So here’s my dilemma: I read remarks recently attributed to Louie Gohmert (memorably described by Charles Pierce as “the dumbest mammal to enter a legislative chamber since Caligula’s horse”) that several people had posted to Facebook. Even though it was Louie Gohmert, I was sure it was satire.
But then I read the same quote on a news site I have always found credible. And a search on Snopes came up empty.
It’s hard to believe, but here, presumably, is Louie’s reason for voting against funding for a program to encourage more women to enter STEM fields:
‘And, you know, that’s just not the way God intended us to be treating women. I know that everybody is today talking about equality and we’ve got groups that are trying to make us believe that women are equal to men. However, that’s just not the case. God didn’t make us equal. It is ourselves, we have created this illusion of equality. And you want to know what the most powerful evidence of that there is? Simple biology. We have parts they don’t and vice versa. So right then and there you’ve got proof of God’s master plan.’
Women were created for one thing and one thing alone. We are insulting the Lord by allowing women to act like men. Women are beautiful creatures, no doubt about that. We marry them, we look after them, we provide for them and we love them, but that does not mean they are the same as us. It is the job of a woman to stay at home, to maintain the household, to bear children and look after them after they’re born. Nowhere in the scriptures does it say that women should be chasing after fancy titles and knowledge. The only knowledge they need is the one we men allow them to have.’
And we wonder why Americans tell pollsters that the country is on the wrong track….
I understand that there will people in any large country who are simply retrograde ignoramuses. What I don’t understand is why other people vote for them.
I’ve posted previously about Indiana’s latest–and most intrusive–anti-abortion legislation.
In the wake of the Governor’s “prayerful” signature of that measure, it seems that a group of Hoosier women has formed “Periods for Pence.” The concept is simple enough: since the Governor is so …interested…in our “lady parts,” Hoosier women are calling his office to report on the particulars of their monthly menses.
Evidently–and hilariously– the Governor’s office is being inundated with snarky “reports” about the details of women’s periods. (Readers who want to get in on the fun are encouraged to go to the group’s Facebook Page.)
Excellent as this trolling is, however, political theater really is no substitute for competent political leadership.
The Pence administration has been an unmitigated disaster for Indiana, not just because the Governor’s emphasis on social issues at the expense of actual governance has given us a decaying infrastructure and interfered with educational progress, among other things, but because it has been very, very bad for business.
When Georgia’s Republican Governor vetoed that state’s RFRA, observers noted that the Governor wanted to avoid the damaging economic repercussions that Indiana had experienced in the wake of Governor Pence’s very different decision in Indiana.
As I have written elsewhere: even Georgia doesn’t want to be Indiana.
But as this latest assault on Hoosier women demonstrates, it goes well beyond RFRA. This Governor has undone years of efforts to position Indianapolis and Indiana as welcoming, business-friendly venues.
Remember “Hoosier Hospitality”?
Under Mike Pence, Indiana garnered negative headlines for refusing to allow a single family of Syrian refugees to resettle in our “hospitable” state. His ongoing assault on the Superintendent of Public Instruction (elected, inconveniently, with more votes than Pence garnered) has given us a black eye in the national education community.
And now, in the wake of Pence’s “prayerful” signing of the nation’s most punitive and restrictive abortion law, national media is once again portraying Indiana as anything but hospitable.
The New York Times ran a scathing editorial. A banner in Salon.com was accusatory: “Mike Pence’s sadistic abortion law: Indiana passes draconian anti-choice bill geared towards humiliating and bankrupting women who have abortions.” Slate noted that “Indiana’s HB 1337 is So Extreme Even Republicans Don’t Like It.” Other headlines referred to the bill as “extreme,” “chilling” and “most restrictive in the nation.”
These latest headlines add to the national impression that Indiana is a state hostile both to LGBT individuals and women’s autonomy. And whatever one’s position on these issues, that image spells nothing but trouble for the state’s economy.
