Deduction: Hitting Girls Isn’t Cool

Deduction: Hitting Girls Isn't CoolDeduction: Hitting Girls Isn’t Cool

Domestic abuse has been a problem for a long, long time. Pretty much ever since men and women have decided to cohabit together, there have been men who see fit to physically abuse their wives. In some places domestic abuse still isn’t even against the law, think Russia and some middle-eastern countries. I know, you would think Russia would have some better laws against domestic violence with its ranking about the big and forward-thinking countries, but it doesn’t. No wonder all the Russian women want to leave. It’s very difficult for women in Russia to prove domestic violence. The ones who want out, many of them, have to end up running away instead of appealing to actual legal channels.

Domestic abuse was a problem during the time of Sherlock Holmes. When I saw the time of the Sherlock stories I roughly mean 1890-1910, but some of the Sherlock stories do fall out of that time line. I’m just using a rough time period for Sherlock. The thing about the time period of Sherlock though is that women were picking up momentum. They were gaining rights. I have already briefly mentioned property laws passed in England around the time of some of the Sherlock stories. Before this point women weren’t legally allowed to inherit. Their money could be entirely controlled by the men in their lives. The year 1865 also saw some laws passed that helped protect women in abusive relationships, but as you can probably tell, it took some time for these laws to take effect.

Men still beat their wives. Even with women becoming more independent and riding bicycles and gaining the right to vote, men still beat their wives. Men still beat their wives today even though it’s illegal as all get out, especially in the United States and the United Kingdom. It’s not nearly as common as it used to be though, which is saying something. We’ve accomplished something, probably not as much as we should have, but we’ve done something.

The atmosphere of social reform was in the air when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote his Sherlock stories. The world was changing. Things were progressing. Women and people of color, any color, were gaining more rights to do the same things white men could do.

There are three cases of domestic abuse I would like to cite in the Sherlock Holmes stories. They come from The Adventure of Abbey Grange, The Adventure of Black Peter, and The Adventure of the Cardboard Box. Now, there may be stories I’m missing that tell of domestic abuse, but I’m going to go with these three stories.

In The Adventure of Abbey Grange a woman concocts a story about her dead husband. That woman is named Mary. It turns out that a man who likes her killed her husband because her husband was an alcoholic and he had been beating her. Sherlock decides that no one should go to prison. In The Adventure of Black Peter, Black Peter is known to chase his wife and daughter about the village hitting them while drunk. In The Adventure of the Cardboard Box Browner is known to get a little violent and argumentative with his wife when he’s drunk, he ultimately kills her.

In all three adventures alcohol is involved. Arthur must have assumed that only drunk men beat their wives, but that isn’t the case and we know it. Sober men can beat their wives too, but usually it’s because they have anger issues or mental disorders, or maybe they’re just jerks. Alcohol does not make men beat their wives. It’s true that some men get so angry when they’re drunk that they behave in a manner they would never behave in while sober. It happens, that’s why it’s a good idea to evaluate how alcohol reacts with you and choose to take it or not to take it.

What is so fascinating about the Sherlock stories in relation to women being beaten is that they get what’s coming to them. Sherlock thinks these men are deplorable. He thinks that anybody who kills one of them is doing a service not only to the wife, but to society.

You have to remember that for a long time, and even today depending on where you live at and what kind of people you hang out with, people said a man beating his wife was his business. Nobody stepped in to help a battered woman. They said she probably did something to deserve it. They said she had made him angry. They always blamed it on the woman. Mothers would tell their daughters to have dinner on the table at 6:00pm on the dot and have sex when they didn’t want to, all to avoid being beaten. Mothers would not rescue their daughters, because they themselves had probably been beaten during their marriage. Fathers didn’t rescue their daughters because it was expected that a man could be his wife. People just didn’t get involved, because they didn’t want to be dragged into anything.

I mentioned Russia earlier, that’s because Russia has a huge problem with domestic violence, even bigger than the United States or the United Kingdom. Lots of women die every year in Russia because their husbands kill them. Killing a person is illegal, but somehow people get away with it. In India a lot of men also get away with killing their wives. There is still this attitude that somehow the woman did something to merit being physically abused.

This was the attitude people had about wife-beating back in the day of Sherlock, but like I said, that was changing. People were beginning to speak up about women’s rights. Laws were being passed to basically say that women were people too.

Get this, Arthur was a man and Sherlock was a man. As a man in England in the 1800s you may have dressed all fancy and been up on the latest fashions for men of the day, but you were a manly man. You drank your whiskey. You shot your guns. You farted at the dinner table, ok, I don’t know about that one, but you behaved like a man. You didn’t stand up for women. No man stood up for women. They were like, “Oh, those women and their silly problems.”

Arthur was a well-known man who created Sherlock Holmes, who was also a man, until proven otherwise. You have to admit that Sherlock secretly being a woman would put a whole new twist on the Sherlock Holmes stories, but this isn’t the case. Sherlock was a well-known and respected man. People admired him. People looked up to him. People came to him for advice. The amazing thing about Sherlock Holmes is that he breaks that stereotypical image of a man’s man. Sherlock stands up for women. Sherlock thinks that beating your wife is bad. He helps women who have been beaten. When he finds out that someone murdered two of these men because they were beating their wives, he lets the guys go.

What these men did is still illegal. Murdering a man is illegal ok? These men should have been prosecuted theoretically, but Sherlock says, “Well, he was a jerk, we’ll let this one slide.”

This says something about the men who kill these men as well. They were people-enough to stand up against these men because they were terrible people and strike them down for their wrong doings. One man did it out of self-interest in the case of Black Peter, but in the case of Abbey Grange, this sailor outright killed a man because he was beating his wife. He risked prison for this woman. He risked prison because she was being beaten. That’s saying something; it really is. If you’re man enough to do that, then you’re a real man. Even Browner, who murdered his own wife, realized that he was a despicable jerk. He realized how wrongly he had behaved and wished to be dead.

You have to understand that lots of people read these Sherlock stories. Arthur basically made a statement. I don’t know if he did it on accident or he meant to do it just for publicity or he meant to do it because he really believed in it, but he made a statement about violence against women. He got it across to thousands upon thousands of people. Via his character Sherlock Holmes he basically made the statement, “If you beat your wife, you’re a terrible person. If someone happens to kill you, then, too bad, so sad. The murderer shouldn’t be prosecuted because you’re a terrible example of a human being.” This is huge. It’s a big deal.

A prominent author and a prominent literary character speak out against violence to women. People didn’t do this. I’m telling you. People who rocked the boat and spoke out against things like this were laughed at for a long time. Whether Arthur did this out of good intention or not I don’t know, but it had a positive effect. People could say that if Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed hitting your wife was bad and he wrote Sherlock to think it was wrong, then maybe you too should think it is wrong.

In the end, I bet you never suspected Sherlock Holmes of being feminist.

an essay about domestic violence in sherlock holmes, Deduction: Hitting Girls Isn’t Cool, domestic violence, feminism, sherlock holmes, sherlock holmes as a feminist, sir arthur conan doyle, violence against women, wife beating, women’s rights
Essays, Sherlock Holmes


4 thoughts on “Deduction: Hitting Girls Isn’t Cool”

  1. Women also abuse men but historically men have always had to just take it. This is still largely the case today. If a husband so much as pushes his aggressive / violent wife away in an act of self defence she will likely be able to claim assault and have the police, courts, public on her side. I believe in some US states even if the man is clearly the victim (covered in blood) and the woman is clearly the abuser (holding the frying pan triumphantly) the police are still required by law to arrest the man.

    Most stats show domestic abuse victims split about 40/60 between men and women. The social stigma for men to admit being victims (or even realise that they are) means the figure could easily be 50/ 50… not that it really matters.

    Yet in general there are no men’s shelters, no support or sympathy towards male victims or even any recognition that men can be victims. ALmost all of society’s focus, media coverage, political campaigning, laws, resources, sympathy and support are dedicated towards helping women. This includes the feminist movement which claims to fight for gender equality yet does nothing to help 50% of gendered people in the world (ie the male ones). In fact feminism only helps to reinforce the notion that women are automatically victims who have no agency and that men are automatically aggressors who have all the agency. Feminism and its ‘patriarchy theory’ defines all woman essentially as passive ‘acted upon’ objects.

    As a result of this relentless conditioning, even when we see a man being attacked in the street by a woman most people (men and women) either take no notice, or laugh and even encourage the women (“you go girl!”)….. as many studies using actors have shown. Here is just one of them.

    LINK to video

    The only way to end domestic violence is to end violent parenting, particularly during the crucial personality-forming ages of 0-6 years. That is where the language of violence, domination, humiliation, taunts, threats, abuse, manipulation etc is laid down and hard wired into the still developing brain.

    The trouble with seeking such a rational solution is that it means making women (mothers) accountable for their actions, and exposes the fact that women (mothers) are at least as responsible for how society turns out as men are, and arguably far more so. The idea of women NOT hitting, shaking, threatening, humiliating and generally dominating their babies and young children is still too ‘far out’ to be promoted by society. Children are the last group in society we allow to be treated this way. Even spanking your pets is not allowed in most countries.

    If feminism acknowledged the massive influence and massive power women (mothers) have to shape adult behaviour (men and women) twenty years down the line then patriarchy theory would fall apart. And feminists could no longer claim to be victims of men. They would have to concede women’s huge role in creating society’s monsters (both male and female).

    > In the end, I bet you never suspected Sherlock Holmes of being feminist.

    I’m sorry but I don’t get your logic here. Wife beating has ALWAYS been taboo. And men have ALWAYS punished other men for abusing women. The entire foundation of ‘patriarchy’ is the provision of resources and protection to women by men to ensure women – and therefore children – are kept safe and secure thus ensuring the survival of the species.

    Women are the limiting factor in reproduction which is why in a ‘patriarchy’ men are the disposable sex (being shoved off to war or down coal mines etc).

    Society throughout history was often more brutal and unforgiving than it is today (due to lack of technology, lack of wealth, lower living standards etc) … but that applied across the board and not just to women. In each age women always enjoyed the LEAST amount of harshness and brutality, relative to men and animals of that age …… and often children themselves. I’m sure plenty of women were small enough to go up chimneys…..

    If half of domestic violence victims are male today then it is safe to assume half were male in the past. But in the past it was even less socially acceptable for men to admit (or acknowledge) themselves as being victims of anything – let alone victims of women! Men in a patriarchy are trained to be self sacrificing, dutiful, mules and cannon fodder. Resource and protection providers to women and children.

    To have men protecting women from abusive men (and going to extreme lengths to do so) is the very OPPOSITE of feminist theory which claims men are sociopaths who OPPRESS women wither wilfully or simply as a natural consequence of being male.

    At what point in history has society ever taught women that it was their moral duty – as women – to protect men and provide resources to men even at their own expense even if that meant sacrificing their own safety, comfort and even their own life?

    Both patriarchy AND feminism define women as helpless, vulnerable, innocent, responsibility-free, passive ‘acted upon’ objects …. and men as invulnerable, guilty, responsible-for-everything, active agents who control society (including women).

    Both patriarchy AND feminism preach the mantra of “He For She” (AKA chivalry).

    Feminism IS patriarchy. Feminism is basically Patriarchy 2.0

    In a patriarchy men are praised and even honoured (often posthumously) for putting women/ children first. In a feminist society men are chastised for not putting women/ children first.

