The End of Federal Reproductive Rights?
Maybe the pressure campaigns launched in the wake of the news that the Supreme Court is planning tooverturn Roe vs. Wade can enable justice to prevail, but the end does seem to be near. Some even say that outlawing contraception is next. At that point, it can't be argued that this is not imposing faith-based values on people, because you're essentially making sex a much greater risk for women from a practical perspective than it was before. And boys, you won't be laughing either once you're paying to support a child neither you nor your sweetheart wanted. Not that the mouthpieces telling you to celebrate this will ever tell you that truth.
And, of course, there's the misogyny element. The gender gap in Americans elections is well-known. Democrats get the votes of 44% of men and 55% of women in the event of a close race. Ever since the tumbling of the Berlin Wall took a sharp arrow out of the Republicans' quiver, Dems have won the presidential popular vote by an average of 4 percentage points. What does that have to do with anything? The usual 52%-48% difference in the number of female and male voters is roughly identical. What an amazing coincidence! Not as much of one as the gender gap not getting started until Ronald Reagan put the Republicans at war on abortion, though.
This doesn't even begin to get into the fact that outlawing abortion is something that has an especially big difference in the benefits to each gender (although, make no mistake, it's not good for anyone). Some may say that this is a bold accusation, but a criminal court calls only for proof beyond a reasonable doubt (in theory). That is not the very slightest alternative possibility. The sheer number of coincidences pointing to this being an assault on American women are enough to meet this burden of proof.
Superheroines Remain Risky for Hollywood
Many will question this premise, pointing out the success of the movies Wonder Woman, Black Widow and Captain Marvel. Looking at it like this, I can understand you thinking that I'm just ranting without cause.
To see that this a narrow view, you must look at how these movies have become the most reliable genre at the box office when starring a man. You'll point to fantasy fiction in the comments, but there are some bombs like the TV show Legend of the Seeker. You just never hear of them.
By contrast, male superheroes have a pretty much unmatched record in major productions. The eight late 20th century Batman and Superman movies combined for exactly one that fell short of double the box office so as to break even (theaters get half the gross): Batman and Robin. Yet three out of eight of these are rather unpopular. Marvel movies have a similar track record where negatively received films like Daredevil and the original Venom were financial successes. These movies almost have to be crimes against humanity to bomb at the box office. Superheroes are that popular.
Superheroines are a different story. While some succeed, others don't. 2004's Catwoman pulled off the bombing that Batman and Robin fell short of. Elektra would prove this to not be a fluke a year later. On TV, Birds of Prey was an utter flop. So was Agent Carter. Supergirl and the recently cancelled Batwoman also saw their ratings dive after two or three years. Now it is my opinion, and what seems to be general consensus, that with the exception of Supergirl (the show, not the 1984 movie), all of these outcomes were deserved. The point is that how much easier it is for superheroines to flop reveals that these productions are held to a totally different standard.
Despite the hopes of feminists and deniers of the existence of sexism alike, it's clear that a lot of potential male viewers still find a woman that powerful to be threatening. And with the high budget that these projects demand, you can't easily do without these viewers. Such a movie can clearly still profit but not with the virtual certainty that male superheroes enjoy. Indeed, the public's fairness to action ladies is, if anything, going in reverse. The days when Xena: Warrior Princess and Buffy the Vampire Slayer were smash hits at the same time seem even longer ago than they are.
The Real Reason Marriage Rates Are Decreasing
It is a well-known fact that marriage rates have been steadily declining for some time. Some say it's because women are taught to seek a richer mate, but since female median incomes have gone up to the point where they're the richer gender among the non-wealthy, that is easier said than done. But there's a big problem with this. Studies show that it is men, not women, who are losing interest in marriage. And it's probably not that men fear getting wiped out in the divorce. This marriage trend would have begun 40 or 50 years ago if that was the case. Plus, the aforementioned shift in incomes has led to more women losing divorce trials than in the past anyway.
I think the real reason is too ugly for some to mention: it's not that women won't marry down but that men won't marry up. Because steady growth in women's incomes relative to men's began in the Great Recession, which is precisely when male interest in marriage began to wane. Many believe that a married man who doesn't control his wife is no man at all. Little chance of that if you marry a woman richer than yourself. In fact, chances are that she will be the one leading the family.
The flip side of this is that a far smaller male lead in the income race means that more men are struggling financially. That they would risk going hungry rather than get married because they prefer that to being equal in a marriage, let alone second, is beyond illogical. But I think that is what this is about.
Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with preferring single life. But the motive I have described is both morally and practically wrong.
Which Brings Me To What is Really Forcing These Developments Along
In 2010 less than 30% of American businesses were women-owned. By 2021 that number had reached 40% and counting. It's probably even higher among rank and file entrepreneurs. That means more than you might think because the size and scope of corporations requires CEOs to delegate a lot of authority. Also, the House of Representatives keeps electing more and more women as time goes on. Throw into the mix increasingly female-dominated college graduation classes and that a less predominantly male financial industry is likely to be more fair to women applying for work and this trend stands to, if anything, speed up.
No one can know the future, but if this keeps up, women in business will catch up with men in business within the next 5 years, then pull ahead. Throw in corporate America's incredible political power and that is game over for male domination in America and the handful of other countries in which this is also happening, such as the United Kingdom, Brazil and Argentina. Some feminists wonder if it is right for patriarchy to be possibly overthrown through corporate power, of all ways, but a win's a win.
Not that everyone is checking the statistics regularly, but I sense that a lot of men realize that the 2020's could be the decade that male domination of the United States of America ends. I suggest that the things I have told you of are products of male fear of female ascendance. Women currently having control over their bodies, onscreen superheroines and the prospect of not being the breadwinner in your marriage are all reminders of a change that some men fear. Indeed, Youtube searches will fetch you coded complaints about all of these things.
So what does this mean? I think it means that this backlash will continue. Today, it's Roe vs. Wade. Who knows what it will be tomorrow?