The Hobby Lobby decision denies the rights of women, and the Supreme Court rules for patriarchy again.
–––
“The owners of the businesses have religious objections to abortion, and according to their religious beliefs the four contraceptive methods at issue are abortifacients.”
Justice Samuel Alito, in the majority opinion, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
We can add “Justice” Samuel Alito, “Justice” Anthony Kennedy, “Justice” John Roberts, “Justice” Clarence Thomas, and last, but certainly not least, “Justice” Antonin Scalia to the oxymoron list since this Supreme Court decision amounted to anything but justice. The five men voting in the majority denied the rights of women, most particularly working-class women employees at “closely-held” (family owned with a limited number of shareholders) for-profit corporations, which actually includes most U.S. corporations, control over their reproductive freedoms generally extended to women at other companies.
|
“Corporations are people my friend.”
|
The case involved the owning families of the national chain of craft stores, Hobby Lobby, plus a Christian bookstore chain, and Conestoga, a Mennonite family owned woodworking company who claimed and won the argument that the 2010 Affordable Care Act, an in particular, a few specific contraceptive devises covered by health insurance companies, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 stating that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion….” The decision follows former presidential candidate Willard Mitt Romney’s assertion that “Corporations are people my friend,” and clearly shows that million—and billion—dollar corporate families certainly exist more humanly (they are more of a person) and have more rights than workers.
When patriarchal social and economic systems of male domination attempt to keep women pregnant and taking care of children, they can restrict their entry, or at least their level and time of entry, into the workplace, and ensure women’s dependence on men economically and emotionally. As women produce more and more children, expanding numbers of little consumers emerge to contribute to the Capitalist system ever increasing profits for owners of business and industry. The patriarchal imperative to control women’s bodies amounts to imperatives to control women’s minds and life choices.
And when patriarchal social and family structures converge with patriarchal religious systems, which reinforce strictly defined gender hierarchies of male domination, women and girl’s oppression and oppression of those who transgress sexuality, gender-based boundaries became inevitable.
Polytheism and Monotheism
Many ancient and non-Western cultures – including, for example, Hindu, most Native American, Mayan, and Incan cultures – base their religions on polytheism (multiple deities). In general, these religious views seem to attribute similar characteristics to their gods. Particularly significant is the belief that the gods are actually created, and they age, give birth, and engage in sex. Some of these gods even have sexual relations with mortals. The universe is seen as continuous, ever-changing, and fluid. These religious views often lack rigid categories, particularly true of gender categories, which become mixed and often ambiguous and blurred. For example, some male gods give birth, while some female gods possess considerable power.
|
In part, such a Being has no sexual desire, for sexual desire, as a kind of need, is incompatible with this concept of perfection.
|
In contrast, monotheistic Abrahamic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) religions view the Supreme Being as without origin, for this deity was never born and will never die. This Being, viewed as perfect, exists completely independently from human beings and transcends the natural world. In part, such a Being has no sexual desire, for sexual desire, as a kind of need, is incompatible with this concept of perfection. This accounts for the strict separation between the Creator and the created. Just as the Creator is distinct from His creation, so too are divisions between the Earthly sexes in the form of strictly defined gender roles. This distinction provides adherents to monotheistic religions a clear sense of their designated socially constructed roles: the guidelines they need to follow in relation to their God and to other human beings.
Since the United States is majority Christian in all its many sects and denominations, and all five men voting in the Supreme Court majority follow some form of Christianity, I have extracted just a few of the many examples of what the Christian Testaments say about women. (As an aside, if one shops at Hobby Lobby, when checking out at the cash register, one often sees for sale a small tin of candy called “Testamints.” Really, no joke.)
Ephesians 5:21: Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 5:22: Wives, be subject to your own husbands as to the Lord. 5:23: For the man is the head of the woman, just as Christ also is the head of the church. Christ is, indeed, the Savior of the body. 5:24: but just as the church is subject to Christ, so must women be subject to their husbands in everything.