The business community has opposed these culture war eruptions for a very good reason: the message they send is terrible for business.
It’s hard enough recruiting top-flight talent—the sort of employee who is in high demand—to a state with no mountains, no oceans, a middling-to-poor quality of life (poor public transportation, ill-maintained parks, struggling schools), without adding a reputation for homophobia and chauvinism.
I’ve lived in Indianapolis all my life. I’ve been involved, over the years, in a number of efforts to “sell” our city. I still have fond memories of my time in the Hudnut Administration, when Bill Hudnut–a Mayor with a very different understanding of both Republicanism and Christianity than our Governor—talked about building an inclusive and welcoming “City on the Hill.” People in that Administration, and several that followed it, worked tirelessly to garner “good” PR for Indianapolis.
We knew then that a positive image wouldn’t just generate convention business, important as that is for the city and state’s bottom line, but that being seen as a welcoming and inclusive and vibrant city would encourage businesses to locate here, and those already here to expand.
We wanted to encourage all kinds of people to join us in building our local economy; not just those who went to a particular church or subscribed to a particular version of Christianity.
A lot of people have worked hard and spent a lot of money over the years, promoting Hoosier Hospitality. Too bad we elected a Governor who seems determined to undo it all.
Regular readers of this blog know that I took a nasty fall a few weeks ago, and fractured both my pelvis and my collarbone. I’ve been mending, but the process has been far slower than I’d like. Until last weekend, I had left the house–in my baggiest clothes– only for doctor’s appointments and physical therapy.
Mended or not, however, I wasn’t about to miss the wedding last Saturday of two friends I’ve known for at least 25 years.
I put on real clothes (immensely grateful to find my pants still fit!), and even applied makeup; as I told my husband, I felt almost like a real person again. And off we went–to attend the wedding of two women who’ve been together through good times and bad for the last thirty-eight years, two women who have used their multiple talents, compassion and generosity to contribute to the quality of life in our community.
They were married in a friend’s home, surrounded by dozens of well-wishers from their personal and respective working lives; academic colleagues of the retired history professor, co-workers from the various agencies where the lawyer worked before her own retirement, family members and neighbors.
One of the male relatives who offered a toast put it well: “some people say marriage is about love, some say it’s about companionship, some say it’s about lust–but I say it’s about time.”
Indeed!
When I first met the two of them, many years ago, they were careful to leave people with the impression that they were roommates–clearly worried about losing jobs and/or friends if they were candid about the true nature of their relationship. Little by little, over the years, social attitudes changed and those concerns eased, and last Saturday–after 38 years, no longer young but still devoted–they were finally able to celebrate their lifetime commitment surrounded by family, friends and neighbors who love and appreciate them and wish them well.
It was a lovely wedding.
I will never, ever understand how the obvious joy of being able to affirm a loving relationship hurts–or even remotely affects–anyone else. I will never, ever understand the mean-spirited scolds who want to deny other people–people they don’t even know– the right to publicly celebrate a meaningful connection to someone they love.
And I will never understand why Indiana’s Governor and Legislature are willing to allow–indeed, encourage– one group of Hoosiers to treat another group badly. I will never understand the stubborn refusal to extend equal civil rights to all Indiana citizens, or why these “good Christians” feel entitled to use the law to marginalize and diminish wonderful people simply because they love differently.
On reflection, I think I’m glad I don’t understand them.
Contemporary American society reminds me a lot of Orwell’s Animal Farm, where everyone was equal, but some were more equal than others…
The last few years have ushered in a long-overdue recognition of the concept of privilege: we are at least beginning to discuss what we mean by white privilege and male privilege, and the ways in which unconscious cultural biases operate to disadvantage non-white, non-male citizens. Those conversations are important, and we need to continue them, but I want to suggest that it is also time–indeed, well past time–to address religious privilege.
It’s getting out of hand.
Just last week, a legislative committee in Tennessee approved a bill that would make the “Holy Bible” the “official book” of Tennessee.
