One important sidebar to the January 6th hearings this past summer was the difference between how male and female witnesses were treated after their testimony implicating former President Donald Trump. The most prominent examples were Cassidy Hutchinson, once aide to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and Sarah Matthews, once deputy White House press secretary for President Trump. Both were compelling witnesses who provided detailed descriptions of events and conversations at the highest levels of government. Immediately after their testimony, both these women were actively dismissed and humiliated by Trump and his followers on social media. With its vile and overtly sexist character, the vitriol against Ms. Hutchinson and Ms. Matthews far exceeded post-testimony attacks on male witnesses, whose testimony in some cases was even more damaging to the targets of the investigations.
This predictable misogyny is one example of a bedrock moral issue, the presumption of native superiority of one group of humans over another, which has been used to justify mistreatment of women for millennia. Consider more broadly the following set of relationships: (a) Earth belongs to humans; (b) colonialism and war over territory; (c) slavery; and (d) racism and patriarchy. What do all these relationships have in common? One group of humans asserts power and dominion over land or other people, claiming that God or Nature made us that way. Both climate health and social justice are held hostage by the ideologies used to justify these relationships. One of the main tenets of natural humanism rejects these claims of dominion as bogus (to put it mildly) and odious.
To replace domination hierarchies, there are countless other ways to organize relationships among humans and between humanity and Earth. I discuss some alternatives in Which Future? with a particular emphasis on how humanity should relate to our planet. Another excellent book on this subject is Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future by Riane Eisler & Douglas P. Fry. Although written independently, there is no daylight between my book and theirs where we focus on the same topics. The bottom line is how much we have to gain by transforming all our relationships—personal and institutional alike—from one-way streets to mutual, reciprocal, caring and interdependent partnerships; and the moral imperative to do so.
7 Responses
My wife says you’re right about mistreatment of women
Attacking women via social media is a strategy for gaining approval from other men. I think it gives some men a feeling of power to label us as “bitches”, “dykes”, and so on.
Unfortunately, misogyny is deeply embedded in many cultures, a fundamental aspect of the socialization of young boys. This makes it incredibly difficult to uproot.
Sally, would you agree that misogyny is not only conditioned in men, but often internalized in women who are essentially forced to live in a male dominated world? That adds to the resistance to change.
David, this is a definite connecting of the dots. Most people would not think about the connections between patriarchal thinking/misogyny and the climate emergency, but there are many commonalities in the world views that drive both.
Sally, your comments capture why David’s world view is so valuable. I see great changes ahead in the US as women, thankfully, gain more power so I’m optimistic. However, you’re right that in so many other economically powerful countries misogyny is so deeply rooted that change will be slow.
Forced pregnancy. Talk about domination.