Shutting that whole thing down: Todd Akin, rape, pregnancy and abortion

Like almost everybody else I spoke to today, I was staggered, this morning, to hear Todd Akin’s comments about “legitimate rape” and pregnancy. The Missouri Republican, who is running for Senate, was justifying his opposition to abortion even in cases of rape, when he offered up the following cringeworthy utterance:

From what I understand from doctors, [pregancy resulting from rape is] really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

It’s possibly the biggest news story in the world right now, but if you missed it, Nicole Hemmer has done a wonderful job here at The Conversation dissecting the responses to Akin’s comments and their likely campaign-aborting implications.

As Hemmer and others point out, Akin’s comments are very much an extension of the so-called “Republican War on Women”. The Republican party finds itself unfortunately captive to evangelical zealots whose bronze-age cosmology is matched only by an antediluvian attitude to sexuality, sex and reproduction. It should surprise nobody that women (like atheists and homosexuals) are far less likely to vote Republican than men are. What surprises me is how many women do vote Republican.

I couldn’t do justice to just how ignorant Akin must be to even consider qualifying “actual rape” from any other. Fortunately columnists, bloggers and tweeters everywhere have been hard at it since Sunday morning. But what struck me most was his pseudo-medical contention that “the female body has ways to try shut that whole thing down.”

That is an assertion that strays right into my research specialty: the biology of sexual conflict. I’ve written many times before about the fact that the reproductive interests of a man and a woman are seldom perfectly aligned and can be quite profoundly out of whack. A wife and husband who differ on whether to have another child are in mild sexual conflict, whereas a rapist and his victim are – it would be hard to overstate this – at profound odds (evolutionarily and otherwise).

Women and men, like all sexually reproducing animals, negotiate the decision over whether to mate or not. The outcome isn’t always a happy compromise because sometimes the mating is worth much more to one party than the other. But in some species, a female can choose – after copulating – not to use the sperm of a male.

In the Australian Black Field Crickets we use in my lab, the male cannot copulate forcibly with the female. She has to mount him voluntarily and she is unlikely to do so unless he has a sexy song. But once she has mated him and he has attached a bag of his sperm (a spermatophore) to her abdomen, she often chooses to remove it before its entire contents enter her body. This isn’t in the male’s interests and he harasses her to prevent her reaching around and removing the spermatophore.

As other bloggers have suggested, perhaps this is the kind of thing Todd Akin had in mind? Post-rape female choice in humans in which women have some kind of adaptation that prevents conception with the sperm of a rapist. I always savour the irony when an evangelical evolves into an armchair adaptationist.

If such an adaptation existed, it certainly doesn’t work particularly well. According to one U.S. study, “national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age”.

My point here is not to get sidetracked in the largely irrelevant biology of whether women can, somehow, discriminate against the sperm of a rapist. I would rather highlight the fact that the way in which women discriminate against men whose children they do not want to carry is by not having sex with them in the first place. A measure of the extent to which a society deserves to consider itself civilized can be gained from the extent to which its citizens recognize this fundamental and inviolable right.

When this right is violated or subverted, be it via incest, or violent coercion, or any other means whatsoever, the result is rape. To suggest that some forms of rape earn that name more legitimately than others is to deny women this right and to defend the agenda of the rapist.

But in societies like ours, there are other very effective mechanisms by which women can choose not to bear a child by a particular man, including a rapist: abortifacient drugs and abortion. Bill Clinton famously asserted that “Abortion should not only be safe and legal, it should be rare”. Even the most ardent pro-choice advocates agree that abortion should be rare, but without legal and safe abortion women fare considerably worse in the messy business of sexual conflict and in society as a whole.

What strikes me about the anachronistic attitudes of evangelicals and their Republican puppets to abortion, contraception, family planning, female economic empowerment and feminism in general is just how unambiguously male these attitudes are. All of these issues are informed by what suits men’s evolutionary and economic interests. Or more precisely by what suited the interests of men, especially rich and powerful men, before the industrial revolution.

An entire political party in one of the most advanced and educated countries on earth has become a caricature of the most basal evolved insecurities about masculinity. They seem terrified of losing control over the means of reproduction and petrified of cuckoldry.

40 Comments

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You have to confirm that you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some sources, such as AAP, don't allow their images to be republished without permission.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

40 Comments sorted by

Sean Lamb

Science Denier

Don't be absurd, God created women not to get pregnant to rapists, otherwise rapist genes would wind up dominating.

