On the Aftermath of Hobby Lobby, Part II: Man-splaining Strikes Back!
I’m seeing a pretty constant pattern from a lot of men regarding the Hobby Lobby decision, both here on OT and over the rest of the intertubes. It varies a lot by person, but essentially it goes something like this:
Guy makes a statement that SCOTUS got Hobby Lobby correct, whereupon…
Various women become irritated by this statement, whereupon…
Guy doubles down on initial statement, invokes some kind of reference to his wallet, and wonders aloud why various women are annoyed with him.
Since the message being delivered by the XY-chromosome set seems to be whizzing past deaf ears, allow me to attempt to mansplain to my own tribe.
Imagine for a moment that you are a woman. Here is a quick — though in no way complete — list of things that we collectively pay for in America, due to government mandate, despite the fact that many people find them morally objectionable:
- Birth control for women.
- The execution of prisoners, despite the fact that our most modern forensic evidence now shows that we have historically not batted 1000 in getting the convictions right.
- Heavily disproportionate warrentless searches, “stop and frisks,” kills by police “in the line of duty,” convictions and jail time for black Americans for illegal drug use, despite the fact that both in raw numbers and a as percentage white Americans use illegal drugs as much or more.
- Action from government-paid employees to block the building of houses of worship.
- The invasion of overseas countries.
- The use of drones in overseas countries that kill not only enemy combatants, but innocent civilians as well.
- The public defense of men likely guilty of crimes as heinous as murder and rape.
- Laws that not only allow but actually encourage armed confrontations that lead to the death of innocent civilians.
- Funding government programs through taxes on the sale of a product that directly leads to millions of deaths.
- Funding government programs through taxes on the sale of a product that directly leads to probable and very negative planet-changing consequences.
- Heavily subsidizing an industry whose products directly leads to tens of millions of deaths.
- Subsidization of cruel and unnecessary subjugation of animals in our farms, as well as our governments outright execution of millions of wild animals a year.
- Subsidization of US corporations that purposefully hide the life-threatenting dangers of their product from the public.
I could, of course, go on and on. (And if you wish, dear readers, feel free to do so in the comments section below.)
But here’s the thing…
In our male-dominated society of male-dominated elected officials, male-dominated corporate leaders and a male-dominated Supreme Court, we have decided that in a modern, pluralistic democracy such as ours, all but one of these items are things that lack the degree of heinousness to allow people to opt out of paying for them based on their personal moral and/or religious beliefs.
And what is the one thing on this list that is so potentially despicable that we men agree an exception must be made?
So, yeah, I get why women are a little annoyed at the “but not with my wallet” argument.
And no, the additional argument that “it’s not very expense, really” doesn’t help.