    The reason for this shift in emphasis? …. Elementary my dear Watson!

    The reason is feminist’s greater financial independence and higher standard of living as a result of new technology, which has enabled feminists to work in comfortable office jobs in service industries (as opposed to doing manual labour which made up the majority of work available until quite recently).

    The other factor is feminist’s decision to transfer their dependency from men with skills (husbands etc) to government (men with guns and the legal right to use them to redistribute wealth). Husbands do not have as many guns as government, nor do they have the legal right to take other people’s money by force and give it to feminists. Feminism is basically patriarchy + socialism + misandry. Feminists have simply recognised modern governments as the ultimate alpha male. This situation suits the state which encourages feminists to keep voting for bigger and more intrusive governments in return for ‘free stuff’ and special privileges – mostly paid for by the taxes of men. This allows feminists to remain sexually liberated Beyonce/ Carrie divas while still being cared for and provided for by men. The only drawback is that postponing marriage or long term relationships until their thirties and forties means they have much reduced pulling power and have to choose from the dregs of men (the rejects). Cue a bunch of expensive plastic surgery and endless complaints about not being able to find a nice guy…..

    When this unsustainable relationship comes to its inevitable conclusion (financial collapse) feminists will transfer dependency back to ordinary hard working, dutiful, self sacrificing patriarchal men again. The kind of men who would knock the block off any other man caught abusing a woman.

    And the cycle is complete 🙂

    1. First off, thank you for the very long comment. It’s not often I get someone in here actually posting an extensive argument. While I don’t entirely agree with you, I agree with you on the fact that men too are abused and have a social stigma with reporting it. I also agree that feminists can go too far and end up demeaning men rather than simply defending women. Like the sexist idea that men are incapable when it comes to taking care of a house and watching the baby. It’s definitely two sides of a coin. If you don’t go far enough, women are still marginalized, go too far and you marginalize men. Sexism can happen both ways; I don’t agree with the term reverse-sexism.

      I am not a diehard feminist, but I’ve read many arguments both for and against it. I think women and men really need to decide what’s good for them in their interactions with men and women, not let someone else tell them what it should be. It should be more about being a good person rather than championing one sex over the other.

      There were times in history and in certain societies when wife beating was common and almost expected. It might have still been taboo to talk about, but it happened a heck of a lot. I’m not saying men didn’t get abused, because I’m sure they did.

      I do really like your point about women raising children. You are correct, women do need to consider how they treat their children. If a woman raises her children in a violent manner, they’re more likely to be violent themselves, whether they’re male or female.

      The point is that people turned the other way. They didn’t get involved. They said it was a family problem. They expected it to happen. The idea that Sherlock steps in where someone usually would not have is a big thing. He did something. He said something. He used action rather than turning away.

      I would have been extremely surprised had Sir Arthur Conan Doyle turned one of his stories around to be about a man being abused by a woman. It’s like you said, men weren’t expected to admit this kind of thing. Arthur in his own way was forward-thinking in concerns to women, but still clung to stereotypes and gender roles about both sexes.

      I once explored the idea of sexism against men in The Grimm’s Fairy Tales. Men were princes and kings and it didn’t matter what else they did. They were just titles; they weren’t people. It goes along with what you say about men being expected to be providers and caretakers of everyone else.

      In the end, none of it’s perfected yet and we still have a ways to go on both sides.

      1. Hey, thanks for approving and replying 🙂

        > I am not a diehard feminist…

        Hmmm. I get what you mean, and I’m sure (like you say) we agree on a lot of things, and share similar values…..but….. it’s kind of weird to reject diehard feminism yet still support moderate feminism. There is the argument that diehard (radical) feminists are just taking moderate feminist ideology (patriarchy theory) to its logical conclusion. Even in the mildest version of patriarchy theory men are defined as ‘the problem’ – oppressing women – whether they are doing this wilfully or just as a consequence of being male and acting as males do. Declaring men to be ‘the problem’ and what stands between women and freedom, or what is preventing a truly civilised society is really no different to declaring blacks or jews to be ‘the problem’ and what stands between whites / non jews and freedom and what is preventing a civilised society.