I'm a bit disappointed in you, Dr Brooks, I can only assume the Republican connection is to unfashionable for your trendy self. But normally getting between you and a piece of slightly plausible evolutionary sexual speculation is as rash as getting between a herd of academics and a grants body.

Surely we could knock something together - I mean you already have pointed out the utility of linking woman's sexual arousal with selecting successful sperm.

Orgasm assisting sperm passage? Vaginal secretions preserving sperm viability and motility? In any other circumstances you would be leaping in boots and all. This is very very tame. I guess Democrat voters are far more likely to buy your books and hence a sudden emphasis on a rigorously empirical approach.

Who are you and what have you done with the real Dr Brooks?

9 months ago report
1. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Tell me that your post is just a joke.
  
  Please.
  
  My brain is still in shock at "legitimate rape" let alone the magic vagina which can discern evil rapist sperm from good lover's sperm.
  
  9 months ago report
2. Sean Lamb
  
  Science Denier
  
  In reply to Dianna Arthur
  
  Generally these days I try to sit on my hands with Professor Brooks articles, but this one was too tempting to resist. My approach is to be very skeptical of the "just-so" story evolutionary approach, whereas in my view nameless others are - usually - the opposite. But my just-so story is just as good as plenty others that are put forward.
  
  I mean why deny agency to the vagina, I would like to know? It seems very patriarchal and phallocentric.
  
  9 months ago report
3. Rob Brooks
  
  Rob Brooks is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Professor of Evolutionary Ecology; Director, Evolution & Ecology Research Centre at University of New South Wales
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Great to have you on board the adaptationist ark, Sean. I don't really have a problem with you just-so stories - you can do that as well as any of us. My point, though was that the agency of the whole person in cases like rape is far more important than the "agency of the vagina" and some hypothetic and incomplete adaptation that might or might not have evolved.
  
  But I'm sure you absorbed the link I posted in the comments section, showing that any such adaptation (including, possibly, pre-eclampsia) ain't particularly effective.
  
  9 months ago report
Jack Arnold

Director

Thank you for an interesting article Rob. However I fail to see the connection between crickets & women.

Rather, I think we have a classic example of "if you think education is expensive, consider the cost of ignorance".

There appears to be little doubt that Akin is an unsuitable candidate for any elected body & that the Republicans remain rooted in 19th century social thinking.

Will Akin be kicked off the GOP card? Unlikely. Can the world suffer another George W Bush? Preferably not. Yet both are thrown up by the US democratic system of voluntary voting.

9 months ago report
1. Timmy Corks
  
  Honours Student
  
  In reply to Jack Arnold
  
  To be fair, the vast majority of countries that hold elections do not have compulsory voting, and the jury is still out as to whether compulsory or voluntary voting is better (personally I'm with you, I think compulsory is better, but I haven't read into it enough to be sure). The case in the U.S. is complicated by many factors: the massive amount of money involved, accessibility of polling booths, and demographic factors all come to mind, but I'm sure others exist.
  I don't think we can blame the current sad state of the GOP solely on voluntary voting.
  
  9 months ago report
2. Rob Brooks
  
  Rob Brooks is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Professor of Evolutionary Ecology; Director, Evolution & Ecology Research Centre at University of New South Wales
  
  In reply to Jack Arnold
  
  The connection, Jack, is merely to illustrate that female crickets can discriminate against a male they have mated with after the fact, but that males get agitated about that possibility. I'm not trying to make any kind of qualitative connection other than to illustrate the conflict of interests between male and female and the fact that it can have adaptive consequences. No attempt to suggest any qualitative similarity with human behaviour, just an illustation of an evolutionary principle.
  
  9 months ago report
3. Dianna Arthur
  
  Dianna Arthur is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Environmentalist
  
  In reply to Jack Arnold
  
  Jack Arnold
  
  You need to reread the article. The only creature which can rid herself of unwanted sperm is the Australian Black Field Cricket.
  
  If you are too.... pressed for time:
  
  "In the Australian Black Field Crickets we use in my lab, the male cannot copulate forcibly with the female. She has to mount him voluntarily and she is unlikely to do so unless he has a sexy song. But once she has mated him and he has attached a bag of his sperm (a spermatophore) to her abdomen, she often chooses to remove it before its entire contents enter her body. This isn’t in the male’s interests and he harasses her to prevent her reaching around and removing the spermatophore."
  
  9 months ago report
Peter Ormonde

Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.

Farmer

Erk. And this bloke actually "represents" people - even women. I wonder how.

Gives me the same feelings of revulsion as when I read some of the more ratbag end of Islamic scholarship whereby there can be no such thing as rape - quite simply the woman didn't cry out enough to raise the alarm - so both rapist and victim are judged guilty of adultery in the courts.

As for matters spermatophoric:

Not cricket.

I've been chatting up a cricket
chirping loudly at a thicket
in a corner of the garden where the lizards hardly go
But my raspy conversation
saw her drop all expectation
of a chance at making babies.
So I guess we'll never know.

9 months ago report
Rob Brooks

Rob Brooks is a Friend of The Conversation.

Professor of Evolutionary Ecology; Director, Evolution & Ecology Research Centre at University of New South Wales

If anything, the evidence suggests that rape is more likely to result in conception than an act of consensual sex. http://www.popsci.com.au/science/rape-results-in-more-pregnancies-than-consensual-sex-not-fewer

9 months ago report
1. Sean Lamb
  
  Science Denier
  
  In reply to Rob Brooks
  
  I see agency for the penis via the luteinising and follicle stimulating hormones.
  
  So could you unpack this a little further....what do you think the longer term implications for this in terms of human evolution are - beyond that of the 2012 presidential campaign.
  
  9 months ago report
2. Rob Brooks
  
  Rob Brooks is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Professor of Evolutionary Ecology; Director, Evolution & Ecology Research Centre at University of New South Wales
  
  In reply to Sean Lamb
  
  Deapends who wins the election, Sean. If the GOP win big, the implications for all types of evolution, but especially human evolution, are pretty dire. It might turn out never to have happened.
  
  9 months ago report
3. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Rob Brooks
  
  Can evolution run backwards?
  Can the purportedly intelligent bit of the design process be excised?
  Can we have really really dumb design?
  
  Questions questions questions....
  
  9 months ago report
Scott Ragan

Educator

Interesting. In this article that is (rightly so) aimed at pointing out the flaws and fallacies found within Todd Akin’s statements, you take several sneering, snarky swipes at evangelicals and Republicans, painting them with an incredibly broad brush. Your general thinking and/or reasoning appears to be this:

Todd Akin calls himself an Evangelical Christian and a Republican.
Todd Akin has revealed himself to be an idiot.
So Evangelical Christians and Republicans must all be idiots.

I’m…
Read more

Interesting. In this article that is (rightly so) aimed at pointing out the flaws and fallacies found within Todd Akin’s statements, you take several sneering, snarky swipes at evangelicals and Republicans, painting them with an incredibly broad brush. Your general thinking and/or reasoning appears to be this:

Todd Akin calls himself an Evangelical Christian and a Republican.
Todd Akin has revealed himself to be an idiot.
So Evangelical Christians and Republicans must all be idiots.

I’m not sure how much you allow other views/opinions to rattle around in your liberal echo-chamber, but let’s give it a try…

First…I have heard a few scant voices speak up in support of Todd Akin. The vast majority of conservative leaders, Republican leaders, Evangelical leaders have all have come out against Akin in one way or another. So why do you speak as though what he said was somehow supported and/or endorsed by said Evangelicals, Conservatives and Republicans. That seems quite dishonest.

Now onto some of what you passed off as thoughtful commentary…

The “Republican War on Women” was created by liberals and Democrats as a set of political talking points to try and win an election. Given that you are a college professor you MUST be at least smart enough to figure that out. If this “war” really did exist, Nancy Pelosi and all the other female Democrats (at the very least) would have never let the “war” drop. Sandra Fluke was a prop. She was used by the Democrats as a visual aide. Not that Republicans/conservatives have clean hands when it comes to dealing with women’s issues…but the Democrats/liberals are just as guilty of using women, exploiting women, treating women like trash, etc. I’ll assume that I don’t need to go into examples like Bill Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, etc.

This is a nice turn of phrase: “The Republican party finds itself unfortunately captive to evangelical zealots whose bronze-age cosmology is matched only by an antediluvian attitude to sexuality, sex and reproduction.” Unfortunately if you were reading it out loud it would be difficult to make out clearly since your head seems to be shoved up you’re a**. Believe it or not, there are a few of us Republicans and evangelicals who are intelligent, college educated, modern, hip and up-to-date. In fact, there are more than a few. In fact, there are millions of us. I know it might make it easier for you to look down your nose at people who are conservative and/or an evangelical by assuming that we’re all backwards thinking, and I guess if reflecting back your own ignorance and stupidity are your thing…you go ahead and keep on making those asinine assumptions. In the meantime, we’ll all keep living in the 21st Century.

You say that is surprises you is just how many women DO vote Republican. Have you ever TALKED to any conservative/Republican women and asked them? You might want to give it a try. You might find it enlightening. It seems the height of ignorance on your part to assume that women should vote the same way. Here’s a tip: they don’t all vote the same…in the same way that men don’t all vote the same. Women are open to the reality that Republicans aren’t all misogynists, just as all Democrats are not liberationists. As I mentioned before, as a college professor I would think you would be smart enough to figure this out. But perhaps not.

I was especially tickled by this little tidbit: “What strikes me about the anachronistic attitudes of evangelicals and their Republican puppets to abortion, contraception, family planning, female economic empowerment and feminism in general is just how unambiguously male these attitudes are.” Now granted, I am a male, so my thoughts on this may be tainted by my maleness, but your assumptions here are ridiculous and asinine (again). You do realize, don’t you, that there are other legitimate, nonreligious reasons why many people, even nonreligious and nonpolitical types, are against the idea of abortion? You do know that there are medical, ethical and philosophical questions that the idea of abortion/euthanasia and such raise outside of the sphere of influence of Evangelicalism and Conservatism? And you do know that there are even atheists and evolutionists who articulate an opposition to abortion as a moral imperative against the self-interest of the collective society. Surely THEY aren’t ALL tainted by your disdain for all things Evangelical and Republican. And while contraception has certainly been dealt with by some religious groups, most Evangelicals and Republicans that I know are not opposed to contraception, family planning, etc. It seems silly that you would try to act as though most if not all Evangelicals and Republicans stand in opposition to such things. In my experience, most do not.

But perhaps you aren’t concerned with reality.

9 months ago report
1. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Scott Ragan
  
  Don't suppose you'd be willing to sprinkle these denials and repudiations with the odd fact or bit of useful information at all.
  
  I have no doubt that there are some decent humane Republican voters out there somewhere - but one rarely hears anything about them over here ... all we get are the more extreme elements who it seems are more "newsworthy". See the way it looks from here the GOP has become torn between placating TEA Party ginger groups and fundamentalist tub-thumpers in the mould of Gerry Falwell.
  
  For example can you give me the names of some pro-choice Republican candidates? Or those who support contraception advice in schools? Or equal rights for minorities and women? Oppose the teaching of creationism or "intelligent design" in schools? Any evidence at all that the Republican party has a broader sweep of opinion and voting pattern than the simple "war on women" allegation suggests?
  
  9 months ago report
2. Rob Brooks
  
  Rob Brooks is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Professor of Evolutionary Ecology; Director, Evolution & Ecology Research Centre at University of New South Wales
  
  In reply to Scott Ragan
  
  If I'm as deluded as you suggest, Scott, then it's a delusion that just keeps on giving. This from the New York Times today.
  
  http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/g-o-p-approves-strict-anti-abortion-language-in-party-platform/?smid=tw-share
  
  But no, I don't think or even suggest that it's everybody. The GOP right now has a problem with women and a great many women (and atheist and Hispanic and black) voters have a huge problem with it. And if they want to govern they'll need to own that problem and stand up to the theocrats.
  
  9 months ago report
3. Scott Ragan
  
  Educator
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Hmmm...see here's the thing. If Professor Brooks is the one to make the snide comments that seem to imply that he has reasoning behind his contempt for Evangelicals and Republicans/Conservatives, then it also seems as though he should be providing proof and support.
  
  There's a saying in philosophy that you can't prove a negative. While in it's totality that point can be argued, there is still a valid point to the idea that if someone wants to argue the negative of a situation or a position…
  Read more
  
  Hmmm...see here's the thing. If Professor Brooks is the one to make the snide comments that seem to imply that he has reasoning behind his contempt for Evangelicals and Republicans/Conservatives, then it also seems as though he should be providing proof and support.
  
  There's a saying in philosophy that you can't prove a negative. While in it's totality that point can be argued, there is still a valid point to the idea that if someone wants to argue the negative of a situation or a position (and I would posit that Prof Brooks is doing that here) then if that person is actually interested in informed discussion it is up to that person to present the proof to back up the negative they are arguing. In a loose way it's kind of the philosophical/logical extension of the idea of an idea or a group of people being innocent until proven guilty of something...
  
  Why would you assume that what the media reports in a 30 second sound bite from one person must be representative of the whole? That isn't really how the news and media in general work. They are going for ratings and, at the same time, since the media here in the States does have a bit of a left-bent, they will go for the slam of Conservatives, Republicans, Evangelicals and anyone else they don't like or feel are beneath them. What the media does is present caricatures of groups and then act as though they are the actual sum total of that group.
  
  Think of it this way: When I see representations of people living in England in the movies and on t.v. and shown on the news, and those people have bad teeth, I don't assume that the entirety of the people of England have bad teeth. When I hear that a farmer has been caught schtupping one of his sheep or other unfortunate farm animals, I don't assume that all farmers are into beastiality. When I hear that a person of this or that minority group has committed a heinous crime, I don't automatically assume that all people of said minority group are dangerous criminals. When I hear that a Muslim fundamentalist has killed someone or has detonated a bomb killing lots of people, I don't assume that all Muslims are terrorists. When I hear about one Democrat/Liberal ranting about the virtue of collectivism, I don't assume that all Dems/Libs are Socialists or Communists. And the examples could go on.
  
  Could I give you examples of Republican candidates who are Pro-Choice? Yes. But since Professor Brooks has painted with the broad brush that Republicans and Evangelicals hold to a "bronze-aged cosmology" that is " matched only by an antediluvian attitude to sexuality, sex and reproduction," then he should be providing the proof that the party or group in general holds to the ideas that he finds so repugnant.
  
  Could I give you examples of candidates who are in favor of equal rights for minorities and women? Sure...almost the entire Republican party and almost the entirety of Christianity (Evangelical, Protestant, Catholic, etc.) Equal rights is kind of assumed. In fact, here in the States it was the Republican party from the mid-1800's until the late 1960's who took the lead on minority rights, women's rights, etc. The Democratic party was typically in opposition.
  
  Evidence that the Republican party has a broader sweep of opinion and voting pattern than the "war on women" allegation...there's nothing to suggest that the War on Women actually exists beyond the fever-swamp of the Democratic machine and the media. Because many Conservatives are anti-abortion doesn't make them anti-women. Because many Conservatives had an issue with Obama's Healthcare and how it dealt with things like contraception doesn't mean that those Conservatives are anti-women or anti-contraception. It means that they had a problem with how Obamacare mandated the idea of contraception, who has to pay for it, who is required to dispense it, etc.
  
  9 months ago report
4. Stephen Prowse
  
  CEO at Wound CRC
  
  In reply to Scott Ragan
  
  You comment
  "First…I have heard a few scant voices speak up in support of Todd Akin"
  
  so why is he still running?
  
  9 months ago report
5. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Scott Ragan
  
  Scott you misunderstand.
  
  I was asking for facts - information - such as the names of ANY republicans who support abortion, rights for minorities,women that sort of thing. It is not enough to try and slide one in saying that "many Republicans are anti-abortion..." or that "many Republicans had an issue with Obama's health care ..." I would like some names of those who have a different view.
  
  Otherwise, like I said from here it looks like a monolithic mob of christian fundamentalists and anti-tax TEA baggers. Prove him wrong.
  
  Evidence - not just argument and assertion.
  
  9 months ago report
6. Scott Ragan
  
  Educator
  
  In reply to Stephen Prowse
  
  He is still running because he is (in my opinion) an idiot who is too invested in the idea of power and position and in the idea that he has been given a vision as to what his mission is to be if elected. Unfortunately this "vision" doesn't seem to take into account that he opened up his mouth and inserted both his feet, revealing himself to be far less intelligent and intuitive than what many people thought him to be.
  
  9 months ago report
7. Scott Ragan
  
  Educator
  
  In reply to Stephen Prowse
  
  In the States he can't be forced to NOT run once he has the nomination for the party. That being said, from what I have read and heard his funding has dried up from the state party and the national committee as well as from all his large individual doners/supporters so it doesn't seem as though he'll actually be able to last through til the election. Unfortunately since he held out 'til past the legal deadline yesterday, when he does need to bow out of the race due to an absence of funds he has made it quite difficult for someone else to step in on the ticket.
  
  9 months ago report
8. Scott Ragan
  
  Educator
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  I didn't misunderstand.
  
  What I said was that philosophically it is up to the Professor to provide the proof once he makes his broad sweeping assessments and judgments. Why do I have to prove his negative?
  
  That being said, here's a few Republicans who are on the liberal side of social issues in relation to being pro abortion, pro "family planning," etc:
  
  Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
  Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois)
  Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine)
  Kansas State Senator Jean Schodorf…
  Read more
  
  I didn't misunderstand.
  
  What I said was that philosophically it is up to the Professor to provide the proof once he makes his broad sweeping assessments and judgments. Why do I have to prove his negative?
  