In Mississippi, the legislature passed a bill that “gives protection to those in the state who cannot in a good conscience provide services for a same-sex marriage.”
North Carolina recently “protected” good Christian folks from having to share restrooms with citizens of whom they disapprove, among other things.
Other states–notably Indiana–have passed measures clearly intended to cater to the religious beliefs of some (certainly not all) Christians about abortion, despite the fact that those measures demonstrably harm women.
Meanwhile, scientists continually fight efforts to introduce creationism into science classrooms, and civil libertarians oppose ongoing attempts to introduce prayer and religious observances into the nation’s increasingly diverse public schools.
All of these efforts, even those that have been repeatedly struck down by the courts as inconsistent with our First Amendment liberties, are met with a degree of respect that we would not accord other illegal actions. For that matter, these self-proclaimed “Christians” expect–and receive–a level of deference not accorded to atheists, or even members of other, less privileged religions.
As I write this, the Supreme Court is considering whether religiously affiliated organizations that employ people of many faiths and none can refuse to allow those employees access to birth control through their health insurance policies. The government has already bent over backwards to accommodate religious objections: the employer need not pay for the birth control and needs only to inform the government of its objection; the insurer will then provide contraceptives directly to the employee. The organizations are arguing that requiring the act of notification“burdens” their religious liberty.
In an analysis of that case, The Nation recently asked a pertinent question: Can religious groups simply ignore all the laws they don’t like?
Given their constant insistence on privileging the pious, it might be well to reflect upon the performance of our sanctimonious “family values” politicians. Those of us who live in Indiana are painfully aware of the damage done by self-proclaimed Christians with little or no interest in actually governing, but it is worth noting that things are even worse in deep-red Alabama. H/T Steve Benen at Rachel Maddow’s blog, reporting on Governor Bentley’s deepening sex scandal:
The Birmingham News’ John Archibald published a brutal column today noting that Alabama’s state government is simply unraveling: the governor is mired in scandal; the lieutenant governor is widely seen as “unfit to serve”; the state House Speaker is currently awaiting trial on 23 felony counts; and the state Supreme Court’s chief justice is Roy Moore, whose crackpot views have already forced his ouster once, and who can hardly be counted on to adjudicate responsibly going forward.
But they all go to church. And hold prayer meetings. And quote the bible. And (like Indiana’s Governor) they clearly believe that those attributes–not compassion, not administrative competence, not constitutional scholarship, not personal probity– are the qualities that entitle them to use the power of the state to force the rest of us to behave as they see fit.
We really need to stop privileging people who want to impose their beliefs on the rest of us, whether those beliefs are ideological or religious in origin.
We definitely need to remind these self-righteous theocrats that in America, wrapping themselves in religious dogma does not make them more equal than anyone else.
When I first became interested in economic policy, I found Milton Friedman’s advocacy of a “negative income tax” appealing. As I recall (and I read about it a long time ago), the idea was that people making more than a set amount–presumably, an amount sufficient to live on–would pay taxes, and those making less would receive a supplement bringing them up to sufficiency.
One virtue of such an approach would be to cut out the costs of the significant bureaucracy devoted to administering complicated systems of public assistance.
New Zealand’s Labour Party is considering the concept of a basic “citizen’s wage.” Andrew Little, leader of the Labour Party, confirmed this as the result of the potential for higher unemployment in in the coming months and years. “Citizen’s income” is also known as Universal Basic Income (UBI). The idea is that everyone gets a basic amount of money to live off of, like a wage, and benefit systems are gotten rid of.
Switzerland and Finland have introduced similar systems.
I haven’t seen studies comparing the costs of such systems to the patchwork, cumbersome and demeaning welfare programs we currently administer, but I suspect a citizen’s wage would save considerable tax dollars.
Of course, I’m sure the very idea would raise howls of protest from the self-righteous legislators who want to punish people for being poor, and who seem to enjoy telling welfare recipients what they can buy at the grocery…
