theories) is that this is about differences in g
    "memetic diversity" between cultures.

    Conservatives base their culture on fixed unchanging dogma, such as the rules and values found in the Old Testament. That means they are unable to adapt to changes in mainstream culture, which is not bound by fixed rules and so is free to evolve. A long time ago, that strategy worked - because the conservatives held all of the power (see: Dark Ages, Roman Catholic Church, Inquisition, etc), but now they cannot torture and kill the heretics for believing differently than they do.

    So whereas mainstream culture is like any sexually reproducing species with lots of genetic diversity and the ability to adapt, cultural conservatives, rooted as they are in ancient written documents, are more like a parthenogenetic species that reproduces asexually, ensuring that only clone copies are ever produced. Those 5 supremes will never change or grow - it is not in their memes.

    "Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

    by quill on Wed Jul 09, 2014 at 03:13:11 PM PDT

  •  It's the Money (0+ / 0-)
    ...social conservatives are also adamantly opposed to all of the things that have led to women's advancement in the past century: modern contraceptives, abortion rights and workplace equality. Are they opposed because they think they contribute to sexual promiscuity, because they challenge the male dominance or simply because they're inherently misogynistic?

    I think it's about money and power. If you look at the rules of the game as defined by conservatives it all adds up to children.

    Why is it wrong to be gay? Answer: People of the same sex can't produce offspring (without science). So, it doesn't add to the population.

    Why is it wrong to have "casual" sex (meaning, sex outside a monogamous, heterosexual marriage)? Answer: People having this kind of sex tend to want to avoid pregnancy. So, it doesn't add to the population.

    Why is it wrong to use contraceptives or have an abortion? Answer: it prevents or terminates a pregnancy. So, it doesn't add to the population.

    Pick your least favorite conservative sexual stricture. Boil it down and the bad part about it, as far as conservatives are concerned, is: It doesn't add to the population.

    If you're rich and you own businesses (or invest in a lot of them) population growth is a care-free way to increase profits. It's like compound interest. Does your bank account swell while you're dreaming at night? No? No problem, population is swelling all the time.

    Except when those liberals get their way. Then, all the babies go out with the bath water!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site