  That being said, here's a few Republicans who are on the liberal side of social issues in relation to being pro abortion, pro "family planning," etc:
  
  Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
  Senator Mark Kirk (R-Illinois)
  Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine)
  Kansas State Senator Jean Schodorf
  
  In terms of rights for minorities, while it might sound odd I guess it depends on what you mean by rights. By definition in the U.S., minorities have all the same rights as the majority populations so it isn't like Democrats or Republicans run on a platform of "Rights for Immigrants and Minorities." That would have happened in the 1800's and into the early to mid 1900's but for the most part that was settled decades ago. We have anti-discrimination laws that have been on the books for quite a long time that codify the rights of individuals and criminalizing any sort of discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, gender, etc.
  
  Maybe it would help if you clarified what you are thinking and/or looking for when you say "rights for minorities?" In the U.S., in regards to minority rights Democrats frequently mean immigrant rights, and by immigrant rights they mean the rights of illegal immigrants and relates to open boarders without restrictions for immigration and the decriminalization of illegal immigration, the right to work for any immigrant regardless of their legal status, etc. Is that what you mean?
  
  In terms of a "monolithic mob of Christian fundamentalists" you couldn't be further from the truth. There is no such thing as a Christian monolithic majority in the U.S. Christianity in the States runs the spectrum from super conservative fundamentalist churches (which are by far the minority), to fairly moderate Evangelical and Protestant churches in the middle (the majority), to super liberal nondenominational and Protestant churches (in the minority).
  
  And in terms of the Tea Party, the Tea Party is not anti-tax. They are certainly focused on the fiscal side of things and are anti-excessive taxation and are anti-government control and expansion of inefficient government bureaucracies. In many ways they are the equivalent of the group of people from whom they take their name...those responsible for the Boston Tea Party in 1773 in the American Colonies who were protesting excessive taxation by the British Crown and the idea of "no taxation without fair and proper representation."
  
  9 months ago report
Dale Bloom

Analyst

“What strikes me about the anachronistic attitudes of evangelicals and their Republican puppets to abortion, contraception, family planning, female economic empowerment and feminism in general is just how unambiguously male these attitudes are.”

So I am evangelical, Republican, and also a puppet to abortion, contraception, family planning, female economic empowerment and feminism. And another 3.5 billion people are also, and this theory is based on Todd Akin and Australian Black Field Crickets.

I’m wondering if this is somehow an extension of the article “Teaching students to lie: historical method through hoaxes”

https://theconversation.edu.au/teaching-students-to-lie-historical-method-through-hoaxes-8653

9 months ago report
1. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Dale Bloom
  
  Geez the Conversation is an amazing resource. Ask a few simple questions and up pops the answer. Thanks Dale.
  
  9 months ago report
2. Dale Bloom
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  I didn't think any questions were asked.
  
  But it seems agreement is required, or someone is likely to be called names, such as republican or evangelist.
  
  Or, the person might be called an Australian Black Field Cricket.
  
  9 months ago report
3. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Dale Bloom
  
  Sorry Dale ... I was referring to a post above that I made 10 secs before your comments... I will repost here to save you craning your neck...
  
  "Can evolution run backwards?
  Can the purportedly intelligent bit of the design process be excised?
  Can we have really really dumb design?
  
  Questions questions questions...."
  
  And there you were.
  
  9 months ago report
4. Dale Bloom
  
  Analyst
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  Or, if there is any disagreement, they might be called backward, non-intelligent and dumb.
  
  Obviously no name-calling in the questions.
  
  9 months ago report
Patricia Frankel

writer

Thank you for this. And you are absolutely correct: "And if they want to govern they'll need to own that problem and stand up to the theocrats." Exactly. Though here in the US, it remains doubtful. As a scientist and an evolutionary thinker & researcher, I'd be interested to hear your ideas about why those who are so vulnerable to being oppressed continue to vote against their own best interests on these matters. What evolutionary or adaptive purpose could it possibly serve? Maybe another column? In any case, thank you again.

9 months ago report
1. Scott Ragan
  
  Educator
  
  In reply to Patricia Frankel
  
  Perhaps you are wrong and "they" are not voting against their own best interest. Is it possible that you are defining things such as "own best interest," oppression, etc. by your own personal views regarding politics, society, religion, gender, etc? It seems a bit arrogant to assume that you know what is in someone's best interest better than they do. That brings up a noted difference between liberals and conservatives...liberals tend to believe that they know what is best for everyone else while conservatives tend to believe that everyone should have the right for self-determination.
  
  9 months ago report
Kelly Rusinack

logged in via Twitter

This is only the tip of the iceberg here.

There are members of our elected "leadership" who accuse black women who have abortions of committing "genocide" of their own race.

In one state's legislature, a representative was censured for using the word "uterus" in session.

