Against Misogyny: Crusade Interruptus

“I suspect few people know that The Population Bomb, published in 1968, was co-authored. Professor Paul Ehrlich is credited as sole author of the book because the name of the other author was excluded by the publisher. The publisher concluded that Professor Anne Ehrlich, Paul’s spouse, could not possibly know enough about the impacts of burgeoning human population on Earth and its ecosystems. After all, she was—and is—a woman.”—Guy McPherson

Going Dark

By Dr. Guy McPherson

“[Our] book was ahead of its time in its attention to new threats of vast epidemics connected to population size, coming out as it did just as Surgeon General William H. Stewart was declaring that vaccination and antibiotics had conquered infectious diseases. Decades before AIDS began to kill millions of people, we wrote of our concern about the deterioration of the epidemiological environment and the possibility of a ‘super flu,’ which are far more serious worries today than they were forty years ago.”—Paul R. and Anne H. Ehrlich, from “The Population Bomb Revisited,” 2009.

“Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter. The uproarious laughter between the two [men]. They’re having fun at my expense. They were laughing with each other. I was underneath one of them, while the two laughed. Two friends having a really good time with one another.”—Dr. Christine Blasey Ford

“If the President, or anyone else, impedes or subverts the national security of the United States in order to further domestic political or personal interests, that is more than worthy of your attention. But we must not let domestic politics stop us from defending ourselves against the foreign powers who truly wish us harm. I am ready to answer your questions.”—Fiona Hill

MAITLAND Florida—(Weekly Hubris)—April 2020—My essay in last month’s issue of Weekly Hubris gave me an opportunity to ponder the role of women in my life. Perhaps it did the same for you, which was my goal. In continuing to think about this topic, and in light of the treadmill I have built for myself, I find myself writing this second essay on the topic of woman/women.

I suspect few people know that The Population Bomb, published in 1968, was co-authored. Professor Paul Ehrlich is credited as sole author of the book because the name of the other author was excluded by the publisher. The publisher concluded that Professor Anne H. Ehrlich, Paul’s spouse, could not possibly know enough about the impacts of burgeoning human population on Earth and its ecosystems. After all, she was—and is—a woman.

It is appalling that the book’s publisher reached such a misogynistic decision. Seemingly, we have come a long way, as a society, since 1968. Finally, we even acknowledge heteronormative behavior as only one of many acceptable behaviors. But while it seems we have made great progress, have we really come far enough? After all, women are still paid less than men for the same work, and women are still objectified to turn a profit for corporations typically owned and operated by men. However, for better and worse, most of us typically distinguish a woman from her work (and a man, too). If we knew the tawdry, personal details of the lives of our heroes, I doubt we would sincerely admire anybody for long.

Consider how the dominant culture treats whistleblowers, including ten renowned women. If few appreciate the message, then similarly few want to believe it. As a result, many deny the message and castigate the messenger. If the message is too dire—in other words, if it threatens to interfere with monetary gain for the financially wealthy—the messenger is silenced. Examples are legion.

Silencing the messenger does not change the message. However, it slows the rate of transmission while allowing positive emotions to pour over the ignorant masses. Such an outcome provides a temporary victory for the majority, with truth as the only cost. The dominant culture and the masses who serve it are only rarely concerned with evidence. Ergo, silencing the messenger is victory, albeit in pyrrhic form.

As with most issues, radicalization is a difficult path, discouraged and disparaged by contemporary society. Digging beneath the surface has its rewards. Comfort is rarely one of them. 

Separating a person from his or her work is difficult. We are inclined to throw out the proverbial baby with the dirty water. When we learn a celebrity is flawed, we tend to dismiss his or her work, at least temporarily. The other approach, probably more common in contemporary society, is to deny the flaws of the celebrity.

Ignorance is bliss. Bliss is the state preferred by the masses. 

Consider the never-ending election campaigns in the United States, destined to reach a feverish pitch in the coming months. Many people continue to vote in national elections, knowing they are voting for a successful, serial liar. When we vote, we balance the lies told—and the ones we know are yet to come—with the presumed effectiveness of our candidate of choice. I doubt anybody is naïve enough to expect the full truth from any national-level politician, yet most people believe it is better to vote than not. My anarchistic tendencies cause me to disagree, thus placing me into an unwelcome minority.

James Halperin tackles comfort in his 1999 science fiction novel, Truth Machine. He also addresses the issue of the lies we all tell by creating a society in which every lie is detected immediately. As you can imagine, society is turned upside-down in short order. Among the examples: No more asking if this dress makes me look fat. No more false flattery. No more “little white lies” to make people feel better. No more denying the total costs of grid-tied electricity, food at the grocery stores, and water pouring out the municipal taps. Only the cold, naked truth remains. And few people appreciate such honesty.

Whistleblowers take on the task of truth-tellers, acting as “truth machines” in a world of lies. They are easier to dismiss than Halperin’s flawless machines, so we often dismiss them. It is small wonder we hover on the brink of extinction. As a token of our humanity, perhaps now is the time for radical honesty.

Recent examples of radical honesty by women have provided little reason for optimism. Consider two recent examples from the United States.

First is the case of Christine Blasey Ford, Professor of Psychology at Palo Alto University and research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine. In September 2018, Ford alleged that United States Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were teenagers. The veracity of her accusation was supported by a polygraph test. Despite her distinguished career in academia, after blowing the whistle on Kavanaugh, Ford was unable to resume teaching at Palo Alto University. Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing regarding Kavanaugh’s nomination proceeded quickly. He now serves as one of eight Associate Justices of the highest court in the United States.

Another recent avatar in the category of female whistleblowers is Fiona Hill, former official at the United States National Security Council (NSC). Originally from Britain, Hill specialized in Russian and European affairs while serving on the NSC. She acted as a witness in the November 2019 United States House of Representatives hearings regarding the impeachment of President Donald Trump. Called “a heroine for our times,” after her testimony, Hill resigned from the position to which she was appointed by Trump. About 18 months after she was appointed by President Trump as Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director of European and Russian Affairs, she found herself out of a job. She returned to work for the Brookings Institution in 2020. Meanwhile, President Trump experienced no adverse consequences as a result of Hill’s apparently truthful testimony.

Clearly, we have not come nearly far enough in our crusade against misogyny. The examples described above are two from among thousands. Even a quick dive into recent history reveals countless instances of social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, disenfranchisement of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification.

As a society, we ought to be embarrassed. More important, we ought to do better.

To order Dr. McPherson’s books, click the cover images here below: