If you thought misogyny was, if not dead, then too déclassé for governments to embrace, think again. This year, in spite of the MeToo scandals, the resignations, the surge of women elected to office, misogyny still reigns. Here are exemplars that would amaze the good ol’ boys from 50 years back.
Mississippi. The state got the political message: abortion is wrong. It devalues life; It forces women into infanticide; it violates all the tenets of a humane society. On the other hand, spending money, especially money on new mothers, is wrong too. Maybe worse. The state recently considered the question: how many months postpartum must women really need to be on the Medicaid rolls? Other states let those new mothers stay at least a year; other states reach out to poor women and their children, without rigid postpartum timelines. Not Mississippi. The state cut back the too-generous year of Medicaid to two months. (AP: “Mississippi House Leaders Kill Postpartum Medicaid Extension.”) Liberals argued that a state where more mothers died in childbirth than the national average should keep the one-year limit. Their arguments did not sway frugal politicians.
Guatemala. A lot of countries ban abortion, but Guatemala upped the ante. Women who have abortions are subject to 10 years in prison; the physicians who perform them are subject to 12 years. At the same time, women who give birth to children they cannot care for live in poverty, without help from this government that values life. The punishment for women who successfully, but clandestinely, abort is not clear. Does an obstetrical-police seek them out for punishment? The measure allows abortions to save the life of the mother, but requires two physicians to attest to the danger of childbirth — a challenge for woman in rural Guatemala.
On International Women’s Day, the President of Guatemala declared Guatemala the “pro-life capital” of Latin America — vying with Honduras and El Salvador. The evangelical Washington-based Family Research Council, as well as Senator Steve Daines (R-Montana), chair of the Senate’s Pro-Life Caucus., added their praise.
Congress. Not afraid to discard the status quo, Congress revisited the need for school lunches. Why feed poor children? Too many are obese. And shouldn’t parents take charge? For 60 years the federal government has taken up the gauntlet, offering free and reduced fare lunches to school children. Children in poor homes may miss breakfast; and a parent, often a single-parent mother working long shifts, may lack the oomph to pack the nutritious lunch that dietitians advocate. (Admittedly, the measure won support from the nation’s agricultural sector.)
The outlay is not momentous. Nevertheless, this Congress seeks to cut the allocation. In the $1.5 trillion spending package, somehow school lunches got overlooked. As of now, “waivers” would expire on June 30. Even cynics predict that Congress will rethink this exclusion, but the existence of the exclusion speaks to misogyny in extremis. NBC News: “School Meal Programs In ‘Financial Peril’ After Spending Bill Snub, Advocates Say.”
Of course, all is not glum. Four years ago President Trump killed the Violence Against Women Act. His supporters — including a raft of men, the ones who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 — probably praised his macho. The bill had Included a “boyfriend loophole” that would have made it hard for convicted abusers to own guns. Gun-enthusiasts objected. So, with the support of his followers, President Trump let the law lapse. But President Biden, who introduced the Act 25 years ago, has moved to restore funding, included in the same $1.5 trillion spending package.
Twenty-five years ago the police did not intervene when a woman called for help. The excuse: “domestic” violence was a family matter. The original act changed that mindset. This measure is not ideal. It does not include a “boyfriend loophole”: gun-toting men can still keep their guns handy. But it does put the government on the side of the battered women. The New York Times: “House Passes Bill To Bolster Protections For Women Facing Violence”
To end with hope, perhaps when misogyny ceases to be so politically popular, governments will reconsider their zeal to punish women.
Joan Retsinas is a sociologist who writes about health care in Providence, R.I. Email retsinas@verizon.net.
From The Progressive Populist, April 15, 2022
Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us