Bitch PhD has a fantastic couple of posts about this Hager crackpot that say things better than I ever could. For those of you who haven't been following the Hager thing, he's this ob/gyn in some Southern state (can't remember which one) who advised the FDA to reject the Plan B OTC thing, and apparently, during his very lovely marriage, he raped his wife repeatedly and then paid her for it. Nice, eh? This is only coming out now because the ex-wife (now remarried) brought this to the attention of Nation magazine so that she could tell her side of the story. She only felt compelled to do this because Hager talked about the divorce in a very public venue, and she says he's lying about the reason for the divorce. I don't have much doubt that he's lying, because like Dr. B points out, raping your wife and wanting to deny birth control to women are two facets of the same desire: to control women.
I think it's so remarkable that people cannot organize these ideas in their heads, and come up with the conclusion that the religious right is very, very uncomfortable with women. Unless they're barefoot, pregnant, wearing a high-necked, long-sleeved dress, cooking and praying and saying yes dear, you're right dear and whatever you want dear. I wonder how many Fundy Xtians would vote to disenfranchise women. Probably more than a few. After all, if we can't vote, then we can't vote for the right to control our own lives.
These people, people like Hager, are dangerous. S and I watched The Daily Show on the night that the Super Sunday (?) segment aired; all these Christian leaders and at least one *senator* spoke to church groups (was it only one?) about the importance of religion in government. S and I watched, gaping at how ridiculous the whole shebang was, and simply how wrong the display was. He later commented that he thought voters like his parents (and probably mine--sorry Mom and Dad) didn't get it. "Get what?" I asked.
And then he explained that as long as they're benefitting monetarily from the government, as long as they think the government will be good to them, they don't care what fundamental lunatics attempt to do. Or succeed in doing. Because to them, the mixing of church and state isn't so bad--it isn't necessarily good--it's just the crazy crackpot way the government is going now. I said that I tended to agree with him; I think that in general, my parents (and his) vote with their wallets and bank accounts. And let me be the first to admit, Bush and his cronies haven't been bad for my own bottom line. But what good will that money be if my way of life is under fire?
And believe it or not, those fundy lunatics would have major problems with my way of life if they knew me, and could probably blame me somehow for the downfall of society and the terrorism that brought down those towers on Sept. 11th. Those lunatics might only be fringe in our parents' heads, but I don't think they're fringe in the government anymore. What happens to us, the next generation, as Bush and his buddies ruin the environment, kill the economy with a crushing deficit, and hamstring our relationship with the rest of the world by acting like Texas mavericks? As they chip away little rights--the right to privacy in our libraries, the right to the morning after pill OTC, the right to worship or not worship at our discretion--shouldn't our parents be worried about the reactionary society their liberal children will be left living in?
But it's too late now. We're harnessed to this idiot and his religious groupies for another three years. I hope I (and my sister and girl friends) still have a voice when it's all over. Because I'll never stop yelling, ever.
Bitch PhD makes the point that Hager's wife was vulnerable because she was an at-home mother who was economically dependent on her husband. Do you still think that it's always better for kids to have a full-time parent at home?
Posted by: M | May 13, 2005 at 09:57 AM
That is a really interesting question, M. I guess I can't answer it, per se. I do think that in actuality, the ex-Mrs. Hager probably had no choice about whether or not she wanted to work, so in some senses, she was a prisoner of that man. It is true that being in the home without an income is a vulnerability for women or men (probably women more so) but it is different, I suppose, when the person doesn't have the choice. When the choice has been made for them by another person.
The Hager situation is horrifying, no doubt. But I guess that part of the reason I so dislike the religious right is because no matter what the situation is, they're taking away choice from women. Hager's (probable) keeping of his wife at home with kids is just another way that he proved his dominance. It's a pattern, and my guess is that she felt like she couldn't leave because he made it so. I did read too that her children (her sons) were deeply angry that she left. Her adult sons, I believe. You wonder, too, what their lives (the children's) were like.
Posted by: manogirl | May 13, 2005 at 10:32 AM
You bring up a good point that she probably didn't have a choice on staying home - and at some point in her life, I'll guess that's what she wanted. It's hard to believe that she would have married the guy if they didn't share some basic ideas at the beginning of their life together. I wasn't so surprised about her kids. I have a good friend (in her 60s) with four adult children. When she decided to divorce her emotionally abusive husband, the oldest and youngest kids were extremely angry. These two kids totally bought into the dad's version of the story - a selfish woman who was losing her judgment due to menopause, etc. And lots of kids (adult or juvenile) are angry at whichever parent is the instigator of a divorce because the kids don't want to lose the traditional family unit. It's a big part of why divorce is such an angonizing decision. M
Posted by: M | May 13, 2005 at 01:57 PM