Friday, October 2, 2009

IF PROGRESSIVES ARE A THREAT, WHAT DO WE CALL REGRESSIVES?

For many years we have given women some small choices about their body and whether they wish to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. They usually have no less than 18 years to worry about whether their giving their child up for adoption was sending their child to an abusive life or worse.

Our society finally did enough testing to realize that women's brains, while different than men's, are equally intellectually capable and competent. We have much scientific proof of that fact. Women have proven their right to vote, work to support families as a single parents or in two-parent families. Today women have not yet achieved total equality, by any means, but there is a light at the end of that tunnel. They are no longer a man's chattel and can own their own finances and sign contracts.

It may have taken a thousand years to get there but in one single speech, we realize there are still men fighting those changes and, worse, they are strong voices with relatively large audiences are, So many other Regressives like Glenn Beck, Bob Grant, Rush Limbaugh, Phyllis Schlafly, and too many others are holding us to the misery it took generations to give up. John Derbyshire of the National Review thinks that canceling all that the Suffragettes achieved and taking away women' right to vote is just a dandy idea. For these backward ideas, read Steve Bene's excellent article here. It makes the notion of rebooting some people's brains quite appealing. A new operating system might be a decided improvement for some of the brains that keep hiccuping in the past and can't move on to the present. Instead of thinking that forward moving ideas like Da Vinci are heretic, perhaps we should view those who would keep so many in bondage and the ruts of the past as heretics?

Just afters I finished writing this, I came across an article adding everything to what I might have said, had I thought to say it. Click here.

No comments: