I’m not arguing for it, I agree that it’s fine if it’s a free choice. I don’t think personally that it’s a good one, though.

My point is that many of the women pushing this on the republican side view all of this, including their own loss of rights, as a positive likely. It’s not like a “leopards eating faces” or “voting against their interests” situation where they might be reachable.

For the believers, I think that tmany would be fine with this. It reinforces their preferred structure of a patriarchy in which they have a well-defined place and role (head of the domestic household, subservient to the man). No worries about having to deal with a fickle job market or figuring out what you want to do with your life. Your life path is set (get married, raise kids, take care of family), and, for some, that well-defined role the status that it conveys is really comforting. It provides a sense of security.

It’s why, I expect, while there are many who fight it, there are plenty of women in Muslim societies who are fine with things as they are. We emphasize with those women who chafe at that and fight it since we’ve history valued the individual rights of self-determination and freedom, of course.

Thats a big allure of the American taliban to some folks. It provides structure and defined roles in a chaotic world.

Of course, republican men like it for the power, but more importantly, that women voters mostly vote against them. Stopping women from voting would cement them in power.

That’s the key “stops a lot of things”. The way that Congress is structured makes it pretty easy to stop things since there are many choke points. Notice that republicans aren’t really trying to “do things” in Congress?

The current issues and actions are being driven by the executive branch where they’re ignoring the law and constitution . Being in the minority in Congress means that Dems can’t trigger investigations or much of anything to formally push back unless they’re joined by some republicans.

I’ll agree that they could make more noise and should block things up more than they’re doing presently, but these actions wouldn’t really stop or significantly slow any of this.

I’m sick of the green lanterism that gets trotted out to suggest that they’re not stopping things because they don’t want to. Voters didn’t give them power in the last election, so we’re working from a position of weakness.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that the super rich actually have a high conventional income normally. Most of their wealth would be from investments and stock.

A neat trick with that is that they can take out loans against their stock to buy superyachts, governments, and other toys and that’s not only not income, the interest is tax deductible. Plus there are other tricks like S Corps to shield them. So, this isn’t as useful as it would suggest (not that we shouldn’t tax >100m at 99% or something just to make the point.)