1 Timothy 2:11: A woman must be a learner, listening quietly and with due submission…. 2:13: For Adam was created first, and Eve afterwards. 2:14: and it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the woman who, yielding to deception, fell into sin. 2:15: Yet she will be saved through motherhood – if only women continue in faith, love, and holiness, with a sober mind.
Whatever the intended purpose (which seems quite clear) of these texts and multiple others throughout scriptures, individuals, institutions, and entire societies have taken them to justify and rationalize the marginalization, harassment, denial of rights, and persecution of women and girls over the ages.
Sexism
As I ponder the Supreme Court’s ruling, I reflect on the term “sexism,” which I define as the overarching system of advantages bestowed on males. It is prejudice and discrimination based on sex, especially against females and intersex people, and is founded on a patriarchal structure of male dominance promoted through individual, institutional, social, and cultural systems.
|
The institution of marriage itself was structured on a foundation of male domination.
|
Throughout history, examples abound of male domination over the rights and lives of women and girls: Men denied women the vote until women fought hard and demanded the rights of political enfranchisement, though women in some nations today still are restricted from voting; strictly enforced gender-based social roles mandated without choice that women’s only option was to remain in the home to undertake cleaning and childcare duties; women were and continue to be by far the primary target of harassment, abuse, physical assault, and rape by men and boys; women were and remain locked out of many professions; rules in the United States once required women teachers to relinquish their jobs after marriage; in fact, the institution of marriage itself was structured on a foundation of male domination with men serving as the so-called “head of the household” and taking on sole ownership of all property. In other words, men have constructed women and girls as second-class and even third-class citizens, but certainly not as victims, because through it all, women and girls as a group have challenged the inequities and have pushed back against patriarchal constraints.
The U.S. Department of Labor has found that women overall make approximately 77 cents compared to $1.00 by white men. Looking at women of color, the findings are even lower: Asian American women, 74 cents; African American women, 67 cents; and Latinas, 56 cents.
Though many people of all sexes are fully aware of the continuing existence of sexism and male privilege, and they are working tirelessly for its eradication, many others, however, fail to perceive its harmful effects on themselves and others. This apparent invisibility of sexism and male privilege in many “Western” countries, in fact, not only fortifies but, indeed, strengthens this form of oppression and privilege by perpetuating patriarchal power and control in such a way as to avoid detection.
◊♦◊
I have heard some people refer to our current times as a “post-Feminist” era, where sexism and male privilege no longer impose major social barriers. They are referring to “Feminism,” which can be defined as the cultural, political, economic, and civil rights movement for the advancement of equality and equity between the sexes.
For me this brings to mind a cleaver and I believe insightful bumper sticker produced by the National Association for Women: “I’ll be Post-Feminist in the Post-Patriarchy.” Unfortunately, however, as we see in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby decision, patriarchy is still alive and fully functioning.
Want the best of The Good Men Project posts sent to you by email? Join our mailing list here.
Photo: daveparker/Flickr

Elissa, You’re not American so you do not share at least one of our experiences. Butter was mentioned earlier. The science was settled. Butter will kill you. Or not, it seems. That’s a part of the larger, carb-based food pyramid the government has been pushing for at least half a century. Turns out to be wrong–the science was settled, but it was wrong, too–and contributed to obesity and diabetes. Who really pays is the employee in the HL case. It should be so because it’s a personal issue. We have to go back to WW II and various wage controls,… Read more »
Thanks Richard
I understand that the RFRA passed over 10 years ago, but how do you personally square the RFRA with the “establishment clause”?
Secondly, and not a question, just an observation – is this benefit schedule correct as shown? I’m puzzled by the exclusion of vasectomies.
https://www.healthcare.gov/what-are-my-birth-control-benefits/
Is there anyone reading, with an opposing viewpoint to the verdict that can provide some reasoning on why the judgment is off base (without resorting to privilege, white man, sexism, left/right rhetoric. These are conclusions and assertions.)?
I would like to know more about opposing arguments.
While we’re quoting the Bible, what does Ephesians 5:25-33 say, “doctor”?
Well, my response to you Joseph Dooley it that except for the final 5 words, the Bible verses you referred to represent a focus on the MAN, upon his subjectivity and agency, which simply confirms my understanding of monotheistic religions as promoting and representing patriarchal dominantion. Women’s subjectivity is merely an afterthought: “25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or… Read more »
How is women’s subjectivity “merely an afterthought”? Especially with such scripture as: 5:21: “be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ”. – Men and women are being told to be “subject” to each other in equal measure. 5:25: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. – Men are being told to love their wives so much he is silling to make sacrifices for her just as Christ himself sacrificed. 5:28 In this same way, husbands aught to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife… Read more »
Erin: God tells MEN (the subject) to treat WOMEN (the object) in a certain way. Actually, in the Christian Testaments, God gives SLAVES more subjectivity by talking directly to them than God gives to Women. Here’s some examples: Ephesians 6:5-6: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart 1 Timothy 6:1-2: Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all… Read more »
Warren, prove to me that God himself believed men to be the “subject” and believed women to be the “object”. Please remember the very Scripture you used for your argument. 5:21: “be subject to one another…” and 5:28: “husbands aught to love their wives as their own bodies.” Based on these Bible verses, if the woman is the “object” then so is the man. If the man is the “subject” then so is the woman by the command that husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies and that we are all subject to each other. God does… Read more »
Thanks Richard and Barconis – I’m not an American, and not well versed on some of these matters. For a bit of added clarity: Note the NYT piece below from the European Court upholding France’s ban on Face veils (I am questioning the validity of religious exemptions when in opposition to the social contract) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/world/europe/european-rights-court-upholds-frances-ban-on-full-face-veils.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0 The water remark was more to do with the immense pragmatism and benefits of clean drinking water. I do understand that the court elected to shift the burden to the “least restrictive” for achieving the compelling government interest. I am still struggling with the tax… Read more »
Elissa, the First Amendment might answer the question between “social contract” and the freedom to practice religious beliefs. Regardless of that, why does the government get to madate what social contracts should exist? How much power do we want the government to have? Does disagreeing with the way a business runs means a business shoudn’t have the right to run that way? And how much responsibility does a business have to it’s employees in what it does or doesn’t provide? If your a person that has had more then two jobs in your life time, different businesses offer different benefits.… Read more »
Warren, you’ve written several article for GMP that have shown a clear disdain and lack of respect for those of the Christian faith. I totally respect your right not to agree with Christianity. But you show a level of intolerance and manipulation toward Christianity (or monolithic religions) that would be considered a human rights issue if it was shown to someone for being a certain race or sexual orientation. You said: “The five men voting in the majority……….. denied the rights of women, control over their reproductive freedoms generally extended to women at other companies.” That’s just outlandishly false. Women at Hobby… Read more »
Erin. I do not “disdain” Christians or the Christian faith. I merely show the history that Christian might have left out in their religious training. I emphasize how text has been used by people to justify persecution. I also raise issues of how Christians in most western countries experience Christian privilege, the unearned and automatic benefits they receive that people of other and no religious backgrounds do not receive. I am NOT degrading Christianity. I am, though, calling to task the ways Christians have persecuted others stemming from their interpretations of scripture, from their BELIEFS that can never be proven.… Read more »
Let me guess, some of your friends are Christian.
You say you don’t “disdain” Christian faith yet you continue to dogmatically pursue Christians and The Bible as the premiere group that persecutes others. I’ve seen you talk of no other group but Christians as a sorce of blame. I will agree with you that Scripture has been used by *people* (not God, not Jesus, not the Bible) to justify persecution of others. But that’s not originally what you said in your piece. You took Scripture from two different books and insisted it was meant as a form of sexual disempowerment for women. In your response to Joseph, you insist,… Read more »
I’m not in the legal field and still formulating an opinion on this court decision. When I do not have expertise, I tend to rely on folks that have shown critical thinking and consistency over time and topics. One such person is Ann Althouse and her opinion, which seems solid and informed, is just below: http://althouse.blogspot.ca/2014/07/the-difference-between-requiring.html Some things that I need to think about more: – Why the distinction between profit and non-profit? – Why do we even have a religious exemption and how does it differ from an ethical exemption and how do both fit into a social contract?… Read more »
Elissa. Not sure the profit/non-profit is relevant. It may be confused with closed/public corporation distinction. The history of the RFRA will tell you about why a religious exemption was seen as necessary, combined with the first amendment which read,. in part, “nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. There are others. The Selective Service act is the law of the land but Quakers and conscientious objectors get a pass. The concern about religious exemptions usually rests on the political/ideological views of those concerned. Few liberals would say that conscientious objectors’ sincerely held religious beliefs should not count because the draft is… Read more »
I’ll leave you to ponder the first question. Let me help with a couple of others. There is no religious exemption. What exists is an additional law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is every bit the law of the land as the ACA is. As the Althouse blog points out, there are two tests when a religious expression is to be infringed upon by government. First is that government must have a compelling interest to infringe. As I understand the case, no one challenged that the government had a compelling interest to compel employers to provide health insurance. (consider… Read more »
Thanks Richard and Barconis – I’m not an American, and hence not well versed on some of these matters. For a bit of added clarity: Note the NYT piece below from the European Court upholding France’s ban on Face veils (I am questioning the validity of religious exemptions when in opposition to the social contract). http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/02/world/europe/european-rights-court-upholds-frances-ban-on-full-face-veils.html?smid=pl-share&_r=0 The water remark was more to do with the immense pragmatism and benefits of clean drinking water. I do understand that the court elected to shift the burden to the “least restrictive” for achieving the compelling government interest. I am still struggling with the… Read more »
So we are back to the medieval sexist days of pre-2012 or Obamacare huh? Wow, where have we gone? A woman can’t even get the govt to make someone else pay for a $9/month pill anymore. Back to women independence then I guess. Will we ever be able to get corporations to become charities please? As they have stated, Hobby Lobby does not object to contraception. They provide and PAY FOR 16 forms of contraception in their health care plans! Hobby Lobby was not asking to be exempt from providing all forms of birth control mandated by the ACA (even… Read more »
Read the Enumerated Powers section of the Constitution. There is not one word in there about government getting involved in reproductive rights, marriage or family. They simply have NO business in it at all.
One could also observe that all of this analysis is irrelevant to the decision rendered by the court’s majority. The monstrosity that is the ACA failed to amend the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, so its provisions apply. You can make oblique observations about the makeup of the court and redefine terms all you want, but the final decsion was a reasoned application of the law by justices who hold the law as the governing principle here. Not religion, not lingering patriarchy, not sexism. Not even the Constitution, since they ultimately cited the RFRA as the source document for their decision.… Read more »
Perfectly stated summation. Now get ready for people freaking out about “for profit”
In regard to the Supreme Court itself, one could argue that this a much an ideological divide as is it a gender one- The article stressed that it was ‘five MEN voting in the majority’: But it’s also unavoidable to overlook the fact that the vote broke down even more directly over ideological lines (liberal v.s. conservative) than it did over gender lines. Justice Stephen Breyer sided with the other liberal justices on the court, and not along gendered lines. The fact that three out of the last four (in fact, the only four) liberal justices appointed to the Supreme Court were… Read more »
You note that the 5 male Justices in the majority are all Christian (Catholic, I believe, to be more specific) and you contrastcontrast monotheistic religions with polytheistic ones. So, what are we to gather from the fact that the four dissenting Justices also come from monotheistic Abrahamic religions (3 Jews (2 female, 1 male) and 1 (female) Catholic, if I am not mistaken)? Most critics of the decision who bring up the faith of the majority seem to ignore the faiths in the dissent. Could it be that the faiths of the Justices were not the bases for their views?… Read more »