Well, it's official

[james_davis_nicoll]

American women are now legally livestock. I wonder how long it will take before their access to passports and foreign travel is removed.

Comments

[rpresser]

Related passage from Allan Sherman in The Rape of the A*P*E* (1973):

In the year 584, in Lyons, France, 43 Catholic bishops and 20 men representing other bishops held the Council of Macon, which included the most peculiar debate since the world began a discussion which, for nonsensical content, surely exceeded the Mad Hatter's tea party. The subject of the debate was a serious world problem of the time: Are women human?

After many lengthy arguments, a vote was taken. The results were 32 yes, 31 no. Women were declared human by one vote.

(Imagine -- if one of those gentlemen had voted differently, Catholics today might be walking nude ladies on leashes up Park Avenue, waiting for them to pee on fireplugs.)

A*P*E* - American Puritan Ethic

[(Anonymous)]

WikiP:Synod_of_Mâcon says that's a UL.

Although . . .

The 14th canon imposed a curfew against Jews, banning them from the streets at all times between Maundy Thursday and Easter Sunday. The 2nd canon prohibits Jews from talking to nuns.

Antisemitism instead of misogyny isn't a great improvement

[rpresser]

I am disappoint. I have believed this UL for more than 40 years. 😭

[philrm]

They're not even pretending that same-sex marriage and contraception aren't the next targets; see Thomas's concurring opinion.

[graydon]

The 19th amendment is the next target. (All except the 2nd, but it looks like the 19th is near the top of the list.)

[philrm]

It's certainly a target, but I'm not sure it's the next one, much as Alito would like it to be.

I actually undersold it: Thomas doesn't just want to criminalize same-sex marriage, he wants to criminalize same-sex sex.

And I see that Roberts has joined in, finally abandoning his strategy of chipping away at rights just a bit at a time in order to play-act at not being the partisan hack that he is.

[graydon]

Rights are what you make up to argue for a greater authority than that of god-kings. They're not real in any material sense.

Look for the material basis of the conflict.

Here, the material basis of the conflict is "Can you own people? Overtly, formally, with the full blessing of the law?"

The most essential step to owning women is stripping citizenship. Need to take away the vote to do that, and it's pretty obvious that women's votes are especially problematic for the dominionist goals.

(Note that the "of course you own your women" position has widespread support.)

[philrm]

I don't disagree with any of that, but the Supreme Court can't simply declare ex nihilo that the 19th Amendment is unconstitutional; they have to have a case which involves it. That means that some state legislature has to pass a law that either conflicts with the 19th Amendment, or at least gives the right-wing radicals on the Court a fig leaf to claim that it does. I'm not aware of any such case, anywhere. (Although give the howler monkeys in the Texas GOP a couple of more years and I'd say there's a shot.) Meanwhile, Obergefell, Lawrence, and Griswold are just sitting right there on the table, so to speak. So, for that matter, is Loving, which, like Griswold, is barely older than Roe. I wonder how long it will be before Thomas's allies decide he's outlived his usefulness?

ETA: And all three of those cases are directly related to the same establishment of the right to privacy that has just been torpedoed by the Six, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

[graydon]

In the event that the non-voting majority keeps not voting (voting being declasse and icky), they're going to have enough of a majority in Congress to just pass laws. If the Supremes say it's constitutional, it's constitutional, and they can say that in days if so inclined. They've already laid the groundwork for saying Joe is not legitimately elected (thus lacks a real veto) and they've had their practice coup.

Nobody is getting up and doing some variant on "you can't own women" or treating the problem as an access-to-agency general struggle between a "generally distributed" position and a "all the agency is mine" position, either; I do not have a lot of hope for the utility of the response.

[philrm]

I would argue that it's a bit more complicated than that - except I won't bother, because we're really just arguing about the exact timescale.

If the past couple of days aren't enough to get people to vote this November, then I don't know what will, and in any case, it won't matter: if the Democrats don't expand their hold of Congress in the upcoming midterms, they won't get another chance.

Odds are, though, that the Republicans will take control of Congress, because, evidently, the majority of voters would rather register their anger over $5/gallon gasoline than live in a democracy.

[gatunian]

Good odds Thomas wants to make his own marriage illegal.

[ba_munronoe]

Anything to own the libs.

[(Anonymous)]

Oddly, Loving vs Virginia was NOT one of the statutes mentioned for the potential chop.

Hmmm.

Teka Lynn

[yamamanama]

Nah, he'll just declare himself an honorary Aryan.

[armiphlage]

Technically, they don't have to repeal it. They could just add a discounting factor to votes from women or POC. There's precedent in US Constitution's 3/5 compromise.

[graydon]

Surely this will hasten the Rapture.

How it hastens the Rapture is the interesting question.

[violsva]

More likely to break up the Union first, I think.

[graydon]

Not really an option; the religious authoritarian fossil carbon money is global, and really persistent.

(Note that it's why we had Harper.) No power structure able to make them stop doing what they're doing is to be tolerated.

[dwight_benjamin_thieme]

Note also that fossil carbon money is above all based on an extractive economic model; tacking on religous and authoritarian modifiers is redundant.

[graydon]

There's a difference between a mammonite and a dominionist.

Not a major structural difference, but I think relevant in operational terms.

[dwight_benjamin_thieme]

Can you give a few examples of those extractive states which don't have both?

[graydon]

Not have both? Challenging.

Not have both making decisions? Iceland and Finland seem like possibilities. Both have significant extractive industries. (Though "extractive" and "petrostate" may be getting conflated here.)

Ontario has a doctrinaire mammonite premier; he's not a dominionist. (Dominionist back-benchers are a thing.) So it's possible to attack Dougie for not being sufficiently mammonite (the surprisingly labour-friendly removal of anti-competitive clauses under his government, for example) but not for being insufficiently pious. (People would laugh.) (Whereas we do see dominionist US politicians being attacked for insufficient piety and this having political consequence.)

Both are flavours of denying facts; they're not that far apart in some senses. But the social constructions and thereby the appropriate tactics with which to oppose them do differ.

[bibliofile]

So much to look forward to!!!!

[ekaterinn]

My mom's best friend texted me to say I should get out of the States (I have dual citizenship in Canada). Considering it, but it doesn't help the millions left behind.

[agharta75]

Anyone with dual citizenship _should_ get out now.

(I do not.)

[(Anonymous)]

I look forward to the first refugee claims. They might lose in court, but then the process will take so long that it will be irrelevant. And I think it will be well funded.

William Hyde

[jjhunter]

Nevertheless, she persisted. I can do no less.

[cyprinella]

Livestock get more pregnancy and nursing support than mothers in America.

[(Anonymous)]

What is the currently accepted phrase for this Christian/fascist/quasi-theological takeover, and its ideology and philosophy?

Is it `Christian Dominionism'?

[cyprinella]

Christofascist is what I'm seeing

[philrm]

Dominionism, if you get into the weeds, has a fairly specific meaning and excludes Catholic theocrats like Alito, although Protestant and Catholic extremists are perfectly willing to work together to achieve their mutual goals in hatred and oppression. I usually just call the lot of them Christofascists.

[(Anonymous)]

The Catholic version is Integralism, as in "unelected black-robed Integralist dictatorship".

[keith_morrison]

"American Taliban"

[cyprinella]

This is racist as fuck and also gives the Christians a pass. Stop it.

[keith_morrison]

You know, in the years that said phrase has been around since it was a book title released 12 years ago, you are literally the first person I've seen complain about it like that.

[james_davis_nicoll]

FWIW, I've seen that complaint a lot in recent days.

[keith_morrison]

Huh. Although I'm surprised someone is coming to the defense of a group of religious fanatics being compared to another group of religious fanatics. Although I suppose that's fair. I'd probably be upset being compared to American fundamentalist Christians too.

[elusis]

Dominionists, and Christianists/Christianism - what I use. They're not "Christian" in any sense of the Biblical Jesus and what he promoted. Ironically the term comes from Andrew Sullivan.

[yamamanama]

At the very least, women who live in states that restrict abortion will require pregnancy tests before being allowed to travel.

[agharta75]

Even Gor has contraception.

[graydon]

Gor is way more sex-positive than this lot.

[(Anonymous)]

I am disturbed you both know this.

(Gallows humour. It is grim now, and all likely futures are far worse. For everyone.)

[graydon]

If I could get ahold of a comic book mind contact machine, one of those "everyone has a dream" things where everyone wakes up knowing something they didn't know when they went to sleep, the thing I'd impart is that the power structure is terrified of people realizing that the disaster is policy.

It doesn't have to happen; if we all collectively realize it's policy and not inevitability there's much to be done and a better world to hand.