Washington Post Column Says Women Should 'Stop Taking Lovers' To Prevent Violence

[PDittie]

7. The subjugation of women

has to include limiting their sexual options to whatever men decide is right for them. If a woman without a husband gets pregnant, she is not allowed to have an abortion. But certain male-dominated conservative political caucuses (I can't call 'em a party) don't want to pay for her birth control, either -- the easiest, most effective, least morally conflicted option.

So once they have accomplished those two things, the last thing that is left to them -- the men, the ones in control -- is for them to say, "No sex for you". Or more precisely, only heterosexual sex, sanctioned by the church, for the purposes of procreation... the only kind they actually approve of. For women, not themselves.

The "violence prevention" rationales have gained more popularity in the wake of Elliott Rodger, and going further back, to Muslims promised scores of virgins on the afterlife. The "If these young men could just get laid on a semi-regular basis, they'd put down their weapons" sort of premise.

Not a whole lot of personal responsibility in that line of testosterone-poisoned thinking.

I thought the WaPo couldn't get any misogynistic after George Will, but I was wrong. Bezos is driving that bus right off a cliff.