        The moderate feminist is therefore like the moderate racist, identifying certain groups as ‘the other’ (us vs them), the ‘problem’ and a ‘threat’ to civilised society …. but without actually being prepared to use direct force against this group. But plenty of ‘radical’ people in the world ARE willing to use force and they end up being given a cause by the moderate masses, and shielded and encouraged by them.

        Would you agree it’s irresponsible and immoral to join a movement which identifies blacks as ‘the problem’ and has many radical members advocating the use of force against blacks ….. even if you make it clear you only want to be a moderate member who only supports the ideology and not the use of force?

        A moderate vegetarian does not eat meat. A radical vegetarian does not wear leather and might actively campaign against abattoirs too. If a radical vegetarian was someone who roasted a cow in a giant BBQ each weekend there would be something very wrong with the vegetarian movement.

        So if radical feminists want to reduce the male population/ sterilise men/ castrate men or just subjugate men politically and economically what does that tell us about feminism as a whole?

        If feminism really is (as Emma Watson claims) about achieving gender equality for men AND women then a radical feminist should logically be a staunch men’s rights activist as much as women’s rights activist. Yet the very opposite is true.

        > There were times in history and in certain societies when wife beating was common and almost expected.

        Well, even if we accept this as true we cannot ignore the fact that the beating and general abuse of children (and animals) was also common and expected, and women were at least as guilty of this as men. We are all to a very large extent the product of our upbringing. If men were beating their wives this is because they were beaten themselves as children. Women cannot evade responsibility for this fact. The cycle of violence can only be broken by parents not abusing their children. As the beating of children has gradually become a bit more taboo, we’ve seen a less violent society as a result. The streets have statistically never been safer than they are today (despite what the news would have you believe).

        And we might also consider why women would choose to marry brutish, aggressive, dominant and potentially violent and abusive men in the first place?

        The answer is that life was harsh and survival was not guaranteed. For most of history starvation was a very real possibility for ordinary people. Women have always sought brutish ‘alpha males’ because they were more able to provide resources and protection to those women. In harsh winters or when there are bandits about you do NOT want to be married to a metrosexual man with manicured nails and eyeliner, no matter how good he is at giving you foot massages and listening to all your problems. You want to be married to a frickin warrior! LOL…… and women throughout history CHOSE these dominant, decisive, burly, rugged, aggressive men (and they raised boys to BE those kinds of men) precisely because it suited women at the time for men to be that way. If these men were dominant or even violent around the home then that was just the price women were willing to pay for being so well protected and provided for (for not having to protect and provide for themselves) ….. kind of like having a highly strung guard dog who might occasionally bite you, but which is nevertheless indispensable for keeping you safe from intruders.

        As living standards improved thanks to technology women have needed less and less protection and resources (or have simply got it from the state instead) and have started to favour more sensitive men because they can now afford to. But women are still hard wired to desire the alpha male type (the ‘bad boy’). The ideal man is James Bond. A dominant, aggressive, physically indestructible psychopath who is capable of murdering someone with his bare hands without being traumatised and needing years of therapy afterwards, who can dispose of the body and meet you for dinner ten minutes later with flowers where he will be witty and charming before finally seducing you like a real man, but while also being totally sensitive and attentive to your emotional/ sexual needs and wants. Such men are impossibilities. They are composites of extreme opposites, reflecting women’s contradictory (but perfectly natural) drives for bodyguards/ companions/ lovers/ workhorses etc.

        I think we’ve *all* been sold a version of history where men are the villains and women are the poor innocent helpless victims. Feminist text books have been caught promoting the lie that the phrase ‘rule of thumb’ refers to the rule that a man could beat his wife with a stick no wider than his thumb. When people corrected the authors with sources disproving this myth the following editions still contained the pernicious lie. Feminist studies into rape have been caught classifying male rape as NOT rape (it is classified as ‘made to penetrate’ instead). No wonder they end up concluding rape victims are predominantly female – they literally won’t acknowledge male rape victims as rape victims (imagine the uproar if it was the other way around!)

        Perhaps we are hard wired to have this bias because it serves reproduction (survival of species) to be more sensitive and accommodating to women’s needs and less sympathetic to men’s suffering. Feminist theory is rarely challenged precisely *because* men (and women) seem to have an aversion to challenging women who are claiming to be in distress or in danger or suffering in some way. A 2007 study into gender bias found that women tend to express a bias in favour of women, whereas men don’t really have a bias towards men. In other words, men do not seem to have the urge to promote the interests of the group ‘men’. They seem to lack the ability to even view themselves as ‘belonging’ to such a group. Men view themselves as individuals whereas women view themselves as belonging to the group ‘women’. This is why ‘men’s rights’ groups are so thin on the ground and why the western world stopped to watch Emma Watson deliver her deranged speech.

        If men ever claim suffering or oppression this is either ignored by society (rather than given, say, a platform at the UN and mass media coverage), or else it is challenged with a barrage of counter arguments and counter examples of male privilege/ female suffering.

        In short, women only seem more oppressed than men historically and today because society cares about women’s suffering far more than men’s. We tend to seek out examples of women’ suffering (whether real or made up) and then make a big fuss about it.

        Bossy women being occasionally called ‘bossy’ is A BIG DEAL (apparently), but the fact that men are killed at work 20 times more often than women is NOT a big deal, nor is it a sign of gender inequality or the oppression of men. Basically nobody cares. Only the other day a man landed a rocket on a comet, but he appeared on TV wearing a shirt with bikini clad women on it (given to him by a woman apparently). Feminists claimed this was oppressing women and they apparently managed to reduce the poor man to tears at the very apex of his career when he should have been happy and proud of his achievements. Meanwhile Beyonce has made a multi million dollar career out of self objectifying herself in bikinis and prancing about provocatively and yet she is a feminist role model of female empowerment. Why aren’t there aren’t any feminists attacking her videos, posters and stage shows or criticising her toxic influence on children? Gender bias at work I guess.

        > I’m not saying men didn’t get abused, because I’m sure they did.

        If you think about it men’s abuse and men’s oppression has always been characterised in terms of duty, privilege or just ‘what it means to BE a man’. We cannot SEE sending hundreds of thousands of men and boys to the frontline to be mown down in a hail of machine gun fire in terms of male oppression. We cannot SEE men being expected to work 12 hours a day underground in mines in terms of male oppression. We can only see women being *allowed* to stay at home in the safety of the kitchen and being provided resources and protection by these self sacrificing men in terms of female oppression. We call this ‘women being chained to the kitchen sink’.

        We only see men earning top wages at the heads of corporations. We do not see men sweeping the streets or emptying the garbage or working on deep sea trawlers or construction sites in the rain. Feminists aren’t interested in achieving ‘gender equality’ in those ‘male dominated’ jobs. They are not advocating for government to create a bunch of expensive taxpayer funded programs to encourage (or fast track) women into manual labour positions or all the dangerous and unpleasant jobs currently being done by men.

        We only see the wage gap, but we do not think about the fact that women control 80% of household income, even though men work more and earn more than women. So men do the work to earn the money, and women spend that money. Who is being oppressed again? Men also receive far less ‘free stuff’ from government than women do … and all that ‘free stuff’ is paid for by taxes…. taxes which are taken mostly from hard working/ high earning men. Therefore men HAVE to work more to earn more just to achieve the same standard of living afforded to women because men are expected to financially support women – even women they will never meet in their lives, many of them undoubtedly feminists. The glass ceiling is arguably a men’s rights issue, not a feminist one.

        And we only SEE women gaining ‘gender equality’ when they got the vote. Yet we fail to remember that for most of history men also did not have the vote. When men demanded the vote they had to give up certain rights and agree to go and fight wars for the state in return for the right to vote. A few years later women demanded the vote as well, and they got it with no conditions attached.

        Men had obligations to the state and women had no obligations to the state – which group was more privileged?

        And if the political realm was mostly made up of men at the time (and it was) and these men gave women ‘free voting rights’ while demanding that men sacrifice their lives on the battle field in return for their voting rights – is that really a sign of an oppressive male dominated patriarchy oppressing women?

        If we are going to view the world in the feminist terms of ‘men vs women’ (as if men and women are somehow separate clans rather than an intimately linked and co-dependent whole) then we would have to say that women getting the vote was – by definition – an act of female supremacy, not gender equality.

        The narrative laid down by decades of feminist propaganda which defines women today and throughout history as helpless victims (passive ‘acted upon’ objects) is so taken for granted now that it’s almost impossible to resist. But everywhere you look the reality is usually the very opposite of what feminists claim.

        Sorry, didn’t mean to write so much (again!). I’ll shut up now 🙂

        1. I’ve watched several feminist groups from the sidelines. Some of the things they say are amazing and true. These measures they propose really need to happen, not just because they push women forward, but because they better everyone’s lives. Then again, I see some of the things these groups say and cannot agree because they’re just too extreme and make a more hostile environment for everyone. It’s basically the same idea as how I see some things the Republican party does and I really like those things, but I also see some things the Democratic party does that I really like. They both do bad things and neither is entirely my cup of tea. I definitely consider myself more of a outside party when it comes to many groups because I don’t entirely agree.

          I love the idea of women being paid the same as men and having the same opportunities to work at manual labor jobs, be in the military, and not being discriminated against for certain job fields. None of the measures to promote any of that are bad. It’s a good thing.

          Women tend to be more social than men and thus tend to stick together, that’s not always true, but I think that’s where the us vs them mentality comes into play.

          Yes, women are genetically hardwired to search out the dominant male, but bad relationship choices are also reflected on what type of men their mothers chose. If their mothers chose a jerk, the daughters are more likely to choose a jerk.

          These days, women don’t get to stay home. Women didn’t “get to stay home” back in the 1950s. People simply wouldn’t hire women who wanted to work outside the home. They thought women were supposed to be at home with the babies. Believe it or not, I’ve heard some recent examples of more Christian type groups firing women from positions in their employ if one of those women became pregnant. Their idea was that it was now the time for the woman to give up her career. It didn’t matter to them whether or not she actually wanted to work.

          There are women who want to stay home today and take care of their children, but don’t have that choice. The whole idea of “getting to stay home” isn’t a thing anymore. With inflation and increased costs of living it takes two people to maintain a middle-class standard of living. If a couple wants two cars, they both have to work for the most part. If they want a house that is just outside of the bad part of town, they both have to work. These days, women who “get to stay home” as in they want to devote their time to raising their children, maybe even by homeschooling, have a husband who makes a lot more money than the rest of us and that husband still has to work his butt off to make that much money.

          I get that men are treated bad and unfairly, but women have also been treated bad and unfairly, children have been treated unfairly, African Americans have been treated unfairly. These days our social issues revolve around women’s rights and LGBT rights. Back in the 1960s our social atmosphere revolved around rights for African Americans. Good things happened out of that tumultuous time. Good things will happen when you champion rights for anybody. More often than not, the extreme sides of things are not adopted, there are always exceptions. The idea, ultimately, is to have everyone treated the same without respect to race, gender, social status, weight, disability, or whatever. The ultimate idea is that everyone deserves to be treated with respect; it’s just that you can’t champion everyone’s cause at the same time. These things come in cycles.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s