There are several states that want to revise their history books to take out Thomas Jefferson - the writer of the Declaration of Independence, among other important American books, documents, and treatises - because he…
Read more

This is only the tip of the iceberg here.

There are members of our elected "leadership" who accuse black women who have abortions of committing "genocide" of their own race.

In one state's legislature, a representative was censured for using the word "uterus" in session.

There are several states that want to revise their history books to take out Thomas Jefferson - the writer of the Declaration of Independence, among other important American books, documents, and treatises - because he was extremely liberal.

Many states require schools to teach "Intelligent Design" - a/k/a the Christian bible's story of creation - as well as Evolution in science class, because Evolution is "only a theory."

Unfortunately, those are only a few of the intellectual pursuits of American politicians, most of them the Republican Party. But don't dare criticize them, you are branded a traitor and a heathen. It would be funny if I didn't have to live with it.

We supposedly have freedom of speech, but you can't criticize Christianity (especially their brand of it where greed is good, Jesus hated everything, and looking out for each other is "socialist"), or troops participating in the wars in the Middle East, or even use the word hell in your graduation speech (or you won't get your diploma, as one girl learned, graduating from a government-supported high school).

This is not "the land of the free and the home of the brave" anymore (as is stated in our national anthem). We have devolved from Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin to idiots like Akin and Sarah Palin. And most Americans accept this as normal.

I really wish they would open up the borders one day a year and let some of us out, allow us to cut all ties to the nation. I would not even look back.

9 months ago report
1. Peter Ormonde
  
  Peter Ormonde is a Friend of The Conversation.
  
  Farmer
  
  In reply to Kelly Rusinack
  
  Welcome aboard Ms Kelly.
  
  I've noticed quite a presence of you Fox News refugees here on the Conversation.
  
  Speaking of which - really really sorry about infecting you lot with Rupert Murdoch... not really one of us you know - but he was spawned here. Think of it as revenge for the cane toads we got from Hawaii.
  
  It must be awful to be watching the principles of your founders being twisted and deformed into this ignorant redneck theocracy.
  
  How on earth do you folks find people to talk to? Is there any hope at all?
  
  9 months ago report
2. Scott Ragan
  
  Educator
  
  In reply to Kelly Rusinack
  
  PLEASE tell me the states who have tried (or even desire) to take Thomas Jefferson out of history books. Unless you mean the story about the Texas curriculum board from last year. If that is the story that you mean, you seemed to have missed something: Jefferson WASN'T eliminated at all. A motion was suggested and passed by one of the committee members that Jefferson's name be removed from a list of Enlightenment thinkers and writers found in one small section of one of the Texas History standards…
  Read more
  
  PLEASE tell me the states who have tried (or even desire) to take Thomas Jefferson out of history books. Unless you mean the story about the Texas curriculum board from last year. If that is the story that you mean, you seemed to have missed something: Jefferson WASN'T eliminated at all. A motion was suggested and passed by one of the committee members that Jefferson's name be removed from a list of Enlightenment thinkers and writers found in one small section of one of the Texas History standards and to have his name replaced with three others (Calvin, Aquinas and Blackstone). Thomas Jefferson actually appears multiple times throughout the Texas curriculum standards. The motion only affected the list of examples of Enlightenment thinkers in one standard. According to Politifact, in Texas history standards the only individual mentioned more times than Thomas Jefferson is George Washington. Politifact traced the bogus controversy to Bill White who sent an email blast claiming..."Last week the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE), led by Rick Perry's appointee, voted to remove Thomas Jefferson from social studies textbook standards. That's right. Thomas Jefferson... was deleted from a list of historical figures who inspired political change." Unfortunately Mr. White left off most of the important information including the fact that Jefferson wasn't being removed from the state standards at all. Politifact's finding: the referenced action concerned one amendment to a single high school world history standard out hundreds of standards. White’s comment also implied that those standards were already in effect. They weren't.
  
  In case you are interested: http://www.politifact.com/texas/article/2012/apr/24/colbert-goofs-texas-and-thomas-jefferson/
  
  Regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design in public schools, please name the states that require I.D. to be taught. To the best of my knowledge (backed up by a quick Google search), the only state that passed such a law was Pennsuylvania back in 2004...and that law was struck down by the courts. There are a few other states who have toyed with the idea but I am pretty sure that none have succeeded.
  
  In case you are interested, NPR did an interesting write up here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4630737
  
  Regarding your statement that you can't criticize Christianity...where do YOU live? Faith in general and Christianity in particular is the constant focus of ridicule in the media including t.v., movies, news, etc. I'm sure you are using hyperbole, but I've never heard anyone of faith claim that Jesus hated everything, or that greed is good, etc. I've heard many people who aren't fans of organized religion claim that is what Christianity and/or Jesus are about...but I've never heard it said or preached in reality. Perhaps you can provide some sources?
  
  In regards to wishing they would open up the boarders and let some of us out...we HAVE open boarders. You can leave/move any time you want. Nobody keeps anybody here. So you can leave now...or next week...or next month...or never. It's interesting that you phrase it as though you are being held against your will.
  
  Out of curiosity, where would you go that would be better than what you have going in the U.S.?
  
  Were
  
  9 months ago report
3. Scott Ragan
  
  Educator
  
  In reply to Peter Ormonde
  
  I must say that I am curious about which principles of our founders are being twisted and deformed into an ignorant, redneck theocracy.
  
  If you read the comment I left for Kelly, I pointed out that her information on the elimination of Thomas Jefferson from the history standards of several states was totally erroneous, as were her claims that many states require the teaching of Intelligent Design. In my comment I provided links to supporting information that disproves both her statements.
  
  Since those are the specific proofs that she cited, are those also the proofs that you are relying upon when describing the U.S. as being twisted and deformed?
  
  9 months ago report
4. Rachel van Someren
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Scott Ragan
  
  I think you may have misread Mr Ormonde's tone. I have only been subscribed to The Conversation for less than a month, but after reading a few of his comments I got it - now they always make me smile.
  
  9 months ago report
Peter Boyd Lane

geologist

I just loved the bit: "The Republican party finds itself unfortunately captive to evangelical zealots whose bronze-age cosmology is matched only by an antediluvian attitude to sexuality, sex and reproduction."
I wish the general media had the courage to call a spade a spade.

9 months ago report
Melissa Raine

logged in via Facebook

"I always savour the irony when an evangelical evolves into an armchair adaptationist."

Thank you for this wonderful observation Rob; I'll be savouring it for the day too.

9 months ago report
Alice Gorman

Lecturer in Archaeology at Flinders University

Just unbelievable what is happening over there.

It is worth mentioning, perhaps, that in human societies rape is generally not not about reproduction, but about asserting power, as evidenced at its most basic by the rape of girls/women either before or after their reproductive years.

I loved the Bronze Age cosmology bit too .......

9 months ago report
1. Scott Ragan
  
  Educator
  
  In reply to Alice Gorman
  
  Since I live "over there," what is it exactly that you think is happening over here/there/anywhere?
  
  9 months ago report
Andrew Smith

Education Consultant at Australian & International Education Centre

I know some Republican voters for whom the wacky social baggage/policy is irrelevant, i.e. they simply ignore or compartmentalise, they think GOP will bring lower taxes etc. etc.

Why would a seemingly intelligent, civilised and responsible citizen let alone politician make such an irresponsible comment? Because it has resonance both personally (probably or possibly) and to many voters.

However, tougher or more chauvinistic rhetoric impels the opposing party to respond, or follow with voters being swayed on the way.......

Such phenomenon also occurs in Australia with wedge politics and "dog whistling" with both sides of politics playing the race card to the point where both appear like two dogs chasing each others' tails while in a downward spiral....

9 months ago report
Roxane Paczensky

Registered Nurse

It reminds me of that story we were told in history class about the catch 22 girls and women found themselves in when they were accused of witchcraft.

The story went something like:
Female accused of being a witch
Female strapped into dunking device
If female drowned she is innocent, but dead sadly.
If female lived she is a witch and must be burned at the stake

Now it's:
Female states she has been raped
Female undergoes pregnancy test
If female is not pregnant she is telling the truth…
Read more

It reminds me of that story we were told in history class about the catch 22 girls and women found themselves in when they were accused of witchcraft.

The story went something like:
Female accused of being a witch
Female strapped into dunking device
If female drowned she is innocent, but dead sadly.
If female lived she is a witch and must be burned at the stake

Now it's:
Female states she has been raped
Female undergoes pregnancy test
If female is not pregnant she is telling the truth but does not require use of the exemption clause to obtain an abortion.
If female is pregnant she is telling a lie and is not eligible to use the exemption clause to obtain an abortion.

A pretty nifty way to get around the exemption clauses in anti abortion laws don't you think?

I can't understand why noone has asked these men if real incest victims also produce pregnancy preventing secretions and suffer collapsed fallopian tubes while enduring the heinous acts they have to endure. Oh that's right, damn that DNA evidence.

9 months ago report

Join the conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter