Misogyny: The Real Root of Opposition to Late Abortion


Now that Scott Roeder has been handed a life sentence with parole only possible in 50 years, it’s time to look at the effect his act of terrorism has had on the anti-choice movement.  You’d think people who claim to be “pro-life” would be so ashamed of terrorist acts that they’d do anything to distance themselves from them.  But instead, Roeder’s murder of Dr. George Tiller, the preeminent late abortion provider in the nation, seems to have emboldened anti-choicers to double down on the harassment of other late abortion providers.  Not only have anti-choice protesters moved on to targeted Dr. Carhart for abuse and threats, but as Lynn Harris noted, legislators in Kansas and  Nebraska seem to be emboldened by this act of terrorism to put further restrictions on late abortions.

What’s interesting is about the anti-choice focus on late abortions is that it really shows how intellectually bankrupt the anti-abortion rights position is.  And not just because anti-choicers get energized by terroristic acts of murder.  It’s because the focus shows how much anti-choicers really do think they get to have it both ways.  By focusing on late abortion, anti-choicers demonstrate two major contradictions between their stated point of view and their actual point of view. 

“Life begins at conception.”  The major anti-abortion rights argument has always been that a fertilized egg has the same moral worth as a 5-year-old child, and that abortion is therefore murder.   By that measure, an abortion at 8 weeks is the same kind of evil as an abortion at 25 weeks. So why focus more on the latter?  Why spend more time trying to restrict the latter, or drawing attention to it?  Why focus on doctors who provide late abortions, if they aren’t any morally different than those who perform early abortions? 

It’s almost as if anti-choicers agree with the pro-choice view that there’s a difference between a fertilized egg, a fetus later in pregnancy (since most pro-choicers support some restrictions on later abortion), and a baby. Anti-choicers can’t have it both ways.  Either a fertilized egg is a person or it’s not. If you think later abortion is worse than early abortion, you admit that you don’t really think early abortions are the same as infanticide.

“We’re ‘pro-life’!”  The official anti-choice argument is that they’re not against women, they’re just “for life.”  But if that’s true, then abortion becomes more understandable if someone’s life is threatened by the pregnancy, or the fetus has defects incompatible with life.  In other words, if you’re “pro-life,” late abortions that are all, by law, medically indicated would ostensibly be more defensible than an early abortion done because the woman simply does not want to become a mother. 

To be intellectually consistent with both the argument that a fertilized egg is the same as a baby and that this is about life—and not about controlling and punishing female sexuality—the anti-choice movement should work to secure the right of women to obtain medically necessary late abortions.  Instead, they work to restrict them even more, and during the recent health care debate, fought hard to make sure women had to pay for abortions out-of-pocket, even those getting abortions that save their lives or to end pregnancies where there’s no real hope of producing a live baby.

The anti-choice approach on late abortions is consistent with one viewpoint: the misogynist one.  Let’s assume for a moment that the motivation behind anti-choice activism is not a love of life or a belief that a fertilized egg is the same thing as a baby.  Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, they’re motivated by a belief that the main role of women in this world is to be baby machines, and that women should mindlessly reproduce even if it kills them.  Is this viewpoint consistent with the focus on late abortion?

Absolutely!  If this is how you feel, you’d be extremely interested in portraying women as callous, stupid, and mercurial, then you’d be all about portraying late abortion as something that happens because stupid, heartless, fickle women change their minds 6 months into a pregnancy.   You wouldn’t be interested in the truth about the medical indications that lead to late abortions, because in your mind, if they can’t have babies, they should die trying.  You’d relish the opportunity to use graphic imagery and language to shut down people’s rational thinking, and get them to react to an “ick factor.”  And you’d be indifferent to the suffering you caused real women, like Tiffany Campbell, who had to abort much-wanted pregnancies because of fetal abnormalities—their feelings don’t matter to you as much as the production model of their uteruses. 

It’s true that some people are against late abortion because they’re ignorant.  They’ve bought into anti-choice propaganda that paints women as so stupid and cruel they would wait so long in a pregnancy before aborting. 

But once you’ve been educated to the realities of the medical reasons a woman might need a late abortion? I have no sympathy for your position.  At this point, you are choosing the misogynist view of women against the prevailing evidence. 

Considering that the most intellectually consistent reason for anti-choice obsession with the relatively rare procedure of late abortion is misogyny, the willingness to draw energy from terrorist actions like Scott Roeder’s murder of Dr. Tiller makes more sense. Could it be that fundamentalist Christian terrorists have more in common with fundamentalist Muslim terrorists than we usually like to admit?  Could both kinds of terrorisms stem from an ideology that glorifies a violent patriarchy and sees female independence as a threat?   The only major difference I see between the two is that right wing politicians in the U.S. seem eager to give Christian fundamentalist terrorists exactly what they demand.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on twitter: @amandamarcotte

  • crowepps

    Could it be that fundamentalist Christian terrorists have more in common with fundamentalist Muslim terrorists than we usually like to admit? Could both kinds of terrorisms stem from an ideology that glorifies a violent patriarchy and sees female independence as a threat?

    There’s something even more basic than those behind both kinds of violent fundamentalism – an assertion of dominion – “the right to govern or control”. They sincerely believe that they are the possessors of ‘The Truth’ and that God will punish them if they do not impose ‘morality’ on society and therefore they have the right to use violence up to and including death to force everyone to conform their behavior with the beliefs of the fundamentalists.

     

    Certainly statements like “You do realize, don’t you, what you’re asking of me and of other Pro-Lifers when you suggest that I ought to tolerate the death of a person simply because the one responsible for their death ‘honestly and sincerely’ believes they’re not a person?” come out of the same well – the belief in a right to oversee the actions of those not allowed to make their own decisions when those are judged to be ‘immoral’.

    “The “Christian” Reconstruction movement (CRM) claims that believers possess a cultural mandate from God to reclaim in this age dominion over human society

     

    http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Psychology/cor/notes_on.htm

    Islamic fundamentalism

     

    Conservative religious movement that seeks a return to Islamic values and Islamic law (see Sharia) in the face of Western modernism, which is seen as corrupt and atheistic.

     

    http://www.answers.com/topic/islamic-fundamentalism

  • wendy-banks

    Wow, these people are frightenly, dangerously, insane aren’t they? How could anyone beleave that, that, well, garbage for want of a better word. How could anybody wish the evil they wish on the ‘unbeleavers’ with a clear conscence? It boggles the mind– They are so– sick… Well, that article on rapidnet left a very bad taste in my mouth, but it wouldn’t be as if I hadn’t heard of it before– I have, it still creeps me out every time. *shakes head and sighs* This is why I like birds more than people, I guess… Maybe that’s also why I’m basicly both a Humanist and a near- Atheist– I can’t stomach all the hate and control-freak shit.

     

  • captcourageous

    Misogyny is not a “given” in this article. It was bad enough that woman-hating was your handy dandy pat answer to any male that disagrees with you. But, now that you have used it so much, people are inured to it and openly question its merit.

     

    Time to work up a new allpurpose buzzword, terrorist, and juxtapose it with any form of opposition to your agenda, isn’t it? This amounts to propaganda, plain and simple … “agitprop” to be specific.

  • prochoiceferret

    But, now that you have used it so much, people are inured to it and openly question its merit.

    Yes, misogyny (and sexism) is indeed endemic in our society. Feminists have been questioning its merit for decades, and more and more people are beginning to do likewise.

    Time to work up a new allpurpose buzzword, terrorist, and juxtapose it with any form of opposition to your agenda, isn’t it? This amounts to propaganda, plain and simple … “agitprop” to be specific.

    Yes, like “not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” and “equal pay for equal work.” Or “respect human rights,” for that matter.

  • austin-nedved

    By that measure, an abortion at 8 weeks is the same kind of evil as an abortion at 25 weeks. So why focus more on the latter?  Why spend more time trying to restrict the latter, or drawing attention to it?  Why focus on doctors who provide late abortions, if they aren’t any morally different than those who perform early abortions?

     

    This is an interesting point, and I’ve always been frustrated at pro-life groups over this.  I think it’s because a fetus at 25 weeks looks more like a baby than an embryo at 8 weeks.  We have a stronger emotional attachment to the former, so pro-life groups either see later abortions as an easier target, or are swayed by their own emotions.  I don’t know which.

     

    But once you’ve been educated to the realities of the medical reasons a woman might need a late abortion? I have no sympathy for your position. At this point, you are choosing the misogynist view of women against the prevailing evidence.

     

    I’m fully aware of the medical reasons that women have late term abortions.  The medical reason I’ve always found the most interesting is this one aspect of the mental health exception: the baby is going to die soon after he is born, and in order to save the mother the mental trauma of losing a baby, an abortion is performed.  Apparently, this works; if it didn’t, the exception wouldn’t exist.  The question is, why does this work?  Why does passively allowing a baby to die cause a great deal more mental trauma than directly killing a fetus?

  • prochoiceferret

    The medical reason I’ve always found the most interesting is this one aspect of the mental health exception: the baby is going to die soon after he is born, and in order to save the mother the mental trauma of losing a baby, an abortion is performed.

    You say this as though it were the only reason to obtain an abortion in that scenario.

    The question is, why does this work?  Why does passively allowing a baby to die cause a great deal more mental trauma than directly killing a fetus?

    Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn’t. You ask why—but in the end, do you really give a s***?

  • ema

    <i>Misogyny is not a “given” in this article.</i>

    Fine, ignore the points made in this article. Just explain to us why, for example, <a href=”http://thewelltimedperiod.blogspot.com/2010/04/vatican-for-child-raping-priests-follow.html”>the Vatican</a> relies on, and follows, the professional advice of medical personnel when it comes to priests who rape children, yet when it comes to nine-year-old girls who’ve been raped by their stepfather, the Vatican just excommunicates the Ob/Gyn and the girl’s, you know, mom?

  • amanda-marcotte

    Because nothing in the comment suggests you did.

     

    Anyway, men disagree with me for non-misogynist reasons all the time.  “No, I don’t think ’30 Rock’ is funnier than ‘The Office’.”  “I think LBJ’s involvement with Vietnam outweighs his accomplishments on the homefront.”  “I love anchovies!”

     

    But yes, if a man disagrees with my right to own my own body and to live, he’s a misogynist.

  • amanda-marcotte

    Something that’s left out of the abortion debate so often, but answers you question easily, Austin.  It’s labor.  Pushing an actual baby out of your body after hours or even days of labor, only to have him or her die in misery is awful.  Also, aborting a pregnancy at 20-something weeks, when it not a baby and can’t suffer is better than giving birth to a baby that will suffer and die.

  • jodi-jacobson

    For me–and I speak only for myself–carrying a child I knew was going to die shortly after birth, or in utero, would be triply traumatic.  Carrying to term to give birth to child only to have it suffer further pain would be horrific for the child, and for me.  It also dramatically delays the mourning process through which anyone with a *wanted* pregnancy would go in such a situation.

    Every single woman who faces such decisions has the right to decide what is right for her in her context.  Some women and their partners would want to carry to term and give birth even in the case of fetal death.  Others can not think of anything more (to them) morbid and horrifying.

    To me, it is the same as saying someone else is going to determine how my family and I deal with a) the treatment and impending death of a terminally ill relative (our choice, not yours) and b) how to mourn that person, whether or not to bury or cremate them, and how to deal with memorializing them.  All of these are deeply, deeply personal decisions.  I can not fathom for the life of me why anyone seeks to get themselves involved in these decisions outside the person/people in question.

    Jodi

  • truth

    Everyone needs to check this out:

     

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mviFMpy_sBU

     

     

    If you think that abortions, at any stage, aren’t done for the convenience of the mother – you are sadly mistaken.

     

    As for the recent poster child for late term abortions, Tiffany Campbell, the parents made the wrong decision. Both twins should have been allowed to attempt to survive. The principle of the double effect does not apply here because the abortion was direct, not indirect as in the tubal pregnancy or cancerous uterus cases. Ethics can never allow an evil act based on the number of potential survivors or a direct attack on life.

     

    I know that most of you are not critical thinking types, but an education can help you in determining the moral ethical arguments you’re attempting. Unless you’d rather just continue arguing your position(s) based solely on emotion. That’s really all Amanda is saying here. If I may paraphrase, “I FEEL like everyone who is against killing babies really just doesn’t like women, and I don’t like them for that – they’re big jerks.” – Amanda “No Argument” Marcotte

  • prochoiceferret

    If you think that abortions, at any stage, aren’t done for the convenience of the mother – you are sadly mistaken.

    Yes, avoiding death and/or lifelong disability is rather convenient.

    As for the recent poster child for late term abortions, Tiffany Campbell, the parents made the wrong decision. Both twins should have been allowed to attempt to survive.

    Which, in practice, means that both would have very likely died. I see that you’re one of those pro-death advocates we hear about so much.

    The principle of the double effect does not apply here because the abortion was direct, not indirect as in the tubal pregnancy or cancerous uterus cases. Ethics can never allow an evil act based on the number of potential survivors or a direct attack on life.

    Ethics is so simple when it’s not the life of you or yours that’s at stake, is it?

    I know that most of you are not critical thinking types, but an education can help you in determining the moral ethical arguments you’re attempting.

    Yes, you could definitely use some education on what you’re talking about.

    Unless you’d rather just continue arguing your position(s) based solely on emotion. That’s really all Amanda is saying here. If I may paraphrase, “I FEEL like everyone who is against killing babies really just doesn’t like women, and I don’t like them for that – they’re big jerks.”

    Wait a second, I thought you were the one in favor of fetuses dying.

  • sschoice

    “Truth” wrote:

     

    I know that most of you are not critical thinking types, but an education can help you in determining the moral ethical arguments you’re attempting.

     

    “Truth,” you are posting comments on a website with probably a larger concentration and overall readership than any other reproductive health care blog of health care professionals and others well acquainted with medical ethics, theology, and related social sciences. Many of us even have ‘real’ jobs related to those studies, and in any case one shouldn’t expect someone to do what a pet ferret can do just as well.

     

    –southern students for choice, athens

  • richwa

    though misogyny does play a role.  One needs to look at the effects of the Adam and Eve mythology on Western Culture as a whole to understand  why womyn are treated as they are.  The insidiouness of this belief permeates our entire Western Culture and drives the values and status of womyn. Until the 70’s womyn were mostly an after thought (if a thought at all) in biomedical and other research; womyn are part of man being made from his rib after all.  A womyn’s sole role in life, and the reason for her existance, is to procreate ergo a womyn has no value unless she is procreating.

    There is no simple reason for why womyn’s rights — not only reproductive rights — are under constant attack.  Womyn have always been viewed as a threat by male practioners of religions worshipping the god of Abraham.  Womyn were healers, unlike the priests, so the church had to get rid of them.  A free womyn has powers the church can not contend with and therefore must subjagate those powers.  To fully understand how womyn’s role in the West came about study up on the Adam and Eve mythology; the field only about 50 years old.

  • princess-rot

    That’s funny, Truth. While you sit there and self-righteously call us all hysterical little wimmenz for being concerned about healthcare matters that could effect any of us at any time (and I know it already has happened to at least one of us, Tiffany, whose article you spectacularly failed to comprehend before diving in with ill-informed snark) you have a big emotional whinefest about how you should be entitled to make our reproductive decisions for us, namely, leaving us with a simple choice: produce babies, no matter the cost to yourselves, your loved ones, your health, or your life. It’s just nice and convenient that you would never be in that position by accident of biology, but you feel determined to make female biology into one long, continuous accident for all of us.

  • crowepps

    the baby is going to die soon after he is born, and in order to save the mother the mental trauma of losing a baby, an abortion is performed.  Apparently, this works; if it didn’t, the exception wouldn’t exist.  The question is, why does this work?  Why does passively allowing a baby to die cause a great deal more mental trauma than directly killing a fetus?

    Having actually been in the situation myself in a minor version, having had a ‘missed pregnancy’ or ‘missed abortion’ where I was told that there was no heartbeat and the fetus was dead and then having a D&C abortion to remove it, I feel I am qualified to answer this question.  It has no connection to saving “the mother the mental trauma of losing a baby” because that’s GUARANTEED.

    The mother has ALREADY lost the baby.  She has been told that the baby is too deformed to live and only the support of her body is keeping it alive.  Since there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever to either her or to the fetus in her continuing to do that, she gets to choose whether she would prefer that loss to happen immediately or to allow the process to drag on and on.  Some women for their own reasons choose the latter, but most do not.

     

    You might keep in mind that at the time most gross fetal anomalies such as missing kidneys, no lungs, etc., are discovered the woman still has FOUR OR FIVE months during which she would have to continue to endure all the physical risks knowing that it is a doomed pregnancy.  In addition, during all that time she STILL LOOKS PREGNANT and since ‘society’ considers pregnancy a public occasion meriting public comment and public supervision, it is just absolute TORTURE to have people ask ‘do you want a boy or a girl?’ or ‘when it is due?’ or ‘are you and your husband happy?’

     

    I find it totally boggling that you would make a statement like ‘apparently it works but I don’t understand why’ as though YOUR being able to understand it is a necessary requirement before someone in a horrible situation gets the help they need.

  • saltyc

    for showing me that I haven’t thought of every angle in the debates. If a zygote is a full human being, then why focus so much on late term abortions?  I don’t think anyone really believes that a zygote should have equal rights as a baby, is why they do, this is another way to prove it, along with the freezer full of embryos in the burning fertility clinic, and a sleeping child, which one do you save? and that other paper that showed the lack of public concern for early spontaneous abortion compared to concern over induced abortion (I forgot the name.)

  • rebellious-grrl

    I know that most of you are not critical thinking types, but an education can help you in determining the moral ethical arguments you’re attempting.

    This is judgmental and completely without any basis in logic or fact. Truth, many of your arguments are based on emotional rhetoric. In fact, the arguments from the anti-choice side are based on emotional rhetoric and inaccuracies. Maybe you could take your own advice.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Exactly! Well said.

  • captcourageous

    First of all, I’m just very grateful that my post wasn’t deleted, and my attempt to log back in wasn’t blocked.

     

    Secondly, as usual, we get the same fallacies from you: Ad Hominem, Ad Circularum, Ad Baculum, Post Hoc – Ergo Propter Hoc, Begging the Question, etc.

     

    We already know what your collective mythos is regarding men. We don’t need a bunch of hysterical recapitulations of it, replete with a priori “givens”, that you never support with anything more than mere connotations.

     

    Take for instance, the ‘did you read the article?’ defense. The most preponderately salient feature here is the assumption I would post a comment about something with which I am totally unfamiliar. That’s not a defense of the use of misogyny in this little tome, it’s an example of misandry that is obliquely aimed at me.

     

    I did in fact read the article more than once and posted it for others to read as well. Two things are glaringly apparent here. Misogyny, terrorist and christan fundamentalist are lamely juxtaposed in a manner that connotes defamation, equivocation and recrimination. This amounts to little more than agitating propaganda, with a slightly sleazy veneer. 

  • ack

    How spectacularly self-righteous of you to say that Tiffany Campbell and her partner made the wrong decision. It’s easy to critique people’s choices when you haven’t been confronted with their circumstances; saying, “Well, I wouldn’t have done that!” is simple. Being in that situation, being forced to make that choice, is anything but.

     

    Saving one fetus instead of allowing two to die is certainly a choice rooted in emotion. Overall, I think that emotion in abortion is a concept that’s grossly misused by anti-choicers; women should feel guilty, everyone should condemn abortion because it’s a TINY BABY IN THERE and aren’t babies precious… In order to have a truly honest discussion, the emotions of the women who actually make the choices need to be voiced, heard, and respected. Silencing them by saying that the choice they made was wrong when you cannot possibly empathize with their circumstances does nothing to move us forward. Insisting that abortion is always the wrong choice is incredibly demeaning to the women who have them. You don’t get to force your version of morality into my body, and I don’t get to force mine into yours.

  • ack

    Was this comment intended to somehow refute the article?

  • crowepps

    First of all, I’m just very grateful that my post wasn’t deleted, and my attempt to log back in wasn’t blocked.

    That happen to you a lot?

  • sschoice

    Amanda wrote:

     

    Misogyny: The Real Root of Opposition to Late Abortion

     

    The anti-choice approach on late abortions is consistent with one viewpoint: the misogynist one.

     

    Maybe Amanda means that a mysogynist viewpoint is a real viewpoint that opposition to LT abortion is consistent with, but it’s not the only one, nor necessarily the most politically significant one.

     

    Support for restrictive LT abortion laws is consistent with the old-school eugenic viewpoint that relatively young (mid-adolescent through young adult) or poor or relatively less educated people (meaning women and men, and not only women) can’t be trusted with making reproductive choices, whether it’s the choice to get pregnant (or to get a woman pregnant) whether or not it’s intentional. It’s also consistent with the idea that significant numbers of pregnant women like that (maybe the majority, and her partner as well, if they’re seen to be part of the picture) border on being essentially incompetent to chose on their own with a medical provider if they should carry the pregnancy to term and retain custody, or to choose abortion, and if she does have an abortion the woman involved is more vulnerable to negative psychological effects, as referred to in the US Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales vs Carhart.

     

    There’s no restriction on LT abortion that’s been created that would stop women with money and the ability to plan trips of up to several hundred miles from getting later-term abortions, they’re almost exclusively deterrents on poorer women and women who don’t have as much ability to plan for trips and procedures like that.

     

    It’s probably more common for people who take that position to be motivated by a twisted kind of benevolence than by hatred, thinking that less educated or poorer (or younger) women don’t have the ability to make decisions as well as better educated or better-off women could.  They could even cite science in a way to support their position because there may well be a greater incidence of negative psychological effects following late-term abortion on, say, very poor women or very young women (like mid-adolescents) than on women in their 20s or 30s with significant financial resources, a supportive family, etc.  Abortion doesn’t “cause” depression any more than it causes insanity, but whatever stresses or temporarily negative effect it may have is probably greater on someone who is especially poor or young, or who has little support from peers or family or education to help them understand/cope/recover/grow with the experience they’re going through.  It may be greater, that is, but it’s not overwhelmingly different, or necessarily a reason to restrict their rights to make these decisions for themselves.

     

    This is a reason why there is no significant effort being made to reverse the trend to states enacting restrictive parental involvement laws.  It is politically more popular (and very profitable) to say that women in general (especially minors) are vulnerable to the “trauma” of abortion in general and LT abortion in particular, and unrestricted abortion access may hurt them or enable their victimization.  It’s popular to say — and more popular these days than ever in recent decades — that minors are likely to be developmentally far less able to make decisions like these, and that complex and frequently updated regulations are needed to help medical/social service professionals with legal oversight make decisions that most minors dealing with abortion would be able to make them for themselves much like adults would otherwise — and for those professionals and legal authorities to be paid to do so.  That’s a VERY common (and in more than one way profitable) viewpoint today with professionals and politicians alike who would passionately argue to to a roomful of highly educated, relatively well-off women that they’re “pro-choice.”  

     

    It’s a lot less mystifying to say they support restrictions on minor’s access — like they might support restrictions on late-term abortion — for reasons that are more related to their personal advantage than misogyny.  It’s also a lot more helpful to pro-choice activists to say these restrictions are supported for reasons that are in their in their professional self-interest than mysogyny (not to mention a number of other -cies and -isms) as we try to find ways to effectively oppose those restrictions.

     

    –southern students for choice, athens

  • rebellious-grrl

    Captcourageous, I don’t think your posts are getting deleted on purpose. I’ve had posts get deleted too, but then reappear later. To be fair to RHRealitycheck, I think their web server gets overloaded and sometimes doesn’t load comments in real time. 

     

    I think it was a fair question to ask if you read the article because you don’t really say anything in your response,

    Ad Hominem, Ad Circularum, Ad Baculum, Post Hoc – Ergo Propter Hoc, Begging the Question, etc….Misogyny, terrorist and christan fundamentalist are lamely juxtaposed in a manner that connotes defamation, equivocation and recrimination. This amounts to little more than agitating propaganda, with a slightly sleazy veneer.

    What are you getting at?


    Could you rephrase this? Are you saying that Amanda’s article weakly compares misogyny, terrorism, and Christian fundamentalists? Huh? “In a manner that implies a false accusation, with an intention to be retaliatory….” It sounds like you are trying to use every big word in your tool box and are making no sense. 


    Amanda was pretty clear about what she said. The anti-choice argument is intellectually bankrupt. Pro-Life is a lie because they don’t care about the health of women. Amanda further elaborated, “Portraying women as callous, stupid, and mercurial, then you’d be all about portraying late abortion as something that happens because stupid, heartless, fickle women change their minds 6 months into a pregnancy. You wouldn’t be interested in the truth about the medical indications that lead to late abortions, because in your mind, if they can’t have babies, they should die trying.”


    I think Amanda said it well with, Could it be that fundamentalist Christian terrorists have more in common with fundamentalist Muslim terrorists than we usually like to admit?  Could both kinds of terrorisms stem from an ideology that glorifies a violent patriarchy and sees female independence as a threat?” Some anti-choice organizations use terrorism to threaten doctors, clinic employees, and female patients. This doesn’t seam to be subsiding. The similarities between the Christian fundamental right and the Taliban are accurate. The group Repent Amarillo, “Army of God” is a militia style group that is literally terrorizing the town of Amarillo. They have posted on their website a “Warfare Map.” They also protest breast cancer events. That’s really messed up and misogynistic to me.

  • jodi-jacobson

    Have indeed been deleted and blocked on other articles on RH Reality Check where they clearly violated our guidelines.  Deleted comments were superfluous and simply and directly made personal attacks on authors of other comments.  Where commentors resort to name-calling and personal attacks in place of making a point or comment, we will delete and/or block these.

     

    Best wishes, Jodi

  • rebellious-grrl

    I feel like a broken record saying this, I really appreciate RHrealitycheck. This is a great website that I’ve read everyday for (I think) two years and I always look forward to listening to Amanda’s latest podcast. I want to extend my gratitude to you and everyone at RHrealitycheck! You all do incredible much needed work. Thanks!

  • jenk

    Misogyny is like the term “synergy” or putting your first two fingers in the air and saying “Quote”-over used to the point of rediculousness. First of all, the majority of Christians did not support the action of killing the abortion doctor. Wrong is wrong. There are much more likely explainations to why people (who are mostly women) are against late term abortion than they hate women.

     

    Late term abortion is a battle which is much easier to win than all abortions. Christians are not stupid-we know that it is unlikely the government will overturn Roe vs Wade in its entirety, at least not for a long time. But it is more likely it will make a ban on late term abortions. A battle won is a battle won, even if it is not the entire war.

     

    Also, with early abortions the baby would not survive outside the womb without massive and expensive medical care, if at all. A late term baby can indeed survive outside his or her mothers womb, so the only thing which is stopping him or her from continuing life is the want of the mother. That is a pretty big difference. There are waiting lists for adoptive parents seeking babies, even ones with disabilities.

     

    The mother not wanting to see her baby before he or she dies is NOT a valid excuse to kill him or her. She can choose to not look and have the baby taken away. What if the baby’s dad wants to meet his child? It is not her body her choice, because she would have to deliver the child either way. It is pure selfishness.

     

    And Amanda, please tell me what magic happens during childbirth to imbue the child with the ability to feel pain and suffer. If there is no such magic, then a child in the womb is just as capable of suffering as a child outside the mother. The brain function, the nervous system, and the ability to react to outside stimuli are all proven to exist in preborn children in the third trimester. Please explain to me scientifically how this child cannot feel when he or she has all the necessary physical systems to do so.

  • prochoicegoth

    The mother not wanting to see her baby before he or she dies is NOT a valid excuse to kill him or her. She can choose to not look and have the baby taken away. What if the baby’s dad wants to meet his child? It is not her body her choice, because she would have to deliver the child either way. It is pure selfishness.

    First off, how dare you judge. You are OBVIOUSLY too pre-occupied with controlling women that you cannot see the FACT that a late term abortion is more of a mercy to the fetus. The fetus is euthanized by a shot that immediately stops the heart, thus stopping what suffering the fetus may be going through at that time. Afterwards, the woman can hold the fetus if she chooses to. If she doesn’t choose to, that is NONE of your damn business. So you’re all for making BOTH the woman and fetus suffer. Good to know the REAL agenda of your kind.

  • jenk

    “Pro-Life is a lie because they don’t care about the health of women.”

     

    Really? And you have actually spoken with these pro-lifers?

     

    I am pro-life. If the mother is truly in a death situation, where she will imminantly die if she does not have an abortion, it is a grey area where probably many Christians would disagree with each other. To blatently ignore the life of the mother in order to save the child is to murder the mother if the ability is there to save her. Some would argue that the non-action is the most moral-if doing nothing saves the child yet kills the mother that is the way it should be. 

     

    There is not a passage in the Bible which spells out this exact situation, so it is up to interpretation.

     

    Personally, I would like to know the honest number of abortions which fall into this catagory. How often can killing the baby result in the mother being saved? And how often does this happen to someone who would allow that choice to be made? I would have died gladly for both of my sons. So even if x number of cases occur, how many would abort, especially at a late stage, so they could live?

     

    The vast majority of abortions are women who choose for whatever reason not to stay pregnant which have little to do with the critical health of either mother or child. The majority of late term abortions ,from what I understand, are to kill babies who are considered extemely disabled. Hydrocephelus is one disorder which is a candidate for LTA because if the diagnosis is correct the child has little to no brain and thus while he or she exists physically, he or she has no chance of living past a few days.

     

    Doctors can be wrong. There have been parents who chose not to abort their baby and when the child is born he or she was completely normal. It is a gamble.  I doubt doctors would admit to being wrong even if they were-once the baby is delivered and dead there is no reason to fess up that a mistake was made. 

     

     

     

     

  • ahunt

    Yah…I figgered you folks were on top of things, Jodi.

     

    Harriet’s comments disappeared PDQ.

     

    As guilty as anyone of overheated rhetoric here on RH, and will try to do better.

  • jenk

    “Until the 70’s womyn were mostly an after thought (if a thought at all) in biomedical and other research; womyn are part of man being made from his rib after all.”

     

    Right about the history, wrong about the reason. Women were not included for the same reason well-off people were not included-it was dangerous. Typically biomedical research was conducted on prisoners and military personel-expendable lab rats. Women were not included not because they were not thought of, but because they were thought more highly of. It is the same mentality that to this day puts “women and children first” when there is an emergency. If women were simply an afterthought, wouldn’t men’s mantra be “Me first!” ? 

     

     

  • captcourageous

    I have read posts in which male commenators were called by specific body parts, something that has never been done reciprocally to female commentators here.

     

    I learned an important lesson on this board. Don’t respond to personal attacks, especially the ones using insinuation … just hit the report button.

  • captcourageous

    “Superflous” and a “personal attack” using facetious innuendo.

  • crowepps

    As for the recent poster child for late term abortions, Tiffany Campbell, the parents made the wrong decision. Both twins should have been allowed to attempt to survive.

    It’s possible that you just are too ignorant of obstetrics to understand that their choices were ‘allowing both twins to attempt to survive’ INEVITABLY resulting in two dead fetuses OR making a decision on the advice of their doctor and ending up with one dead fetus and one live fetus.

     

    While sitting around talking about theoretical ethical or religious beliefs about avoiding ‘evil acts’ may indeed forbid any ‘evil act’ even if the person is killed for refusing to commit one, actual real world ethics do indeed allow people to make decisions that hasten one unavoidable death in order to prevent another and avoidable death. To have been able to rescue one child alive from this disaster was entirely honorable.

     

    You seem to be objecting to the fact that they made a decision at all, as though doing so was usurping God’s role as dealer of death to fetuses. This is what people experiencing pregnancy in real life have to do – make decisions in order to try to save themselves and their children from God’s apparent indifference to their survival.

     

    The legislator who is attempting to get this law passed had never heard of this rare condition and said he would have to reconsider. You have had it explained to you and you STILL don’t get it because you are so insistent that every choice has to be black and white.  Reproduction and pregnancy are constructed entirely of shades of grey.

  • amanda-marcotte

    Tiffany is a real person with a real son who faced a really hard choice.  How dare you suggest that you know better than her or her doctor?  How are you able to diagnose her from afar?  Are you even a doctor?  If you are, you should be ashamed for saying you know what a patient’s condition is without examining her.

  • amanda-marcotte

    Anti-choicers really reject shooting a doctor when they stop painting targets on the next one they’d like someone to eliminate.  Stop harassing Dr. Carhart, and we’ll talk.

     

    Stop dismissing women’s very serious pain and hard choices, and I’ll take the “am not a misogynist!” arguments seriously.

  • amanda-marcotte

    And they’re shot through with misogyny.  You put a book over a woman’s life, you dismiss a woman’s lived experiences, and you dismiss the idea that a woman has a right not only to live but to have medical care that keeps her healthy.

  • captcourageous

    clinical condition. It’s either a symptom of a disorder, or perhaps a disorder itself. I realize that sociology has co-opted this term, but in doing so, it has not removed the mental health implications and the resulting stigma. Misogyny is not like wearing pearls, it doesn’t “go with everything.”

     

    If you have to try and advance an argument or a position on an issue by defaming the other side, you do so from an inherently fallacious position.

     

  • crowepps

    Some would argue that the non-action is the most moral-if doing nothing saves the child yet kills the mother that is the way it should be.

    Perhaps those persons ought to read the account of how Pilate decided making no decision was easier than making the wrong one and how his washing his hands to remove his guilt didn’t get HIM off the hook.

     

    In any case, we’re not talking here about a Christian choosing to be “most moral” by choosing to take no action and going ahead and fulfilling God’s Will by the mother dying while the child survives.  We are talking about dealing out death wholesale by preventing doctors from intervening to save lives.

     

    We are talking about law that affects a person of the other opinion, one who believes that their action is moral and wishes to save one of their babies, a law which will PREVENT that person from taking action and saving that life because somebody else who isn’t involved in the situation in any way is all atwitter about whether or not God might be annoyed. Of course, it’s easy for them to be steadfast, isn’t it? It isn’t themselves or their wife or their child who’s going to die.

     

    “The first thing a principle does is kill somebody.” Dorothy Sayer

  • jodi-jacobson

    We allow wide latitude to commentors on RH Reality Check and do not simply delete comments or block commentors as a result of a flag.  We examine each comment or set of comments on their own.  You had a series of comments that were composed simply/solely/completely of name-calling.  These were deleted and your original name blocked as a result.  There are many and sundry “heated” comments on these pages, many of which are not necessarily “polite” nor are they necessarily comments with which I agree.  They do not get deleted for these reasons.  You crossed a very wide border.

     

    Jodi

  • crowepps

    Misogyny comes into English from the ancient Greek word, misogunia (μισογυνία), which survives in two passages.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

    So far as I am aware, the Greeks didn’t have any psychiatrists and the DSM hadn’t yet been written. So far as I am aware, at the present time this is not a clinical diagnosis but instead just average everyday bigotry. The fact that the word sounds ‘sciency’ does not mean it is a medical term.

     

    You might find the following excerpt from a longer article interesting. NOTE: The grey box means it is all a quote – I did not write this.

    The 48-year-old man turned down a job because he feared that a co-worker would be gay. He was upset that gay culture was becoming mainstream and blamed most of his personal, professional and emotional problems on the gay and lesbian movement.

     

    These fixations preoccupied him every day. Articles in magazines about gays made him agitated. He confessed that his fears had left him socially isolated and unemployed for years: A recovering alcoholic, the man even avoided 12-step meetings out of fear he might encounter a gay person.

     

    “He had a fixed delusion about the world,” said Sondra E. Solomon, a psychologist at the University of Vermont who treated the man for two years. “He felt under attack, he felt threatened.”

     

    Mental health practitioners say they regularly confront extreme forms of racism, homophobia and other prejudice in the course of therapy, and that some patients are disabled by these beliefs. As doctors increasingly weigh the effects of race and culture on mental illness, some are asking whether pathological bias ought to be an official psychiatric diagnosis.

     

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/09/AR2005120901938.html?nav=rss_print/asection

  • jodi-jacobson

    we all appreciate that you are reading and participating here, are truly glad to know the site is important to you and others.

     

    best always,

     

    Jodi

  • ahunt

    I would have died gladly for both of my sons.

     

    Ah…back to the fetishization of maternal nobility.  “Gladly?”

     

    I cannot lay claim to the sentiment. In fact, I’m pretty sure, in the event of the unthinkable… I would choose to continue my own life with my husband and existing children…for reasons all my own. And I’m certain my husband and sons would make a similar choice for me, if called upon to do so.

  • squirrely-girl

    “Christians are not stupid-we know that it is unlikely the government will overturn Roe vs Wade in its entirety, at least not for a long time. But it is more likely it will make a ban on late term abortions. A battle won is a battle won, even if it is not the entire war.”

     

    I’m not sure if I find it amusing or outright frightening in that your preferred method is the most popular approach used by groups trying to disenfranchise, control, enslave, or exterminate other groups. Society would be blown away and potentially react in a highly negative or violent manner if people just started killing another group of people. But slowly chipping away at their rights and freedoms while tossing in some emotional rhetoric and propaganda… well that works EVERY TIME! I can’t help but feel compelled to draw some comparisons between that approach and… hmm… the Holocaust? Or every other genocide for that matter…

     

    A late term baby can indeed survive outside his or her mothers womb, so the only thing which is stopping him or her from continuing life is the want of the mother.”

     

    Again with the ASSUMPTION that the fetus could in fact survive. I appreciate your passion if nothing else. But the blatant and willful ignorance on the part of some anti-choice activists is just SO FRUSTRATING! What about medicine and science do some people just not understand? I’m SO GLAD that SO MANY commenters here went to medical school and became OB/GYNs in their free time. Then again, if we’re talking about “fundies” here these are the same groups home-schooling their children and denying things like evolution and physics so I guess I answered my own question…

     

    Just on the off chance you’re actually interested in educating yourself, take a minute or two to look up congenital myelomeningocele and hydrocephalus. Mabye do a Google Image search while you’re at it. THESE are the types of conditions for which some women decide to abort. If you want to call that “pure selfishness” fine. Go for it! But who are you (or any of us for that matter) to tell women like this that you know best? In all of your EXTENSIVE medical training and surgical rotations and your VAST knowledge of the surgical, financial, emotional needs required to CARE for an infant in this condition YOU know best. Yep. Got it. That you would so willingly exert your moral code onto another is disturbing. 


    “There are waiting lists for adoptive parents seeking babies, even ones with disabilities.”     

    Oh REALLY?! Aside from the idea that we most likely disagree on what “disabilities” women are obtaining late term abortions for (we’re not talking reading comprehension or cleft palate – see above) I honestly DON’T believe you (not personally, but more from professional experiences). At any rate I think you’re continuing to miss a critical point here. It’s not the job of ANY woman to make babies or provide babies for adoption just because some OTHER people CAN’T have children. This is like an alcoholic getting pissed off at or demanding sobriety from everybody else that doesn’t have a drinking problem. This is somewhat similar to the idea that we don’t sell organs or babies either. I’m GENUINELY compassionate for individuals and couples who are unable to bear children on their own (I’ve had a few friends with this issue), particularly when it’s a central part of their self concept or identity. It’s unfortunate. But when some of these infertile individuals or couples then decide it’s the responsibility of OTHER women to somehow provide a baby for them, well I will feel NO SHAME in saying that these couples probably DESERVE or NEED to be infertile. Expecting other women to breed for them is akin to slavery. And maybe… just maybe… those couples should see it as a sign from God that they weren’t meant to be biological parents. And maybe they should stop blaming others for their lot in life. Other than being a contributing member of society I don’t owe anybody else a thing… especially not from MY BODY. 


    So whether you choose to believe it or not, it IS her body and her choice. People have NO rights to anybody else’s body but their own. And just because a woman does not want to become a mother doesn’t mean she should be forced to have the child and give the child away to “make up for” some other couples who can’t. I think it’s just a sad reflection on the personality and moral character for individuals who believe otherwise. 


  • squirrely-girl

    “There is not a passage in the Bible which spells out this exact situation, so it is up to interpretation.

     

    Hint Hint! Just in case you missed this day of school, church, or life; not everybody interprets the Bible in the same way – even on the sections that may appear to be pretty well spelled out. So let’s just imagine for a second here how much variation there would be in the interpretations of sections that AREN’T exactly spelled out. Seriously. So for one group to presume moral superiority and write LAWS that affect EVERYBODY regardless of religious beliefs is… well… honestly I’m at a loss for a severe enough word to express my disgust.

     

    “Doctors can be wrong. There have been parents who chose not to abort their baby and when the child is born he or she was completely normal. It is a gamble.”

     

    Yes, doctors can be wrong. But one of the major disorders that would apply to this scenario is Downs Syndrome. The testing is certainly not perfect and there have been recorded cases of false positives as well as false negatives. And while you may call this a “gamble,” medical science can still give you pretty good odds one way or another. But disorders like hydrocephalus? Not so much. Seriously. Water on the brain shows up quite well under an ultrasound. And again with the idea that it’s nobody else’s RIGHT to make these decisions for the woman (in close communication with her significant others, doctor, higher power, etc.) in this situation FOR HER. Writing laws to severely restrict or outlaw LTA only serves to make blanket decisions for other people’s bodily decisions FOR THEM. This is wrong.

  • prochoiceferret

    How are you able to diagnose her from afar? Are you even a doctor? If you are, you should be ashamed for saying you know what a patient’s condition is without examining her.

    Yeah. Who does he think he is, Bill Frist?

  • curtisp

     

    Thank you for the article.  When the debate about “partial truth abortion” was in its early stages an ad agency hired by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops came up with a list of lame reasons why women had late term abortions.  One of the reasons invented was “won’t fit into a prom dress”.  The lying has not stopped and such crap has become the truth for many.  Now women dealing with serious maternal health problems are finding it difficult to get medical treatment along with being judged as criminal.  That does reek of misogyny.  Too bad if the term seems cliché. 

  • frolicnaked

    Some would argue that the non-action is the most moral-if doing nothing saves the child yet kills the mother that is the way it should be.

    And those people are welcome to apply this view of morality to their own lives, bodies, and uteri. Meanwhile, though, they can stay the fuck out of mine.

  • captcourageous

    ‘Misogyny comes into English from the ancient Greek word, misogunia (μισογυνία), which survives in two passages.’

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny

    “So far as I am aware, the Greeks didn’t have any psychiatrists and the DSM hadn’t yet been written. So far as I am aware, at the present time this is not a clinical diagnosis but instead just average everyday bigotry. The fact that the word sounds ‘sciency’ does not mean it is a medical term.”

     

    You did not read through the Notes and References section that follows the article (though I can’t say I blame you). Many terms in psychiatry and clinical psychology have come down to us from the Greeks. The same goes for psychoanalysis, which I think was the first discipline to use the word as part of its vocabulary

     

    I did not write that it is a clinical condition, because it sounds sciency.

     

    Here is a link that may be helpful: http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/m/misogyny/intro.htm#contents

     

     

  • ahunt

    Oh shit…clinical? Who knew?

     

    The key word here is “irrational.”

     

    For discussion’s sake, just assume we are talking about rational people, Cap’n.

     

    All kinds of entirely sincere and loving folks who wish to confer upon American women second class status..

  • rebellious-grrl

    Interesting news article from TPM,

    A Texas man was arrested on 4/3/10 after he filed court documents threatening to use “deadly force” to stop abortions at a local clinic. On his web site, Lo claims he went to school and passed the New York Bar Exam. He also describes his views on abortion at length, and calls himself a “a fully-fledged and devout Roman Catholic Christian.” Lo was reported saying, “I am entitled under my religious beliefs to use deadly force if necessary to save the innocent life of another” and “I will try to stop an abortion using oral words, and if words are not enough. I will use physical force if necessary, and if anyone tries to physically stop me, I will overcome that force, and if I must use deadly force to defend the innocent life of another human being, I will”

     

    I found it interesting that he said, “I am entitled under my religious beliefs to use deadly force.”

     

    Story link
    http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/04/texas-man-arrested-after-filing-lawsuit-threatening-to-use-deadly-force-at-abortion-clinic.php?ref=mp

  • crowepps

    Self-appointed Warriors for Christ are a perennial problem because there is an undue deference given to people who make these threats and say ‘God told me it’s okay’.  If he did a ‘Son of Sam’ and said he was getting his instructions from a demon dog no one would hesitate to lock him away or have much sympathy, but because his delusion is centered on God, ooooh, we have to RESPECT his BELIEFS.

     

    If these religiously motivated authoritarians would restrict themselves to the traditional ‘stoning’ it wouldn’t be so bad, but they always want to update things by incorporating firearms.

     

    Just as an aside, were you aware that the reason stoning was used as a method of execution was because it didn’t break the Biblical prohibition against ‘shedding blood’?  Kind of like the ‘principle of double effect’ and the hair splitting over ‘direct/indirect’ that is posted repetitively here, the idea apparently was that actively KILLING people was ‘bad’ but a whole bunch of people throwing rocks at them until they died was ‘indirect’ or ‘an unintended ill effect for which the person is not morally culpable’ because, hey, if guilt is collective, no one person is really guilty, and, oops, they had NO IDEA that would happen!  After all, they heard that a couple years ago somebody in another town somewhere recovered.

     

    The same ‘ethical’ justification was used in defenestration – it was ‘evil’ to actually KILL people, but throwing them out high windows was an ‘indirect’ method of killing them, because, hey, it wasn’t you who was responsible for putting the GROUND out there, and God could save them if He wanted to.

     

    It is just amazing what incredible contortions people can dream up to evade taking responsibility for the results of their actions.  Maybe that’s why the anti-abortion activists are so insistent that women having abortions “don’t know what they’re doing”.  When your worldview is that the point of ethical consideration is to find a way to wiggle out of making any decisions and structure things so that the results you want are always somebody else’s fault, it’ll be difficult to understand that a person could be in a bad situation and know the facts and then make a hard decision and actually TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for that decision instead of shoving the responsibility for on someone else.

  • princess-rot

    In any case, we’re not talking here about a Christian choosing to be “most moral” by choosing to take no action and going ahead and fulfilling God’s Will by the mother dying while the child survives.

    I would add that we are also not talking about a third party not affected by these conditions debating about whether someone else should die because of their problem pregnancy. It is up to the individual concerned, a matter between them and their physician, not anti-choicers or anybody else. I find it rather unnerving that the concept of a woman’s autonomy flies right over JenK’s head. Is this level of baby rabies that we’re dealing with – where an individual’s situation is broken down into a philosophical debate about how we can get the malfunctioning incubator to do its work and produce like it should?

  • princess-rot

    I would have died gladly for both of my sons. – JenK

     

    At least you got to know and love your sons so much that you are able to analyze and aggregate your personal situation in order to know what your decision would be if such a circumstance ever came about. Which is doing, y’know, the very thing you’re in favor of banning for everyone else. Making a choice. Do kindly extend the ability to other women, even if you do think they aren’t as worthy as you.

  • captcourageous

    …. just made a claim that there is rational bigotry and therefore there are rational bigots. As usual, just side-step the counterpoint and say OLE!

     

    Clinical and irrational … how is it that these words do not go together? Over-compartmentalizing perhaps?

     

    American women do not have second-class status, and you just proved it with your arrogant assumption that you determine the key word here; combined with your patronizingly fatuous directive as to what we are to assume and your stale, shop-worn sarcasm about your fellow americans. BTW, who appointed you the honorary comments moderator?

     

    You claim to be oppressed while you oppress others – that’s Projection!

  • crowepps

    Clinical and irrational… how is it that these words do not go together?

    Perhaps because ‘clinical’ doesn’t mean what you think it does?

    “clinical”

     

    relating to a clinic or conducted in or as if in a clinic and depending on direct observation of patients

    “clinical diagnosis”…

     

    The estimated identification of the disease underlying a patient’s complaints based merely on signs, symptoms and medical history of the patient

    “irrational”

     

    Irrationality is cognition, thinking, talking or acting without inclusion of rationality. The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful or illogical than other more rational alternatives.

    As an example, religious belief is by definition ‘irrational’ but believing in God, while a matter of faith rather than reason, is not necessarily a ‘clinical diagnosis’ of mental illness although ‘religiosity’ is certainly a symptom of some mental illnesses.

  • captcourageous

    You didn’t like and couldn’t handle me giving some of the other posters a dose of their own medicine. In proper chronological or timeline sequence, you let posters refer to males by specific terms such as “asshole” and “woman-hating d**k” BEFORE they were treated in kind. You let them slip in other terms, such as “impotent”.

     

    None of them has been called by an anatomical term, nor have they been called “frigid”, “lesbian” or anything related to sexuality. What they don’t call you directly, they imply sadistically.

     

    I still say you have a very big double standard going on here. You cannot simply chalk it up to “heated” interchanges with which you don’t necessarily agree. As one of the males put it to you repeatedly, you always excuse your behaviors here.

     

  • captcourageous

    And again, yet, still! Nuts and assorted fringe groups always make the news, always. Misogyny does not automatically motivate them, especially to the supercedence of all other possible influences. They are mentally ill and anti-social, to say the least, and, as such, they are not representative of any other group per se. Nor is there a cabal of some kind, somehow putting them up to acting out on women. Nor are they tacitly supported by a bunch of insecure, hostile, macho males. Stop preaching to the choir.

     

     

  • jayn

    Beliefs can be measured (so to speak) on a sliding scale.  While it’s the fringe groups who make the news, it’s hard to gauge just how much they felt legitimized by similar (but less strongly held) beliefs and thought processes held by others outside those groups.

     

    You can call the fringe groups outliers, and they certainly are extreme cases, but it’s not like they’re way off base, they’re just further towards the edge than others are.  There’s still plenty of people along every point of that scale who hold similar beliefs to some extent.  These are the people who worry me–not the fringes, but the ones who fly under the radar.  They’re the ones people listen to, because they’re not ‘out there’ enough to trip someone’s red flag.  They may not seem to hate women (or men, dogs, cars, etc), but on some level they do, and that’s what makes them scary, because they can sway people just a bit closer to the fringes without anyone realizing just what’s going on.

     

    It’s easy to look at those on the edge and say ‘you’re wrong/unreasonable/whatever’.  It’s harder to look at those closer to the middle and say that.  But they’re the ones that help push the edges out to where they are.

  • ahunt

    Actually crowepps…I was thinking of various, highly conservative, but still widely respected religious leaders who advocate the relegation of women to the private sphere…Al Mohler, Paige Patterson, Mark Driscoll etc…when I wrote the post.

     

    An Cap’n…lighten up. You lose credibility when you make bizarre assumptions about my motives, viewpoints and attitudes.

  • crowepps

    Sunday School Teacher Fired For Being A Woman

     

    First he dismissed 81-year-old Mary Lambert from the Diaconate Board of the First Baptist Church along with two members, claiming there were attendance issues.

     

    Now the Rev. Timothy LaBouf has dismissed Mary Lambert as a Sunday School teacher for an adult class after she’s been on the job for over 50 years, claiming that his interpretation of the Bible is that a woman is prohibited from teaching men.

     

    Lambert has been a church member for 54 years and a long time Sunday School teacher but got a letter dated Aug. 9 from LaBouf and the board saying that the Bible says a woman can perform any job, as long as its outside of the church.

     

    http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/082106SundaySchool.html

  • curtisp

    “You claim to be oppressed while you oppress others – that’s Projection!”

    What are you going on about?  This is just a tad overblown.

  • nycprochoicemd

    Yes, there is misogyny involved, but let’s not forget (as Amanda suggests) that it is much easier to gain public traction about how “awful” abortion is by pretending all abortions happen in the late 2nd and 3rd trimesters, by showing terrifying, inaccurate pictures of so-called “late term abortions” and by trying to shock everyone with misinformation, leading people to support their cause and give them money to prevent such “horrors” happening to fetuses.  If they carried signs with pictures of 6-9 week gestational sacs that were actual size, they wouldn’t succeed at incensing anyone who wasn’t already mentally ill.  People who have had the procedure, or people first learning the procedure, are typically shocked at how small the pregnancy is, and by the fact that there are no identifiable parts, just a small circular sac.  It is even harder to get people incensed about fertilized eggs at fertility centers, because most people simply to not equate that with a full-term born baby.

     

    Also, a medical point.  In many cases severe fetal anomalies lead to death of the fetus in utero, that is even prior to birth.  In this case, a woman carrying this pregnancy to term would be putting herself at greater risk by waiting, because if the fetus dies inside it can lead to infection and other complications, and removing the (dead) fetus can be more complicated and risky than an abortion at 20 weeks, due to the larger size and other issues.  If a woman wants to carry the pregnancy to term, knowing that the fetus may die inside and cause an infection or other problem, necessitating an even more complicated procedure than a late 2nd trimester abortion, because she hopes the fetus will survive to term and she will have a few minutes or hours to spend with her born child, then that is her choice.  We shouldn’t expect women to put their lives at risk from infection, potentially affect their future fertility by undergoing a surgery that could have been prevented, and to go through the trauma of carrying a fetus inside her that will never be a part of her life and at best will only spend a few hours with her after birth if that is not what she wants.

  • ahunt

    Do kindly extend the ability to other women, even if you do think they aren’t as worthy as you.

     

    Yah…and I think JenK should have to check with my husband, our sons, my Mommy and Daddy, and my brothers and sisters before insisting that I be obliged to surrender my life for that of my fetus, or carry a doomed pregnancy to term. Best guess is that they would have profound objections to such sacrifice...

  • rebellious-grrl

    Nuts and assorted fringe groups always make the news, always.

    Yes, they do make the news. What doesn’t make the mainstream news are stories about the daily harassment and intimidation of women who seek reproductive services and clinic staff are under constant intimidation and threats of violence. Ask yourself, why are there only two doctors in the U.S. that provide late term abortion services? Who would enter this field of medicine knowing that they might be murdered? It’s not a fringe element or fringe group. Even Rep. Bart Stupak received threatening phone calls and faxes from anti-choice folks. The American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) posted wanted posters with the a photograph of a a doctor that provides abortion services along with a monetary reward for any information that would lead to their “arrest, conviction and revocation of license to practice medicine” So no, I don’t think this is a “fringe” person or persons acting alone.

     

    I don’t understand why you say things like “Stop preaching to the choir.” If you don’t like what people post and don’t like what’s going on here, no one is forcing you to keep posting.

  • ahunt

    Oh jeez crowepps…where do you find this stuff?

     

    It is on! Right back atcha! Bush advisor…Marvin Olasky:

     

    In her book Bushwomen, Laura Flanders writes, “Olasky is not a fan of high-achieving women. Women joining the workforce have had ‘dire consequences for society,’ he told a Christian magazine in 1998. Can women be leaders? ‘God does not forbid women to be leaders in society … but there’s a certain shame attached to it,’ he said.”   On the other hand, Olasky has praised many high-achieving women, and in that quotation he was referring to the loss of women from volunteer leadership

  • lbsimon

    “Clinical and irrational… how is it that these words do not go together?

    Perhaps because ‘clinical’ doesn’t mean what you think it does?

    ‘clinical’

     

    relating to a clinic or conducted in or as if in a clinic and depending on direct observation of patients

    ‘clinical diagnosis’…

     

    The estimated identification of the disease underlying a patient’s complaints based merely on signs, symptoms and medical history of the patient”

     

    I will not indulge the temptation to resort to the tactics of women on this board and write things such as “Hint, Hint”. I will explain to a 62-year old grandmother in remote Alaska that psychiatrists are M.D.’s, and that what they determine about a ‘Patient’ is considered “CLINICAL”.  “Clinical”psychologists’ assessments are also considered “clinical”, would you believe it? The same goes for psychiatric social workers? (I will copy this post,  in the event it is deleted).

  • lbsimon

    I don’t understand why you say things like ‘Stop preaching to the choir.’ If you don’t like what people post and don’t like what’s going on here, no one is forcing you to keep posting.

     

    It was an observation … merely an observation. Do I really have to stop and take the time to explain that to you? Ho-boy!

  • lbsimon

    How did you happen to miss it? By ignoring it?

     

    “American women do not have second-class status, and you just proved it with your arrogant assumption that you determine the key word here; combined with your patronizingly fatuous directive as to what we are to assume and your stale, shop-worn sarcasm about your fellow americans. BTW, who appointed you the honorary comments moderator?”

  • lbsimon

    Bizarre? You’ve got to be kidding! More specious, sophomoric sophistry! It’s true … all you want is oneupsmanship and getting the last word. Retorts are not rebuttals or refutations.

  • lbsimon

    Misogyny AND shock value

    Yes, there is misogyny involved, but let’s not forget (as Amanda suggests) that it is much easier to gain public traction about how “awful” abortion is by pretending all abortions happen in the late 2nd and 3rd trimesters, by showing terrifying, inaccurate pictures of so-called “late term abortions” and by trying to shock everyone with misinformation, leading people to support their cause and give them money to prevent such “horrors” happening to fetuses.”

     

    You do so love your strawman arguments don’t you?

     

    ” … by pretending all abortions happen in the late 2nd and 3rd trimesters, by showing terrifying, inaccurate pictures of so-called “late term abortions” and by trying to shock everyone with misinformation, leading people to support their cause and give them money to prevent such “horrors” happening to fetuses.”  Begs the question BIG TIME!

  • rebellious-grrl

    Point of clarification. Are you speaking for yourself or the captain? Just an observation.

    Do I really have to stop and take the time to explain that to you? Ho-boy! Submitted by LBSimon on April 6, 2010 – 8:38pm.

    If a post isn’t clear or is illogical, a clarification is not out of the question. Just an observation.

  • crowepps

    that psychiatrists are M.D.’s, and that what they determine about a ‘Patient’ is considered “CLINICAL”.  “Clinical”psychologists’ assessments are also considered “clinical”,

    Yep.  Now explain just how that word is ‘obviously’ linked with “irrational”.  Surely the psychiatrist’s clinical observation could also be that the patient is rational, true?

  • ahunt

    Um…LB…my best guess is that this thread is about to be inundated with examples of institutionalized and pesonal misogyny…advocated by entirely rational and well respected individuals.

     

    But by all means…flail away…cheap entertainment.

  • crowepps

    The Lord clearly defined the roles of mothers and fathers in providing for and rearing a righteous posterity. In the beginning, Adam–not Eve–was instructed to earn the bread by the sweat of his brow. Contrary to conventional wisdom, a mother’s calling is in the home, not in the market place.

     

    Again, in the Doctrine and Covenants, we read: “Women have claim on their husbands for their maintenance, until their husbands are taken” (D&C 83:2). This is the divine right of a wife and mother. She cares for and nourishes her children at home. Her husband earns the living for the family, which makes this nourishing possible. With that claim on their husbands for their financial support, the counsel of the Church has always been for mothers to spend their full time in the home in rearing and caring for their children.

     

    To the Mothers in Zion

    President Ezra Taft Benson

    Fireside for Parents
    22 February 1987

     

    http://fc.byu.edu/jpages/ee/w_etb87.htm

  • crowepps

    NOT A PRO FAMILY JOB

    First, if Mr. McCain was pro-family, he would want to see Mrs. Palin at home taking care of her five children, not headed to Washington to be consumed by the responsibilities of being second in command to the most powerful man in the world (or serving as the Governor of Alaska for that matter). Let me also say that I would have the same reservations about a man with five children at home seeking the VP office. It’s not exactly a pro-family job.

    My point is simple. The job of a wife and mother is to be a wife and mother. Anything in addition to that must also be subservient to it. There is no higher calling. Moreover, I believe Paul’s admonition should lead us to reject any notion of a wife and mother taking on the level of responsibility that Mrs. Palin is seeking.

    My heart breaks for her husband. Mrs. Palin is not even supposed to be the head of her own household (Eph. 5:22ff; Col. 3:18; Titus 2:5; 1 Peter 3:1-7), let alone the State of Alaska, or the United States Senate (The VP oversees the Senate). He should be shepherding her, but instead she is ruling over him (Rom 13:1-7; 1Pet 2:13-17). How difficult it must be for him to walk the fine line of bowing to the culture that is stealing his bride while still trying to love his wife and lead his family.

     

    http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2008/09/4280.aspx

     

  • ack

    I agree that medical testing was (and is) generally done on people considered “disposable” by the dominant culture. There are many horrific examples of human experimentation on people of color and religious minorities in this country as well as internationally. 

     

    However, women were excluded because of their ability to bear children, not because they were thought more highly of in general. The NIH actually barred women of “potential child bearing age” from participation in early clinical trials for over a decade.

     

    The concept of “women and children first!” actually target children more than women. The protective response is to save the kids (I belieeeeve the children are the futuuuure); the women were the ones who cared for children. It could also be argued that the ability to bear children played a part here, too. I don’t think that reducing women to mothers is equivalent to being held in higher regard. 

  • rebellious-grrl

    Bizarre? You’ve got to be kidding! More specious, sophomoric sophistry! It’s true … all you want is oneupsmanship and getting the last word. Retorts are not rebuttals or refutations.

    This may be why your posts are getting deleted. Seriously. If you say insulting stuff like this over and over, it’s going to get old. Why are you taking what ahunt and crowepps posted personally? They are having a conversation related to the article. What they are doing is normal, not bizarre. You insult them by say, “More specious, sophomoric sophistry!”

    I think a closer examination of what is misogyny might be called for. Here is a somewhat simplistic example.

    In feminist theory, misogyny is a negative attitude towards women as a group, and so need not fully determine a misogynist’s attitude towards each individual woman……The term, like most negative descriptions of attitudes, is used as an epithet and applied to a wide variety of behaviors and attitudes – often as a personal attack. 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#Feminist_theory

  • ahunt

    Hah! I give you Voddie, and raise you Bill Kristol:

     

    On the February 3 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday, panelist and New York Times columnist Bill Kristol said the only people supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-NY) presidential campaign “are the Democratic establishment and white women.” Kristol then asserted that “it would be crazy for the Democratic Party to follow an establishment that’s led it to defeat year after year,” and added, “White women are a problem, that’s, you know — we all live with that.” After fellow panelist Brit Hume responded, “Bill, for the record, I like white women,” Kristol said, “I know, I shouldn’t have said that.”

  • frolicnaked

    … my best guess is that this thread is about to be inundated with examples of institutionalized and pesonal misogyny…

    Ahunt, my sincere apologies that I do not have the energy for a comprehensive list today. Damn that vastly under-researched chronic pain condition that’s a “wimmin’s disease” and having to fight with my state legislature because my profession, commonly considered a “woman’s job,” is disrespected and, at this point, entirely unfunded for next year.

     

    I’ll come back when I have the words to be more articulate, though I’ll also hope that others can share experiences in the meantime.

     

     

  • ack

    Oppression is absolutely supported by the fringe groups. The fringe groups make everyone who isn’t that out there seem more normal; the KKK helped normalize racist attitudes because by focusing on them, people could justify their own behavior. You may want to explore Jackson Katz’ work on masculinity in American culture; he has an excellent framework on how pervasive oppressive language in our culture supports acts of violence by some.

     

    And if you’re referring to the posts up thread which offered examples of groups and individuals who actively seek to relegate women to the home, I think you’re wrong in claiming that they’re mentally ill. Exerting privilege isn’t a diagnosable condition. It’s part of everyone’s daily lives; these people just chose sexism and wrote it down.

  • ahunt

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2211&dat=19821023&id=7SEmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KP4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=4150,1554876

     

    Ronald Reagan:

     

    “Unemployment is not as much recession as it is the great increase in people going into the job market, and Ladies…I’m not picking on anyone, but because of the increase of women who are working today….

  • ack

    Check out War Zone, a film about street harassment in four major US cities. The filmmaker, Maggie Hadleigh-West, brings a video camera and conducs on-the-spot interviews with men who harass her.

     

    I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a woman who hasn’t experienced catcalling, whistling, and nasty comments as she walked somewhere. The mere fact that male strangers feel entitled to say whatever they want about our bodies says loads about where women stand.

     

  • ahunt

    Yah…cuz nuthin’ says misogyny like deliberately intimidating women who dare to appear in public…

     

    Good catch, Ack! Let’s keep it going, Kids!

     

     

  • ahunt

    Not to worry Frolic…I imagine the folks here will have your back…and not just cuz it is fun.

     

    editing: Ack is on the case!

  • ack

    Upthread, JenK wrote:

     

    “Late term abortion is a battle which is much easier to win than all abortions. Christians are not stupid-we know that it is unlikely the government will overturn Roe vs Wade in its entirety, at least not for a long time. But it is more likely it will make a ban on late term abortions. A battle won is a battle won, even if it is not the entire war.”

     

    I think that the emotional response to a picture of a 3rd trimester fetus vs. an early pregnancy plays into this whole argument big time.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Hope all is well at the farm and the horses are doing well. Sorry, I have to disagree with you here. Misogyny and synergy are very different words. I don’t think it’s a good comparison. I’m glad that many Christians condemned the murder of Dr. Tiller. I’ve also heard Christians say, “He got what he deserved.” For me the verdict is still out on this one. I do agree it’s not following Jesus’ teachings to support violence or murder.

     

    You say, “Late term abortion is a battle which is much easier to win than all abortions.” This is one way that a woman’s right to abortion is being chipped away at. Other forms are harassment, intimidation, and violence. If women are not trusted to decide to become a parent or not, than they as a whole are not trusted, period.

    I understand you’re against abortion. I know people who are opposed to abortion but believe that women have a right to access an abortion.  She has a right to choose her future, to have an abortion, and forced pregnancy is not an option.

     

     

  • ack

    “You claim to be oppressed while you oppress others – that’s Projection!”

     

    Based on ahunt’s posts, I think she has an understanding of the way that privilege works in our society, and I’m certainly not saying that she’s oppressing people. However, it is very common for oppressed people to also oppress others. For instance, I’m a woman, which places me in a position of less power than men. However, I’m also white, which places me in a position of more power than people of color. If I don’t actively challenge racism, my silence is implicit consent. Oppression isn’t a yes/no question. It’s much more complex than that. Sexism happens to be what we’re talking about here, but I always try to remind people that there are lots of forms of oppression!

     

    And Capt, the fact that you seem determined to ignore your male privilege is exactly the problem.

  • ack

    It’s quite common for people with schizophrenia to experience auditory hallucinations with a religious focus. It’s interesting that when “God” tells people we deem crazy to do something, we chalk it up to crazytalk. But when people who haven’t been diagnosed say “God” told them to do something, even if that something seems a little crazy, we respect their religious beliefs. 

  • ahunt

    Yah Ack…having married “outside” my “race” in the late seventies, in a rural and conservative area…I’m up close and personal with “racial” dynamics…

     

    My Dad had huge issues…and if I have one regret…it is that he did not live to see the success of the union that he so feared…and opposed right up until he put my hand into the hand of the BH. (Mom put her foot down, and Dad complied). There were a couple of incidents early on…the trick is not to surrender to fear.

     

    32 years later, it is all a wash.

     

     

     

     

    ‘”

  • rebellious-grrl

    You do so love your circular arguments don’t you? I “beg” the question of you. What is your point?

  • ahunt

    Blew by this, RG, and never having studied feminist theory…my understanding of misogyny includes the dismissal of what women have to say, based on the fact that women are saying it.

  • equalist

    So what you’re saying here is that you’d be happy to sit back and watch a mother lose both of her babies in utero rather than allow her to do everything she could to save at least one of them?  Here’s a question for you, two children are hanging over the edge of a cliff.  You’re holding both, and in essence keeping them alive.  You have two options in this situation.  Let go of the child that is hanging on by a fingertip in order to have the strength to pull the other child up to safety, or hold onto both until your strength and theirs runs out and both fall.  Are you saying you would rather let both fall than give one the chance at life?

    Going back to the original situation, this mother has a healthy three year old son because she let go of his twin who had no chance at life in order to keep him alive.  It is a mother’s duty, and in fact her instinct to do everything within her power to protect her young.  In this case, that’s just what she did, she did what she had to do in order to give her son the best possible chance at life, no matter how heartbreaking the situation.

  • crowepps

    I think that the emotional response to a picture of a 3rd trimester fetus vs. an early pregnancy plays into this whole argument big time.

    Absolutely, particularly when the picture is not of the fetus which is actually being terminated, a fetus which is a grossly deformed tangle of random organs and makes people nauseous, but instead of an adorable fetus which wasn’t aborted at all.  I could be wrong, of course, but I find it pretty difficult to believe that women whose pregnancies have had disastrous outcomes are giving away ultrasound photos to the ‘sidewalk counselors’ who are harassing them.

     

    The incredible, almost cloyingly sentimental websites about ‘aren’t I great because I went full term with my anencephalic fetus’ with the corpse all dressed up in a frilly bonnet so it won’t gross people out are part of the propaganda campaign.

     

    It would be interesting to see what exactly would happen if third-trimester abortions were banned, and the stories that started hitting the news were the widowed husband and crying motherless children mourning the Mom who couldn’t be saved because her pregnancy couldn’t be terminated, or solemn announcements that this or that woman couldn’t take the stress of knowing her fetus was pre-dead anymore and jumped off a bridge.

     

    The problem with concentrating on late-term abortions is that those are precisely the abortions that the majority of people think ARE reasonable and SHOULD be allowed once they know the actual circumstances involved, and thanks to the web families in those situations ARE getting their stories out there.

     

    Saw a little tidbit in “Get Me Out” that raised my eyebrows.  For almost two decades, there was a fad among some obstetricians to do x-rays of the fetus “just to make sure everything is okay”.  Research eventually proved that these x-rays increased the chances of the child getting leukemia by a huge amount proportionate to the number of times the fetus was exposed.  There are similar medical reservations about the long-term effects of ultrasound which are known to cause all kinds of problems in animal models, and a speculative statistical link between ultrasounds and autism.

     

    The standard of care is that fetuses be exposed to as little ultrasound as possible and yet there are businesses out there, “ultrasound botiques”, that do non-medical ultrasounds.  There is a suspicion that the reason the FDA has not shut down this idiocy is that if they restrict ultrasounds to medical practitioners only, they will also have to take them away from crisis pregnancy centers, which also do them for non-medical reasons.

     

    http://newsok.com/doctor-details-ultrasound-concerns/article/3276017

     

    http://www.naturalchild.org/research/yale_ultrasound.html

     

    http://www.alternamoms.com/ultrasound.html

     

    It would just be unbearably sad if a crisis pregnancy center used an ultrasound to convince a girl not to abort her baby and the ultrasound itself resulted in damage to the development of the brain in the child and eventually autism or delayed speech. 

  • crowepps

    His post was also neither a rebuttal nor a refutation.

  • crowepps

    There’s some curse words at the link, but I’ve got to tell you, it is WELL worth reading. What is the basis of misogyny? Having somebody to be better than.

     

    http://advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=565866

  • captcourageous
    04-03-2010, 09:57 PM  
    Joined: Dec 2001
    Location: Rocket Cottage – Whidbey Island
    Oddometer: 9,681

     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
     
    “…who are you better than?”

    Quote:
    “You know when I was a little boy, there was an old negro farmer that lived down the road from us, named Monroe. He was … (subtle laugh), I guess he was just a little more luckier than my daddy was. He bought himself a mule.

    It was a big deal in round that town. Now my daddy hated that mule. Cause, his friends were always kidding him about, “They saw Monroe out plowing with his new mule and Monroe is going to rent another field now he had a mule.”

    One morning that mule showed up dead. They poisoned the water. After that, there wasn’t any mention about that mule around my daddy. It just never came up. One time we were driving down that road and we passed Monroe’s place and we saw it was empty. He just packed up and left, I guess, he must of went up north or something.

    I looked over at my daddy’s face, I knew he done it. He saw that I knew. He was ashamed. I guess he was ashamed. He looked at me and said, “If you ain’t better than a nigger son, who are you better than?”” – Agent Anderson, Mississippi Burning

    And welcome to the Tea-hadist mindset. With Barack Obama in charge…who are you going to be better than?

    And don’t think some of us recognize the symptom because we are a pack of condescending know-it-all asshats. We are…but that has fuck-all to do with the observation.

    It’s just that we have seen this before. Up North…in our so-called “enlightened” neck of the woods.

    Want to know the difference between North and South? Well, a man once told me that up North, it is OK to have a Black as your boss, but you will be damned if you will have one for a neighbor. Down South, it is OK to have a Black neighbor…but you will damned if you will have one as a boss.

     

    Here’s the post you missed:

     

     

    04-03-2010, 10:17 PM  
    Joined: Apr 2006
    Location: East PA
    Oddometer: 7,674

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by
    BUBB – Verbose way to call the tea party RACISTS.
    Doesn’t make it any truer….


    Oddly enough, you’re right, it doesn’t make it any truer.

  • captcourageous

    Crowepps, her retort constituted neither a rebuttal nor a refutation!

    The reference was to her habit of using retorts (that never get deleted) as though they are cogent rebuttals or refutations.

     

    You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan

  • captcourageous

    “The term, like most negative descriptions of attitudes, is used as an epithet and applied to a wide variety of behaviors and attitudes – often as a personal attack.”

     

    The clinical definition of misogyny still trumps any and all attempts to co-opt it. Misogyny is applied to far too wide a variety of behaviors and attitudes. It’s application is determined by the subjective opinion of the woman using this term, and her opinion is considered (a priori) to be unerring in all cases.

  • captcourageous

    First the retort using the adjective ‘bizarre’ was used by you, rg. Your connotations and the images they insinuate are specious. Your use of them to argue or debate is a form of sophistry. Your denial of any malevolent intent on your part, in doing so, is sophomoric. 

  • captcourageous

    … is just that … a guess … not a fact, and not a prediction … just more connotation and insinuation, in this case, a cheap shot.

  • captcourageous

    Simon was responding to this specific quote of yours and only this one, honestly …

     

    Perhaps because ‘clinical’ doesn’t mean what you think it does?

    ‘clinical’

    relating to a clinic or conducted in or as if in a clinic and depending on direct observation of patients

    ‘clinical diagnosis’…

    The estimated identification of the disease underlying a patient’s complaints based merely on signs, symptoms and medical history of the patient

     

     

  • captcourageous

    …. I’m challenging the dogmatic beliefs being used as tools of forensic interchange on this board, such as my alleged determination to ignore my so-called male priviledge. They are refusals on the part of participants here to truly dialogue. Maybe the christian fundamentalists pull out their Bibles, but feminists pull out their perpetual victim cards and the constant recrimination of males that goes along with it.

  • captcourageous

    You just made the quantum leap from misogyny, as the root of opposition to late term abortion, over to being harassed with catcalling, whistling and nasty comments.

     

     

  • captcourageous

    …. an often-used cliche or “old saying”, that doesn’t make a post unclear or illogical.

     

    Trying to mix me up with Simon is a desperate measure, to say the least.

  • captcourageous

    …. and the dogma it contains, as well as the propaganda it spawns. I’m not surprised you and others here are starting to fall back on concepts that came into being through the civil rights movement.

     

    You are ideologues. Your propanganda is a rip-off of Martin Luther King Jr. Males are not, a priori, the equivalent of slavemasters in the antibellum South, and none of you are, a priori, the equivalent of slaves.

     

    Don’t recommend Jackson Katz to me. Check into the biographies of your Founding Feminists and give yourself a dollar bill for every reference to communist, marxist, leftist, anti-semitism and unions you find. Then take yourself out to dinner at a fancy restaurant with the amount of money you compile.

     

  • crowepps

    Check into the biographies of your Founding Feminists and give yourself a dollar bill for every reference to communist, marxist, leftist, anti-semitism and unions you find.

    Check into the biographies of just about ANYBODY in that time frame and you will find references to communism, marxism, etc., etc., as well as eugenics and a bunch of other stuff we now think was nuts. Those ‘visionary ideas’ were all VERY popular back then. ‘Visionary ideas’ to solve persistent problems quite often turn out in practice to be just the same old thing in a different package. That doesn’t mean the PROBLEM doesn’t really exist.

  • crowepps

    Misogyny is applied to far too wide a variety of behaviors and attitudes. It’s application is determined by the subjective opinion of the woman using this term, and her opinion is considered (a priori) to be unerring in all cases.

    Can’t seem to find the quote right now, but I remember reading something to the effect that it hasn’t worked very well for White people to assume they should be the ones to decide for Black people whether or not they’re being discriminated against.

     

    So far as I am aware, there isn’t any ‘clinical definition’ of misogyny which is not, so far as I am aware, considered a psychiatric illness at all, but instead just a common, everyday social process with a definition used by the general public.  The fact that the word is Greek doesn’t make it medical or psychiatric, since both the word AND the concept predate both medical and psychiatry.

     

    Psychiatry instead considers misogny, and all other bigotry, to be mental illnesses only when they are present to the extent that they “interfer with normal functioning.  You might find the following article on racism as a possible psychiatric disorder interesting:

     

    Nevertheless, Dr. Spitzer concedes that prevalence alone does not negate a need for diagnosis. To meet the American Psychiatric Association’s criteria for a distinct mental disorder, he says, psychiatrists would have to show that a racist’s mental processes interfered with normal functioning.

     

    Dr. Poussaint says he can do that. Arguing that racism can sometimes — though not all the time — be a mental disorder, he says that racists frequently exhibit symptoms associated with major psychopathology, including paranoia (feeling threatened unrealistically by a particular group), projection (imbuing this group with traits that have negative associations) and fixed beliefs (categorical opinions like ”all foreigners are dumb”).

     

    http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/15/arts/bigotry-as-mental-illness-or-just-another-norm.html?pagewanted=all

  • ahunt

    Actually Cap’n, Ack was merely pointing out examples of misogyny, which…to my knowledge…do not fall under the definition of mental illness.

  • rebellious-grrl

    I didn’t know this was debate club. We are all sharing information. You insulting me is not intimidating me from posting my comments or speaking my mind. I don’t have to insult or demean someone to voice my opinion or state the facts.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Do you have a spreadsheet to keep track of this? I can’t believe you are keeping track of the timeline of the posts, but whatever makes you happy.

    “Your connotations and the images they insinuate are specious. Your use of them to argue or debate is a form of sophistry. Your denial of any malevolent intent on your part, in doing so, is sophomoric.”

    Let’s see, I have “malevolent intent” for speaking my mind? Your reasoning escapes me.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Could the confusion be that you speak for him (LBSimon) in the first person sometimes and you both like to use the adjective “sophomoric” to insult someone? Hmm.

    Just an observation, dude.

  • ack

    … but I was simply jumping in with another example to refute this:

     

    “American women do not have second-class status.”

     

    When men make statements like that, it’s usually a sign that they haven’t examined male privilege. This goes for any type of privilege; the mere fact that you haven’t bothered to examine it is a benefit in and of itself. For instance, I’m able-bodied. I don’t always notice the way things are set up in stores or public places that might pose a barrier to people with physical disabilities. The fact that I don’t notice is, in and of itself, a privilege I have BECAUSE I’m able-bodied.

     

    You aren’t forced to think about the ways women are oppressed because you’re not a woman, and therefore don’t have to figure out ways to navigate those issues. That doesn’t mean that you CAN’T or SHOULDN’T think about it, though. I assume that there are women in your life who you care about very much. Quite simply, these issues affect them.

  • crowepps

    You have identified yourself as a grrl.  You are not agreeing with the apparently male persons who have condescended to come here and set us ignorant females straight.  Obviously, for a grrl to fail to agree is wrong, but for a grrl to actually continue to argue that her point of view is correct can’t be anything other than ‘malevolent’.

     

    Reasoning?  The reason it escapes you is that there isn’t any to find.

  • crowepps

    Man, sometimes it is really difficult to tell the trolls from the sock puppets, isn’t it? 

  • ahunt

    The clinical definition of misogyny still trumps any and all attempts to co-opt it. 

     

    Why? Because you say so? And the myriad experiences of women…say…just those on this board…are what? Irrelevant? Invalid? What?

     

    Misogyny is applied to far too wide a variety of behaviors and attitudes.

     

    Do tell.  For example?

     

    You see, Cap’n…I’m pretty sure that misogyny is so ingrained in culture that it is not recogognized as such…until someone complains. The immediate dismissal of the complaint by folks like you tends to reflect the case

  • ahunt

    Your connotations and the images they insinuate are specious. Your use of them to argue or debate is a form of sophistry. Your denial of any malevolent intent on your part, in doing so, is sophomoric.

     

    Not following…when a statement, assumption, or conclusion is in fact bizarre, what’s wrong with the adjective?

     

    Now that I’m thinking about it…where did RG use “bizarre?”

  • ack

    First off, I don’t really understand why it’s a negative to capitalize on the ideas about oppression that came out of the civil rights movement. Most modern social justice movements are based in those ideas, and ideas that came centuries before it. For example, the movement against human trafficking is fairly recent, but it utilizes frameworks from other social justice movements, and can look at characteristics of other issues and movements and see similarities.

     

    And I never said that women were the equivalent of slaves. I said that we’re an oppressed group in our culture. You disagree with that. And when we started to post examples of oppression, you minimized them; asserting that they’re not important does not negate the experiences of women who are affected by them. And feminists are not the only ones affected. Ask a woman you care about how she honestly feels when she’s walking alone at night and a group of men catcall her. 

     

    You seem to think I’ve somehow been brainwashed. I was well aware of sexism long before I knew there were terms to discuss it. Most women are. Nor do I think that all men are abusive, or overtly misogynistic. I think that many of them unknowingly (and some knowingly) participate in a system that makes the oppression of women the norm.

     

    Reproductive rights don’t exist in a vacuum. They are reflective of and influenced by attitudes about women in general. You walked into a discussion of that link and your only argument seems to be, “I think you’re wrong,” so we’re not going to get anywhere. I’ve really been looking at this as an invitation to dialogue; I brought up realistic, everyday experiences and examples in order to explain my position. So did other posters. If you’re only going to respond, “Oh, please!” then we’re not going anywhere productive. 

  • captcourageous

    The confusion is just that .. your observation.

     

    We both read that term on another comments section. We have both chosen to use it for reasons of denotative precision, as opposed to the connotations that you seem to rely on. I took the time and made the effort to explain why that term was used. Apparently that effort was wasted. As usual, you are the victim of an insult. Have you ever considered that you may be thin-skinned or have an “issue” concerning persecution by males?

     

    Just asking.

  • captcourageous

    …. you could be forthright and direct in your accusations.

  • rebellious-grrl

    I think you and LBSimon have a tendency to attempt to insult me in an effort to shut me up. I’ve been called far worse than your petty little insults. I’m anything BUT a victim. You’re babbling about nothing, while others are commenting about the article. It seams like, in your mind, you’re in an argumentative battle with the “uber-feminists.” It doesn’t seam like much of a battle to me. 

  • wendy-banks

    “in your mind, you’re in an argumentative battle with the “uber-feminists.” It doesn’t seam like much of a battle to me.”

    *chuckles* @rebellious grrl ‘s coment

  • rebellious-grrl

    Here’s another example of  misogyny,  http://swisssubmarine.blogspot.com/ by Captain Courageous

    Some examples from the blog.

    Arguing with a feminist is one thing. Arguing with a feminist senior citizen is a whole ‘nother ball game. The term “gender war” is neither a misnomer nor an exaggeration. It’s WAR!
    (P.S., JenK is a wife and mother who supports the MRM).

    Misogyny is a …
    clinical condition. It’s either a symptom of a disorder, or perhaps a disorder itself. I realize that sociology has co-opted this term, but in doing so, it has not removed the mental health implications and the resulting stigma. Misogyny is not like wearing pearls, it doesn’t “go with everything.”

    MORE TRENCH WARFARE WITH THE UBER-FEMINISTS!
    This the same comments section on R H Reality Check. Just when you thought it was over, one of them pulls out this piece from Salon.com. I had to copy and paste this to preserve all posts, in their original form.

    Interesting, I wonder if the blog author, Captain Courageous, received permission from the RHrealitycheck to republish. Could be “fair use?” I’m not a lawyer. Just curious.  

     


  • wendy-banks

    Did you notice that (most) of the people from the anti-misandrony sites seem to be reading from the exsact same script? I mean really, their coments are mostly the same– Only the by-line is different. Clones? *hmm* I wonder…

  • rebellious-grrl

    Or, are you telepathic? Oh, do share your secrets. Special powers?

  • rebellious-grrl

    You are not challenging anything. There are a lot of women out there who deal with much more oppression, harassment, barriers, and challenges then you will ever have to deal with. And you whine about your lot in life as a man. These women that I speak of, women who deal with constant challenges in life are not victims. They are survivors and are prevailing despite the oppression they face everyday. You belittling this is just silly. Oppression does not equal victimization. We will prevail against injustice and oppression.

  • ahunt

    ROTFLMAO…

     

    Arguing with a feminist senior citizen is a whole ‘nother ball game

     

    Snerk…crowepps…way to go!

  • rebellious-grrl

    I know can you believe it?

  • crowepps

    Total war?  Trench warfare?

     

    I never thought either was something a person could fit into their breaks at work.  It really is kind of weird that this guy feels so much of his and his friends’ ego is on the line according to how the discussions here go.

     

    I’ve got to tell you, I like this site because most of the time people are here to actually exchange information and discuss the information without ad hominem and vulgarity and insults and the other internet drek.  These guys not only center their comments exactly there, but think that it MATTERS that they ‘win’.

     

    We have just GOT to do something about our school systems.

  • crowepps

    Why do you assume my comment was referring to you?

  • wendy-banks

    “You claim to be oppressed while you oppress others…” Like fundamental christianity, right? Whom, despite the “fun” in their name, are usually no fun a all.

  • wendy-banks

    “We have just GOT to do something about our school systems.”

    Really! Frankly, I think people like that remind me of the saying, “They are all here ’cause their not all there…”

  • captcourageous

    … did you honestly think I did NOT know you’ve been stalking me on SYG and my blog?  I laugh … ha-ha!

     

     

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Cc, I thought everyone here might want to take a look. After all, you did invite us to check it out. I helped you out – your welcome.

    “Sincere invitation” Please, go to SYG. You can even register and login as a member. I am quite certain you will be welcomed and treated well there. The same goes for AM and mens-rights.net. It would help to eliminate a lot of unfounded assumptions and stereotypes on both sides. Submitted by Captcourageous on March 26, 2010 – 2:16pm.

     

  • captcourageous

    “It really is kind of weird that this guy feels so much of his and his friends’ ego is on the line according to how the discussions here go.”

     

    OUR egos??? Surely you jest! Our stomachs??? That’s another matter! They still hurt from laughing so hard at concepts such as bigots can be kind, sensitive, rational people, and psychiatrists don’t necessarily deal with irrational patients.

     

    ” …. These guys not only center their comments exactly there, but think that it MATTERS that they ‘win’.”

     

    It’s not about winning, crowepps, but about the tactics encountered here … such as projection.

  • captcourageous

    … you get an “incomplete” on that one, look at the date on that post. Where does it say to come visit any member’s blog and post it, as part of an “expose”? Only a stalker would fail to make that distinction and give such a lame rationalization to excuse it.

  • princess-rot

    The incredible, almost cloyingly sentimental websites about ‘aren’t I great because I went full term with my anencephalic fetus’ with the corpse all dressed up in a frilly bonnet so it won’t gross people out are part of the propaganda campaign.

     

    The hardest thing to get female antis to understand is that their choice isn’t everyone else’s choice, their way of dealing with pain isn’t everyone else’s way, and that their certainty that they would definitely bear every pregnancy to term could turn out to be not as concrete as they thought with a change in life situation. Even the patron saint of pro-lifers, Sarah Palin, publicly admitted she had second thoughts about Trig when she discovered he had Downs, but since she then followed up with the “right” decision, the teabaggers didn’t lend it any more thought, like she’d dodged a bullet, or something. With a little more care, a reasonable person could have thought: Y’know, if this woman, who is wealthy and most likely stable enough to care for a disabled child is having second thoughts, maybe MY mind could change if I thought I couldn’t cope with a sick child/the demands of a new infant/already have young children/laid off/unemployed/abused/ill/overstretched/done having kids/poor/no health insurance/don’t want to be a mother… and so on ad nauseam.

  • julie-watkins

    For some, “choice” is the responsibility to “make the right choice” (their world view being all black & white and no room for grey). “True Freedom” is “freedom from the temptations of the devil(secularism)”, & all that. So I think they think they are doing a public good by trying to remove a temptation, urg.

  • lightning

    Well, that’s the purpose of “dialog” — that is, when you have a different viewpoint, we want to hear it and discuss it. That’s how we together will arrive at a truth we can all live with. Openly questioning the merit of an argument is the only way forward, duh. Framing that plain fact as a faulty argumentation strategy is wholly beside the point, isn’t it?

    You seem to assume that our purpose in raising these issues is to make false connections in the readers’ minds, that will “persuade them against their will” to support “our” “positions.” I think the truth is much much simpler.

    Women are the ones who do the work of reproduction. Males get to have fun, and are only called on to support those women who choose to carry that fun to term. So where do you think the onus of power should lie, here? With the person who’s had his fun, or with the person who has to do the work following it?

    My pocket theory is that men are trying to regulate THEMSELVES into responsibility, by making it unheard-of not to bring a child to term. If it never happens, then men will have to take the sex act for an act of reproduction. Unfortunately for them, there is another, unacknowledged gender in the equation — a gender that will no longer act simply as a man’s auxiliary organ of reproduction.

    Women should decide matters that affect their own lives.

  • lightning

    “Ethics can never allow an evil act based on the number of potential survivors or a direct attack on life.”

    This is a common trope of “ethicists,” but it arises so seldom that I think those who are (ever) forced to such a decision deserve special consideration (and probably free counseling as well). To wit, this might happen in one of those ethical exercises where one “needs” to choose between “letting” a train run over a crowd of people, or “letting” it run over one person instead. The lie of this posit, is that the future cannot be set in stone; any action one takes on the basis of calculated results still might be changed — one could switch the train away from the crowd and then hope the single person on the other tracks would notice the train coming — or one could then run or shout to try to change the result. In the ethical exercises, of course, one cannot do those things, and is FORCED to choose.

    I posit that forcing a person to make such a bad-bad choice is a crime in itself, as there is no escaping the inner harm that would result. AND I posit that extending such logic to the sphere of abortion decisions is presenting a false choice to the decider. There is in truth no violation of a “life” that does not yet exist as anything but a lump of growth that IF UNCHECKED will one day become a human. Aborting the process at this stage changes nothing. The lump can no more hold a “soul” than a planarian worm could.

    I realize that this attitude makes me “hateful” to a Lifer, but SO FRICKING WHAT? I purely don’t care about the opinions of those who base their own opinions on what some HUMAN (NOT god) said thousands of years ago. MY attitude is based on reality and science, the language of this age.

    And on your latter point, LIKING someone is a form of respect, and the obverse is also true. Where respect is lacking, LIKING also lacks. This legitimizes calling out misogeny as a motivation, because IF one respected women’s right to choose what to do with their own bodies, one would then step aside from trying to decide it for them, would one not? In my world, one cannot make that decision if one is not a woman.

    Like it or not, this one is out of men’s hands, dude.

  • colleen

    My pocket theory is that men are trying to regulate THEMSELVES into responsibility, by making it unheard-of not to bring a child to term.

    are trying to make it unheard of to not bring a child to term but disagree that these men desire responsibility or have ever been interested in being responsible in matters affecting their own sexuality. I think, rather, that men and particularly conservative men are trying to regulate themselves back into relevancy and authority.

  • lightning

    …because I’m new here and don’t know.

    But face it, Captain, you are commenting on a site that has a stance — that women should have primary determination of social factors that affect (only) themselves. If you think otherwise, you can’t complain when your statements alienate them. It seems a degree of bias would be inevitable on their part, as it is on yours.

    I say your comments should be framed in respect for those in the discussion — including those who moderate it. Absolutes don’t carry well, as they preclude discussion (is the fact that the discussion yet continues, one of your beefs?)

  • lightning

    Excuse me, but as always with pro-lifers, EVERY argument goes back to religion. Some of us do not live by blind faith, as you do. I think it’s important to sometime point that out, as the religionistas routinely FRAME their arguments in non-religious terms in order to suck in such as don’t know their true allegiances.

    The “taking of a life” is not an issue here, as a separate “life” does not exist in most cases. We don’t sacrimoniously baptize every wart a doctor removes. I realize this argument does not cover every instance, but those it doesn’t cover, I’m not (and neither are you) qualified to address.

  • lightning

    Yes, women and children are saved first, but that’s not because we value their minds and opinions, but simply out of adherence to our allegiance to the race; to reproduction.

    Note that it was never women who decided that. Men did. Misogyny isn’t just about hate — it’s about a lack of respect for the opinions of those targeted. But these days, unless blinded by religion, we realize that respect is the ground, starting place, for interactions with others.

    Yes, we may still choose to act chivalrously (and hopefully we will), but we can now do so out of respect for the people we treat so, rather than out of programmed preservation instincts. In other words, we are now smarter as a species, and we now have to realize (and remake) our decisions to act virtuously — we have to put those decisions on a more firm basis than they have been.

  • sheena

    “Check into the biographies of just about ANYBODY in that time frame and you will find references to communism, marxism, etc., etc., as well as eugenics and a bunch of other stuff we now think was nuts.”

     

    The Cold War was in full swing. Communism and Marxism were very unpopular. Eugenics was unheard of. Since when were these ever visionary ideas in American culture? You have it backwards.

     

     

  • sheena

    I read this man’s post. It referred to feminists ripping off the civil rights movement. That’s not capitalizing on ideas stemming from it. That’s using it as some kind of a scam.

     

    We start off with Amanda’s claim that misogyny is at the root of opposition to late term abortion. Then we get her reasons – a lone gunman, a bunch of fundamentalist christians (translate that as stupid rednecks), terrorists (translate that as muslim chauvinists) and the legions of males who totally don’t care about legitimate medical reasons for late term abortion. There’s a real undercurrent to her article, and it is extremely biased against males.

     

    Her argument is quite a stretch. We should take the time to analyze it carefully, not defend it blindly.

  • sheena

    “Did you notice that (most) of the people from the anti-misandrony sites seem to be reading from the exsact same script? I mean really, their coments are mostly the same– Only the by-line is different. Clones? *hmm* I wonder…”

    One could definitely say the same of us, perhaps moreso.

  • sheena

    But cc is a keen observer of your behavior and those of your friends on here. He’s not whining about anything. He’s taking all of you on simultaneously, point for point, and you can’t handle it. You’d have left here by now, if you didn’t have four or five other posters helping you out.

  • sheena

    You and your friends presume to know so much about what this fellow thinks and believes and values. This knowledge of yours is the basis for your nasty little comebacks. He’s stubbornly repeating to you that you don’t really know what you’re talking about where he and other men are concerned. You come across as though you are selling yourself a bill of goods.

  • sheena

    Aside from you, I read posts from ack, ahunt, crowepps and Wendy Banks. How did you decide these two guys are insulting you and try to shut you up?  Specifically, what personal insults have either of them thrown at you? From what I’ve read, you’re someone I’d hate to have to fight. Add your friends, and I’m sure nobody would come here just to trade insults.

  • sheena

    Who else could you possibly have been referring to? Playing coy does not become you.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Hi Sheena, have to disagree with you. Since you are aware of cc’s MOA than you know when he doesn’t like something he’s read he attacks the writer. His arguments are trivial and weak. It’s interesting, your judgments of me as some weak helpless woman. You obviously don’t know who I am. Gotta go, off to chop wood.

  • sheena

    He’s right again.

     

    As I wrote before, I’d hate to have to fight you myself. You are relentless and, apparently, nothing is out of bounds for you.

     

    By the way, what are you trying to prove with this gimmick? That you’re a Limbo champ?

  • sheena

    “What is the basis of misogyny? Having somebody to be better than.”

     

    I’ve looked this word up in the dictionary. It’s a pathological hatred of women. Just wanting to fell superior to somebody is too simple an explanation.

  • sheena

    Here’s the reverse of what you wrote.

    As always with pro-choicers, EVERY argument goes back to atheism. Some of us do not live by pure materialism, as you do. I think it’s important to sometime point out that, as the atheistas routinely FRAME their arguments in religious terms in order to suck in such as don’t know their true allegiances.

    A separate “life” doesn’t exist here, just a separate heart, circulatory system, brain, nervous system and a set of lungs … sort of like a wart; which, if removed, is not the taking of a life.

  • sheena

    And not just subjective misinterpretations from a person with a chip on her shoulder to begin with. Why do you all feel the need to answer on behalf of one another? Is it whoever comes up with a disdainful answer first makes the reply?

  • sheena

    The Captain is not letting you ram your pre-conceived idea down his throat. How about giving concrete examples of male privilege, ones having nothing to do with money or social class. Don’t try to get away with the “if you were a woman, you’d know” baloney. Take a female and a male from the same neighborhood, in this day and age, and show me exactly what privileges he automatically has over her. And don’t go changing the definitions – privilege as defined:

    “a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most.”  [Dictionary.com}

  • rebellious-grrl

    One could definitely say the same of us, perhaps moreso.

    “Us” Care to elaborate on that?

  • rebellious-grrl

    I would think using a dictionary definition is too simple an explanation.

  • ahunt

    Thanks Sheena.

    I did my own cursory search, and found the definitions include “hatred,” “dislike,” “mistrust” and “contempt.”

  • ahunt

    So by all means, Sheena…tell us which of our examples you take issue with?

     

    And this is an open forum where anyone is permitted to express an opinion on any post. Don’t like…don’t hang out.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Lighting Joe, great post.

  • rebellious-grrl

    They (or, rather, he) insults you and the other women trying to reason with him because insulting and demeaning women while pretending to an intelligence he does not possess is an activity he enjoys. He gets all excited when you don’t shut up. Submitted by colleen on April 8, 2010 – 11:47pm.

  • frolicnaked

    Take a female and a male from the same neighborhood, in this day and age, and show me exactly what privileges he automatically has over her.

    People will generally not make a spectator sport of loudly commenting on the male’s breasts, butt, or legs.

     

    Males are not generally told they should not be out walking in a particular neighborhood after dark and/or alone — “because it isn’t safe for [them].”

     

    If a male is assaulted, he will generally not be told he’s overreacting for fighting back.

     

    In terms of attempted or completed sexual assaults, about 90% of victims are female. Females are over 5 times more likely to be victims of sexual assault than are males.

     

    I’ve yet to meet a man who was told he was selfish for pursuing both a family and a career.

     

    For men, people don’t generally blame medical conditions causing pain and/or infertility (among other symptoms) on having or wanting a career.

     

    Men who have sex with multiple partners or who experience unwanted consequences of consensual sex (such as STIs) are far less likely to be labeled sluts or to be told to “keep their legs closed.”

     

    Men can voice opinions without being labeled bitches.

     

    People don’t invalidate men’s anger or concerns by saying, “Are you on the rag?” or, “Damn, girl, you must be PMSing,” attributing it solely to hormonal fluctuation rather than entertaining the idea that the feeling may in fact have merit.

  • crowepps

    Well, that depends. Certainly I could understand someone having a “pathological hatred of and fear of women” if they had a traumatic experience with a woman, had been, for instance, terribly abused as a child by mom or a babysitter, or had been attacked by a female serial killer perhaps, but just what exactly is behind the boundless contempt for the opinions of and personal attacks on the characters of the women posting her evidenced by some of the ‘men’s right’ posters?

     

    If you read through the entire, very long, string at the other article that triggered their arrival, the one about domestic violence, it’s pretty clear that they feel any ‘right’ which women claim is one which has been taken away from them.

     

    Now this is, on its face, pretty silly. If I gain the ‘civil right’ of being able to enter a store and buy something, that doesn’t take anything at all away from the other customers, with the single expection that they no longer can claim that they are part of the ‘in group’ who have exclusive access, in other words, that they no longer can feel they are ‘better than’ those who are excluded.

     

    I did understand what the original poster was talking about when he protested that not all men are violent, that a presumption that all men are violent is bigotry, and that in dealing with domestic violence it’s important to keep in mind that sometimes the root of the violence is the woman. He took it much further than that, though, and insisted that MOST OF THE TIME it’s all the woman’s fault and that MOST OF THE TIME the man is a helpless pawn. Having had extensive real world experience over many years with precisely this issue, I know that’s nonsense, but that is indeed the way he seemed to PERCEIVE the issue – anytime there is a conflict men are the victims of women and the whole purpose of ‘feminism’ is to hurt and destroy men.

     

    That is indeed misogyny, and while I wouldn’t say it was ‘pathological’, it’s certainly irrational.

  • crowepps

    I was replying to a post about the “Founding Mothers” of feminism.  The Founding Mothers of feminism, the First Wave, were active in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s trying to obtain for women the right to VOTE.

     

    The era in which all those positive comments about ‘communism’ and ‘Marxism’ and ‘socialism’ were made by the Feminists (AND by everybody else who wanted to be ‘modern’) was between the Russian Revolution of 1917 (when Russia was our ALLY) and World War II (when Russia was again our ALLY).  As a matter of fact by far the greatest number of lives sacrificed in order to win World War II and stop the Nazis were Russian.  Approximately 20 MILLION Russians died in the war compared to fewer than a million Americans.

     

    The Commie Menace arose AFTER World War II, in the 1950’s, when Stalin made it clear that Russia also had ‘the bomb’, because Joseph McCarthy discovered that the American people could be led around by the nose if you scared them to death by getting hysterical about ‘The Red Menace’.  By the time Feminism was entering its SECOND wave that hysteria was pretty much over.

     

    Communism as an economic system has proved to be intransigently a failure.  Marxism was killed by the fact that actual real people resist being ‘educated’ into a system where ownership is abolished.  They may resent ‘the boss’ or ‘the elite’ having MORE, but they absolutely have no intention of giving up what THEY own.  Communism as the name of a political system still persists, but certainly what is going on now in China is ‘Marxism’ in name only.

     

    As to eugenics, that actually arose in America after the CIVIL War as part of the hysteria over American being overrun by immigrants who were physically, mentally and religiously ‘unfit’ like the ‘degenerate and primitive’ Irish and Italians who were considered as Catholics to owe allegiance to the Pope.  Read up on the ‘Anti-catholic Riots’ in New York.

    The worldwide Eugenics movement gained strength in the U.S. at the end of the 1890s, when theories of selective breeding espoused by British anthropologist Francis Galton and his protégé Karl Pearson, gained currency. Connecticut was the first of many states, beginning in 1896, to pass marriage laws with eugenic provisions, prohibiting anyone who was “epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded” from marrying. The noted American biologist, Charles Davenport, became the director of biological research at a station in Cold Spring Harbor in New York in 1898. Six years later the Carnegie Institute provided the funding for Davenport to create the Station for Experimental Evolution. Then, in 1910, Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin took advantage of their positions at the Eugenics Record Office to promote eugenics.

    http://www.understandingrace.org/history/science/eugenics_physical.html

     

    During the early to mid- nineteenth centuries, violent rioting occurred between Protestant “Nativists” and recently arrived Irish Catholic immigrants. These reached heights during the peak of immigration in the 1840s and 1850s in cities including New York, Philadelphia and Boston.  During the early 1900s, riots were common against Irish and French-Canadian immigrants in Providence, Rhode Island.

    During the late 1800s and early 20th Century, Italian Americans were the second minority group (next to African Americans) most likely to be lynched.  One of the largest lynchings in US history occurred in New Orleans in 1891, when eleven Italians were violently murdered in the streets by a large lynch mob. In the 1890s a total of twenty Italians were lynched in the South.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States#Anti-immigrant_and_anti-Catholic_violence

     

  • crowepps

    I don’t remember ever hearing anyone say “well, now that he’s a FATHER he really should stay home and take care of that baby himself instead of using daycare.”

     

    I don’t remember ever hearing anyone say “now that he’s married he’s just letting himself go. If he’s not careful she’ll be stepping out on him.”

     

    I don’t remember ever hearing anyone say “oh, Jane’s husband just went on and on at the party as though he thought what he had to say was interesting.  She must have been mortified to have her husband trying to be the center of attention like that.”

     

    And then of course when men are ill they’re not just written off either.

    “WOMEN who have heart attacks receive inferior treatment compared with men and are less likely to survive as a result, according to new research.

    They found women were less likely to be given clot- busting drugs in hospital, less likely to be treated in a specialist coronary care unit and less likely to be given protective drugs once discharged.

     

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/women-get-poorer-care-after-heart-attacks-sexism-claim-by-research-doctors-1446140.html

  • ack

    First off, thanks to frolicnaked for creating a list.

     

    Sheena, your point is actually exactly why I brought up street harassment. It’s a reasonably universal experience among women and girls in the US. Street harassment, particularly when it’s perpetrated by a group of men against a lone woman, creates a very different reaction than harasssment directed at men when they’re alone.

     

    I have older brothers, and we all grew up in the same household. If one of them was walking alone at night, and a group of men approached them, they would fear being robbed. (We’ve had this conversation.) The same group could approach me, and I’d fear rape. Their immunity is against the fear of sexual assault. While men in prison and gay men certainly experience sexual assault at far greater rates than the non-incarcerated and straight male population, my brothers are not in prison, and identify as heterosexual. They’re at an advantage because of reduced or lack of fear against sexual assault.

     

    There are also distinct advantages in the professional world. I’ll find the cases, but there has been a lot of litigation around social events that target a “boys’ night out.” Going to strip clubs to complete business deals is an example of an environment that tends to exclude busninesswomen.

  • prochoiceferret

    show me exactly what privileges he automatically has over her.

    People will generally not make a spectator sport of loudly commenting …

    Males are not generally told they should not be out walking …

    If a male is assaulted, he will generally not …

    In terms of attempted or completed sexual assaults, about 90% of victims are female …

    “But frolicnaked, those aren’t male privileges, that’s just the natural order of things! What, are you going to complain about the color of the sky next?”

  • ack

    Seriously, I’m asking. I never equated women’s rights with slavery, or feminism with the civil rights movement. I offered parallels between varying levels of oppression in our culture.

     

    If Capt. explained the difference between ripping off and capitalizing, and I didn’t get it, I invite another explanation. From my couch, he basically said that feminism was ripping off Martin Luther King Jr. but never explained why utilizing the ideas sparked during the civil rights movement was wrong.

     

    I don’t think it’s a scam to utilize the ideas that the civil rights movement explored. I think it’s valid to borrow from theoretical frameworks that are applicable in various scenarios, provided they’re adapted to meet variables. That’s basically the foundation of most social sciences.

  • captcourageous

    It’s that reading comprehension thingy of yours.

     

    You do realize that crowepps challenged my use of the word “clinical”, don’t you, to the point of posting definitions of it? It was as plain as the nose on your face. [Talk about putting a spin on it!]

  • captcourageous

    Very smooth and also diplomatically-stated, Sheena.

  • captcourageous

    Specious, sophomoric sophistry is a description of what is being written and how it is used. Misogynist, asshole, etc., etc. are nouns and as such are epithets when used by other posters here. If you disagree with my description, refute it. Don’t keep posting how you’ve taken umbrage at it and are being victimized by it (or oppressed).

  • captcourageous

    “… (is the fact that the discussion yet continues, one of your beefs?)”

     

    No. I am learning a lot about feminists and their tactics for evading any meaningful dialogue with males. I am also learning more about misandry and the subtle ways it manifests itself here.

  • captcourageous

    Debate club

    I didn’t know this was debate club. We are all sharing information. You insulting me is not intimidating me from posting my comments or speaking my mind. I don’t have to insult or demean someone to voice my opinion or state the facts.”

     

    I have not aimed one insult at you. Not one. You are fabricating a reason to excuse your digs, quips, snarks, blatant diversions and witch hunts on other websites. YOu have not intimidated me into leaving this forum. 

  • captcourageous

    “Can’t seem to find the quote right now, but I remember reading something to the effect that it hasn’t worked very well for White people to assume they should be the ones to decide for Black people whether or not they’re being discriminated against.”

     

    Suggestion: cite what you read. Then demonstrate its relevance to disproving misogyny as a clinical entity.

     

    “So far as I am aware, there isn’t any ‘clinical definition’ of misogyny which is not, so far as I am aware, considered a psychiatric illness at all, but instead just a common, everyday social process with a definition used by the general public.  The fact that the word is Greek doesn’t make it medical or psychiatric, since both the word AND the concept predate both medical and psychiatry.”

     

    “So far as you are aware” … hatred of women is the definition found on the website for which I left a link. You obviously did not check it out. Nor did you go back over the Notes and References section of Wikipedia.

    Misogyny defined as a “pathological” hatred of women is to be found in some of the standard dictionaries, such as Oxford, Webster, etc. It doesn’t come close to being “a common, everyday social process with a definition used by the general public.”

     

    If a clinical condition goes back as far as ancient Greece, that may be the reason psychiatry would choose to use a Greek derivation with which to label it, ya think?

     

     

     

  • captcourageous

    “Why? Because you say so? And the myriad experiences of women…say…just those on this board…are what? Irrelevant? Invalid? What?”

     

    Is that the best you can come up with?

     

    Misogyny is applied to far too wide a variety of behaviors and attitudes.

     

    Do tell.  For example?”

     

    For example misogyny as the “ROOT” cause of opposition to late-term abortion! Couldn’t possibly be anything else, could it? Why because you and the alleged myriads feel it is so?

     

    “You see, Cap’n…I’m pretty sure that misogyny is so ingrained in culture that it is not recogognized as such…until someone complains. The immediate dismissal of the complaint by folks like you tends to reflect the case”

     

    You see, ahunt, I’m pretty sure that your assertion vis. misogyny is propaganda, swallowed hook-line-and-sinker, and your little rant here tends to reflect the case.

  • captcourageous

    It couldn’t possibly be that you suffer from a major blindspot, namely your own misandry, could it? Mega-misandry that is!

  • captcourageous

    There’s mighty bigoted statement:

     

    “Like fundamental christianity, right? Whom, despite the “fun” in their name, are usually no fun a all.’ “

  • cmarie

    right Amanda

    the whole thing has nothing to do with people getting their brains ripped out seconds before delivery

  • princess-rot

    Treating human rights as a zero-sum game is, de facto, pretty silly, and speaks volumes about the person protesting them.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Do you have any sense of humor?

  • rebellious-grrl

    I am the limbo champ ;)  It’s Sunday morning so let’s all listen to Chubby Checker sing Limbo Rock. Happy Sunday everyone!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XgCHOrF5ryY

  • rebellious-grrl

    CC, get real. Call it whatever you want dude if that makes it easier for you to keep rambling on.

  • paul-bradford

    Amanda,

     

    I completely agree with you!  Of course, you’re making a lot of the same points I made back in March of ’09 when Dr. Tiller was still alive and had just been exonerated in court.  I wrote an article, then, called Reacting To The Tiller Verdict. Here’s a sample of what I wrote then:

     

    It’s not news that I am Pro-Life. I’m opposed to abortion. I’m opposed to abortion in cases of rape; I’m opposed to abortion in cases of incest; I’m opposed to abortion in cases of fetal abnormality; I’m opposed to abortion when the mother is seriously disabled; I’m opposed to abortion when the mother already has more children than she can handle; I’m opposed to abortion in cases of extreme poverty; I’m opposed to abortion in regions where there is overpopulation; I’m opposed to abortion when the father is abusive. Get the idea? But if there is any situation where I might say, “Well … gee … in this particular case … I hate to say it but … abortion might be an acceptable solution” it would be in the case of medical necessity.

     

    When you move into the area of medical necessity you find yourself in a position where the options are 1) death and 2) death. There is no Pro-Life alternative when you’re looking at medical necessity, and in the situations stipulated by the Kansas Late Term Abortion Law there is no Pro-Life alternative. The rule in Kansas is: no medical necessity, no late-term abortion. That’s why George Tiller is the last abortionist I would single out for criticism. I certainly think there are far better ways to protect the unborn than to hound Dr. Tiller.

     

    Operation Rescue sees things differently than I do. They believe themselves to be at the forefront of justice for the very young. The way I see things, Operation Rescue is responsible for far more abortions than George Tiller ever could be. Operation Rescue is one of the main reasons people don’t want to be Pro-Life. Operation Rescue represents everything that’s wrong with the Pro-Life movement. Operation Rescue has lousy strategies, lousy tactics and lousy attitudes. Give me somebody from NARAL any day!


    I’ve never heard you state whether you have a connection to NARAL, but you speak with sense and logic — which is more than I can say for a lot of my fellow anti-choicers.

     

    Misogyny drives a lot of people to get involved in the anti-abortion movement (I don’t like wasting such a fine phrase as “Pro-Life” on organizations who are right on the abortion issue and wrong on every other Pro-Life issue); but is misogyny at the root of all anti-abortion sentiment?  It would mean a lot to me to hear you say that not everyone who hates abortion hates women.  I, for one, dispute many social conservatives by reminding them that you can’t be good to the unborn unless you’re good to their mothers.

     

    Posters at this ‘site regularly encourage me to examine my own motivation in taking an anti-choice stance, and I do reflect on this a great deal.  The eradication of abortion, certainly, wouldn’t do me any good.  In fact, I’m regularly reminded of the fact that liberal abortion attitudes make my life better.  If women in America stopped having abortions, the people who would then be born would, on the average, be poorer, less educated and more prone to domestic violence, drug abuse and crime than the average person who is born today.  It can’t be self-interest that causes me to oppose abortion.

     

    Upholding human rights, no matter whose human rights you’re upholding, is always anti-choice.  As soon as I recognize someone else’s rights my choices are limited.  If I didn’t have to respect other people’s rights it would be simpler and easier for me to get the things I want out of life.  Of course, upholding the rights of the unborn calls for more sacrifice from women than it does from men — and for some women the sacrifice would be enormous.  But even so, it does call for some sacrifice from men.  Most particularly, a man who wishes to respect the unborn has to take better care to prevent pregnancy and must be willing to support any child that results from his action.  Does respect for the unborn call for men to restrict their choices or simply to act more responsibly?  Maybe that’s just two ways of looking at the same thing.

     

    Keep writing good articles and I’ll keep trying to figure out why I’m so stridently anti-choice.

  • sheena

    dook of Earl, dook, dook, dook of Earl, dook,dook, dook of Earl … LOL!

  • sheena

    “Misogyny is not a given in this article” So let’s cut now to the Vatican, drag in the Pope and throw it back to the male poster to explain. Sure. That makes a whole lot of sense. [Talk about hysteria. Ouch!] 

  • sheena

    “… the arguments from the anti-choice side are based on emotional rhetoric and inaccuracies.”

     

    That’s a broad generalization that you can’t back up. It’s the same accusation they make against us. Come up with something original and stop parroting them.

  • sheena

    ” … And they’re shot through with misogyny.”

     

    That’s a subjective opinion you assume will never be challenged, because you are on your turf. It is not objectively verifiable. It makes your style of argumentation sound mechanistic.

  • sheena

    “All kinds of entirely sincere and loving folks who wish to confer upon American women second class status.. “

     

    I’m sorry, but that statement sounds off-the-wall to me. What you wrote here sounds oxymoronic in nature.

  • sheena

    I notice many of you here have no problem jumping in to reply to a male poster. Let one male poster jump in to answer for another and it’s apparently confusing (?). Let one male poster borrow a word from another and it’s somehow unacceptable (?). From what I read rg, you haven’t contributed anything positive or constructive to this thread since it started. You enjoy the joust too much, don’t you?

  • sheena

    All their remarks sound the same. Just as they are all from the “anti-misondry (?) sites.” Could it be they are reacting and replying to the same scripted material they read about here? Think about it. 

  • colleen

    It’s the same accusation they make against us.

    Who is ‘us’?

  • sheena

    In addition to institutional and personal misogyny, you’ll be subjected to male privilege, patriarchal power, christian fundamentalism, terrorism, the KKK, a bunch of “mansplaining” and probably a dose of machismo. Oy vey!!! [Talk about your hyper-suspicions!]

  • sheena

    Words added to the dictionary have to be researched for their common denominator. The ones added to the Oxford dictionary must be reviewed by specialists in lexicography (?), before they are approved.

  • sheena

    Yes, and a Happy Sunday to you too! Love that song!

     

    “How Low Can You Go?”

  • rebellious-grrl

    If you ask a question don’t you want an answer? If I answer is that jumping in and arguing? If you read the rest of this website you might notice that I comment on other stories as well.

    “rg, you haven’t contributed anything positive or constructive to this thread since it started. You enjoy the joust too much, don’t you?”
    Could say the same for you.

  • ahunt

    Your point?

  • ahunt

    Not to worry, Sheena…the explanation is in the followup. Review.

  • ahunt

    You may wanna research the history of eugenics, Sheena. Lots of influential folks dabbled.

  • ahunt

    Absolutely. We should probably begin by defining late term abortion, and maybe proceed towards  the “reasons” women seek LTAs.

  • ahunt

    For example misogyny as the “ROOT” cause of opposition to late-term abortion! Couldn’t possibly be anything else, could it?

     

    Sure. Like what? I’m open for discussion.

     

     

    Be aware that trotting out the “convenience” argument will result in loss of points.

     

    Is that the best you can come up with?

     

    Apparently.

     

    You see, ahunt, I’m pretty sure that your assertion vis. misogyny is propaganda, swallowed hook-line-and-sinker, and your little rant here tends to reflect the case.

     

    Your problem, Cap’n…is that if the gender-based discriminatory, insulting and derogatory experiences we’ve dealt with are not considered a reflection of misogyny…then what? Give us another term.


  • wendy-banks

    That was rebelious grrl typing at you, not me– Sheena, do you even bother to read the posts before you answer them?

     

  • wendy-banks

    I fully admit to hating fundamental christanity– (Not christians in general) Because their main focus seems to be beating people down, shaming, killing, and terorrizing them– All in the name of their god. If they would keep their noses in their own business (I feel the same about YOU-btw) I would have no problems with them. I ADMIT to my weaknesses and foibles, you, on the other hand seem to push you issues off on others as projection, or any other of the psycobable terms you enjoy throwing at people. Why don’t you and your crew deal with your own issues for a change and take your feminist hateing ideas with you.

  • wendy-banks

    Ow! My back! ;) Thanks rebellious grrl.

  • squirrely-girl

    just a separate heart, circulatory system, brain, nervous system and a set of lungs”

     

    While I appreciate the point of your post, I think this statement here is still a bit misleading. Development of the fetus is not instant – the “it’s not a miniature baby just getting bigger over time” idea. And, at the point in time in which most women are obtaining abortions, some of these systems aren’t actually developed. At any rate, I would also argue that these are not, in fact, “separate” organs and systems, as they generally need a host system to provide for them. 

  • rebellious-grrl

    Sheena, many anti-choice arguments are based on emotion and not fact. How about the anti-choice argument that abortion is “killing a baby?” It’s a fetus not a baby. There’s a lot of emotion rapped up in that argument.

     

     

    And who is “us?”

  • wendy-banks

    “people getting their brains ripped out seconds before delivery”

    *Gales of laugher* It doesn’t happen that way. Come ON, do you EVER pick up a science book about gynecology? Go to a REAL web site about how abortions are done? Of course not, this is cmaire we are talking about– Silly me.

    Brains, must have brains…..*slurp* Too many B monster movies…

  • squirrely-girl

    “So I think they think they are doing a public good by trying to remove a temptation”

     

    I think this all goes back to the ideas of control and free will. It’s nobody’s place force morality by removing temptation. Temptation will continue to exist in SOME form whether you remove or reduce the current offending issue (and I firmly believe if it weren’t abortion it would be something else to the fundies of the world).

     

    Overtly forcing or forcing through removal of choice is SO ANTI-CHRISTIAN. Decisions to engage in moral behavior are the choice of the individual and (imho) God NEVER intended those choices to be made under force. Even God left the tree in the garden… 

  • wendy-banks

    Oh the whole, I would say, that Humans (male, female, or whatever) are very prone to violence– Not unlike the other primates that we are related to– Some people just sadly employ violence more that others.

  • ahunt

    That’s a broad generalization that you can’t back up

     

    Well by all means, Sheena….explore the site…try the search function…particularly note that which has already been well documented..

     

     

  • prochoicegoth

    the whole thing has nothing to do with people getting their brains ripped out seconds before delivery

    Lay off the cheesy horror movies. Abortions are not performed that way and you know it. If you’re referring to IDX’s, the fetus is euthanized PRIOR to the procedure and there is NO delivery. The fetus is removed via forceps and the skull is collapsed for easier removal from the birth canal.

    Besides, thanks to Dubbaya, that procedure, which is WAY less brutal than a D&E and in some cases safer for the woman, was banned. People of your side seem to conveniently forget that.

  • emma

    My general observation of CaptCourageous’ thread-cluttering trollery is that he is just that: a troll who has developed a bizarre obsession with this place. I remember doing similar things many years ago: someone would link a bunch of people on fora I frequent to a site we found disagreeable, and we’d post a bunch of bullshit on the disagreeable site for a couple of days until we got bored. It was juvenile and it embarrasses me to admit it now, but it seemed amusing at the time. This is, I suspect, what is going on here – I’m guessing this site was linked at an MRA forum, and a group of you have come over here to amuse yourselves. I could, of course, be wrong.

     

    My impression is that CaptCourageous et al think they’re engaged in an epic battle with a bunch of evil oppressive feminists, and it’s just…kind of sad. He’s contributing fuck all: cluttering up threads with lists of the names of logical fallacies he thinks others are committing; playing semantic games; and refusing to engage with the OP in any depth beyond ‘you’re wrong!’ does not constitute an interesting or worthwhile contribution to the discussion. I’m guessing you’ll all get bored soon enough, and hopefully we’ll get some more interesting trolls.

     

    (Just for amusement: I remember having a look through the anti-misandry.com site some time ago – someone at Fundies Say the Darnedest Things posted a quotation from there, alongside a bunch of quotations from places like Rapture Ready and so forth. Very bad company.)

  • emma

    Communism as an economic system has proved to be intransigently a failure. Marxism was killed by the fact that actual real people resist being ‘educated’ into a system where ownership is abolished. They may resent ‘the boss’ or ‘the elite’ having MORE, but they absolutely have no intention of giving up what THEY own. Communism as the name of a political system still persists, but certainly what is going on now in China is ‘Marxism’ in name only.

    I’m not sure that’s entirely the case. No country has ever actually implemented a communist system – the USSR and China and so forth ended up stuck in a bastardised form of socialism, whereby a party elite replaced privatised economic elites, and that party elite continued to exploit that labour of the working class just as corporate elites do. One won’t find many self-described Marxists/socialists/communists sympathetic to Stalin or Mao.

     

    I think it’s also important to note that, as a global economic system, capitalism is spectacularly failing the vast majority of the world’s population, most of whom are living in abject poverty that is in large part attributable to economic exploitation by wealthy corporations and countries (as well as colonialism, military interventionism and so forth). Socially and environmentally, capitalism is an utterly unsustainable system.

     

    I just don’t accept that selfishness, greed and desire to accumulate stuff and dominate others are intrinsic to ‘human nature’. We should and can do better.

     

    //off topic, sorry.

  • princess-rot

    Removing an entire skull from a woman before her body has entered labor (and thus released the chemicals nescessary to dilate the cervix and allow the birth canal to stretch), might, y’know, irreversibly damage the woman. Did you think of that, cmarie, or were you too preoccupied with clutching your pearls that a woman doesn’t really need the added pain of prematurely delivering a corpse’s complete skull?

  • emma

    I, for one, dispute many social conservatives by reminding them that you can’t be good to the unborn unless you’re good to their mothers.

    The problem is that the way you’ve phrased that implies that women’s wellbeing is important only insofar as it protects foetuses, rather than being a Good Thing in and of itself. If your argument is essentially just that happier incubators are better incubators, then the misogyny charge is a fair one.

     

    What I find really galling is the fact that you are presuming to lecture members of a historically oppressed population on the need for us to sacrifice our rights – recall that globally, millions upon billions of women do not enjoy the same rights as men, own a minuscule fraction of the world’s resources, and so on and so forth. Who the fuck are you, as a member of a privileged group, to be lecturing us on making sacrifices. And seriously, stopping to put on a condom is not a sacrifice comparable to continuing an unwanted pregnancy.

     

    And yeah, blah, you point out over and over again that you oppose oppression of women, but you pretty much always use the reasoning that oppressing women isn’t good for foetuses. A person who actually gave a damn about women would believe that women’s equality matters because equality benefits women. You don’t ever say that, though – it’s always about what benefits foetuses, and women are basically incidental. While I appreciate that you don’t support legally coercing women into continuing unwanted pregnancies, as a lot of anti-choicers do, that your reason for this is the fact that you don’t think it would benefit foetuses really doesn’t suggest that you’re not a misogynist.

  • julie-watkins

    I might believe Paul is “good to women” if he didn’t react with “you don’t get to chose who gets civil rights” lectures when we declare “it’s a choice not a child”. If he supported that right but said he was focusing on helping that percentage of women who choose abortions because they feel they have “no choice” (because of fear of losing a job, fear of health costs, etc. — women who would want to be mothers if they had better circumstances) then he could honestly claim he’s “for choice”. I think he’s trying to change the meaning of “choice” to mean “the right choice” to mean “choice not to be parents” (where “parent” happens at conception). To mean he’s being reasonable and people who say ZBEFs are not children are the extremists, not the reverse. I agree with you about “misogyny”, it’s “really galling” and “presuming”.

  • crowepps

    I agree, and the likelihood of violence being deployed seems to be modeled socially — the more violence is used and tolerated in a family and neighborhood, the more likely it is that members of that family and neighborhood will use violence.

     

    Some people, unfortunately, are not CAPABLE of controlling their use of violence but are violent in reflex to all stresses, in the home, at work, and in social situations, and those people need to be locked up where they can’t hurt others until through therapy they assemble some self-control.

     

    When someone claims that other people ‘make them get angry’ and therefore ’cause the violence’, and that the other people have to behave differently in order for the violence to stop, they admit that they are not CAPABLE of controlling their own violence.

  • crowepps

    Oh, I don’t think all of those things are intrinsic to ‘human nature’, but I do think the desire for things to be FAIR is – if I shear, spin and weave some fabric or grow some crops, then it’s MY fabric and MY crops created by MY work, and most people are going to massively resent having it ‘owned’ by ‘the collective’ and used by others who did not do the work.  “The Little Red Hen” is at base a rejection of Marxism before it ever existed.

     

    As for dominating others, read up on the other primates – I’m afraid that the impulse to social heirarchies and improving ones place in them through domination is indeed ‘human nature’, or perhaps ‘primate nature’.  Once the system is recognized, it can be improved through both law and social customs, but first we have to acknowledge that it exists.

  • crowepps

    Martin Luther King explained himself that his noviolence protest principles were based on those of Gandhi, but I think it would be a stretch to say that he was “ripping off Gandhi”.

  • crowepps

    I can understand why you are anti-choice considering your authoritarian leanings.  I don’t understand why you have to be strident about it, considering that you acknowledge yourself that stridency actually repells people from your opinions.

     

    You acknowledge that eliminating abortion would make things worse for society.  You talk a lot about how it is necessary anyway because it is a ‘human rights’ issue.  It’s really interesting how you can’t seem to recognize the incongruity of at the same time claiming there is a benefit for ‘human rights’ in an action AND at the same time saying it would make everyone, men, women and the children themselves, worse off.

     

    You do not seem to recognize that as a man past middle age who has had a vasectomy, what you are really arguing is that other people ought to make sacrifices to respect ‘human rights’.  Your being very, very sad at how tough that will be for those women, coupled with your insistence that they should WANT to sacrifice themselves, is very paternalistic. The underlying meme behind this argument is that the purpose for which women exist is to be used by men to reproduce and women’s misery doesn’t matter so long as men get the sons they want.

     

    Perhaps at least a little of your stridency arises from the fact that you personally don’t have anything at stake in the issue, because no matter how much pain is generated by your idea, it will never be inflicted on you.  It’s much easier to be loud in an insistence that someone ELSE be ‘moral’.

  • emma

    True re: the latter point. Still, denial on this one keeps me (somewhat) sane. ;-)

     

    To the former point – well, that’s kind of the point of socialism/communism. It’s based on the idea that, under capitalism, people don’t own the products of their labour; it’s the capitalist class that does. I guess in many ways, capitalism has been extremely successful in ideological terms, as many don’t even recognise it as an ideology, let alone one that serves mainly, if not entirely, political and economic elites. I guess that’s the measure of a truly successful ideology: to appear common sense; the natural order of things rather than an ideology.

  • crowepps

    It’s based on the idea that, under capitalism, people don’t own the products of their labour; it’s the capitalist class that does.

    The problem with this theory is that while people will agree with it in macro terms, they will not agree with it in micro — for instance, say I am a joiner and I work very hard. Over years of making furniture I routinely set aside a portion of the money I earn to reinvest in specialized tools and to build a shop in which to work. The accumulation of those tools and the building allows me to make more intricate and valuable items, but it also represents ‘capital’ and when I am old and retire I can sell all of them together and get those deferred earnings as cash to support me when I retire. That is ‘capitalism’.

     

    In macro, a person who is already wealthy, perhaps by inheriting the money, invests that money in a building and tools, buys necessary raw materials, and then hires people to run it and work it in. Those people get paid by the hour to do the work, and the factory owner first pays the costs of the raw materials and maintaining the physical plant, then pays the hourly wages out, and his ‘profit’ is anything that’s in excess of those costs.

     

    I can understand why people wouldn’t think it was ‘fair’ for him through an accident of birth to inherit gobs of money, and an inheritance tax could address that. I can understand why people wouldn’t htink it was ‘fair’ if he kept the wages unrealistically low to increase his profits, and a union could address that. If the profit is inordinate because there’s a huge difference between all the costs of production and the sale price, a graduated income tax could address that.

     

    But I really don’t see any ‘unfairness’ in a person deferring spending his money, doing without things in the present, and instead investing in a physical item which increases the value of his labor.

     

    A tailor who buys a sewing machine instead of continuing to sew by hand will actually be able to lower the cost of a suit of clothes to the customer while at the same time enabling himself to make more money by increasing his output. His investment in the machine is a ‘capital investment’ and it allows him to increase his income.

     

    Communism sounds like a great concept when the idea is that ‘the bloated rich will be stripped of their ill gotten gains amassed by oppressing the poor working man’, but when the tailor understands that he won’t be able to own that sewing machine anymore, it doesn’t sound that great. There is no reason for him to go without in the present and set aside money to buy it, because he knows he won’t get the benefits of it in the future.

  • wendy-banks

    “Some people, unfortunately, are not CAPABLE of controlling their use of violence but are violent in reflex to all stresses”

    I can help but agree with you society (in general) is far better off without those that cannot or will not control their violence towards others– Untill we can learn to ‘fix’ those whom are very violent (for what ever reason) towards others we all remain in danger. I certainly wish I could ‘turn down’ the dimmer switch on my tempermental makeup so I didn’t have to sit on my temper so much. I guess it’s better than lashing out– And going compleatly postal on some stupid momzer. *sigh* Maybe I should go back to meditating, or do bio-feedback or something. Well, it could be worse, I could be an alcoholic like my Mom was. Talk about mean drunk *sheesh* I couldn’t hold a candle to her on my worst day– She was the Queen of bitches, I’m only the Princess… I’ve learned to be brutally honest with myself– I’m saner that way.

    Funny ‘though, when she dealt with HER issues, she stopped drinking.

  • paul-bradford

    The problem is that the way you’ve phrased that implies that women’s wellbeing is important only insofar as it protects foetuses, rather than being a Good Thing in and of itself.

     

    Emma,

     

    Tell me whether or not you agree with me that justice for one is justice for all.  No one should be surprised that the suggestions I propose while I’m advocating for justice for the very young promote the well being of women.  They also, when you think about it, promote the well being of men and of the society in general.

     

    You’re not the first poster to refuse to ally with me over an issue that is clearly “Pro-Woman” on the grounds that I “really” only care about the issue because it coincides with benefit to the unborn.  Do you really need for me to tell you about the women’s issues that matter most to me?  Well, I will.

     

    The most important issue for me is girl’s and women’s education in the Third World, particularly in Central America, particularly in Honduras.  My absolutely, number one, favorite charity (and I donate every month) is the Marie Poussepin Center in Guaimaca.  Seventy girls, mostly from the rural mountains, attend.  They all come from areas where there is no schooling past sixth grade.  The center provides instruction for grades 7-12.  I hope you realize that the higher the grade, the fewer girls there are in attendance.

     

    Peasant girls from rural Honduras are expected to ‘help out’ their families once they reach age ten or eleven.  A daughter is considered an unpaid servant.  Most girls, by the time they reach age fifteen or sixteen, have already started having children (it’s a shortsighted scheme to flee the terrible situation of being a daughter, but it results in the terrible situation of being a wife).   Teenage motherhood traps families into intergenerational poverty.  The way to break out of that cycle of poverty is with education.  Not only do more educated women earn more money, but — more importantly — they delay having children because they’re in school while other girls their age are starting families.  The older you are when you start having children the more financially secure your family will be.  This is true all over the world.

     

    So, why do girls drop out at such a high rate?  They get enormous pressure from their families.  Mothers, particularly, have a hard time understanding why they should sacrifice their ‘helper’ for something as unnecessary as education.  Fathers, if they’re around at all, are often abusive — and not particularly interested in seeing their daughter get an education.  Last year, three girls from the Center were accepted into university.  This was a cause for great celebration!  It represents tremendous sacrifice on the part of the girls, on the part of their families and on the part of the school staff.  To get a girl educated there is to have to constantly encourage and assure the girl’s family that education is worth the sacrifice.

     

    Now, you may accuse me of not “really” caring about the girls.  Probably all I really care about is the fact that more education means fewer pregnancies which means less pressure to abort (and the abortion rate in Honduras is twice what it is in the USA).  The fact that educated Honduran women are healthier, happier, more productive, more connected to their world, more prosperous, less likely to get trapped into abusive relationships and better able to help the next generation find its way out of poverty probably doesn’t mean anything at all to me.  As long as fetuses survive from conception to birth I’m not at all interested in what happens to them after they’re born.  That’s what you think; but it’s not true.

     

    Girl’s education isn’t my only issue.  I’m also focused on the problem of maternal mortality, particularly in Africa and South Asia.  (I could go on about this issue because I’m passionate about it, but this post is already too long).  I’m also focused on the problem of domestic violence in the USA.  I can, and will, point out that addressing the problems of women’s education, women’s health and women’s safety lowers the abortion rate; but if I do you’ll accuse me of not “really” caring about women.

     

    I have been rightly accused of letting my emotions get the better of me in these discussion.  Obviously, I’ve done a less than perfect job of holding my emotions in check here.  I’m snarky and sarcastic and thoroughly unattractive.  Maybe I’d be less emotional and less defensive if I didn’t feel as if I were always being attacked.  I have a wife, a daughter, a mother and a sister and it galls me to be told by strangers that I don’t care enough about women.  If you really knew me you wouldn’t say such things.

     

     

  • paul-bradford

    You should know, you all should know, that you really have convinced me of some things.  You haven’t changed my mind about abortion, but I have learned some things about myself.  I’ve learned that I’m impatient and rude with people who disagree with me.  I’ve learned that I don’t listen.  I’ve learned that I lose my temper.

     

    This stinks for all of you who converse with me, but it also stinks for the unborn because I’m not nearly as effective an advocate as I would be if I weren’t crippled by personality defects.  I could just say, “To hell with it!” but that would be saying ‘to hell with ZBEF’s’.  I’m not ready to do that.

     

    Sigh.

     

    I really am convinced that the word ‘choice’ has a double meaning.  I’m Pro-Choice with regard to people choosing whether or not to have a child (or another child) and with regard to people making their own decisions about how to manage their health.  Those are aspects of choice that I can really get behind.

     

    You all use the word ‘choice’ in a different way.  It seems to me that you’re finessing your way out of having to make a decision on the issue of whether or not you support human rights for the unborn.  Instead of saying, “I don’t acknowledge human rights for people until they’re born”, you say, “Every woman can choose for herself whether or not the fetus inside her has rights or not.”  Can you understand why I think that’s a sneaky way of misusing the word ‘choice’?  To grant Person A the “choice” to decide whether or not to respect Person B’s human rights is THE SAME THING as denying Person B’s human rights.  You don’t have rights if your “rights” are dependent upon their coinciding with my interests. 

     

    Honestly, does this make sense to you?  To use ‘choice’ the way that abortion rights’ advocates use the word is to say that Pro-Choice means anti-rights (for the unborn) and that Pro-Rights means anti-choice.

     

    I say, “Upholding rights always calls for SOMEBODY to make a sacrifice.”  May I ask you to consider this assertion in light of a social justice issue that has nothing to do with gender or reproduction?  Choose an issue that matters a lot to you and tell me whether or not we have to make sacrifices to respect other people’s rights.  

     

    Let me choose the issue of immigration.  I’m all for immigrant rights — but I know that if immigrants’ rights are respected, natural born Americans will have to compete with new arrivals for jobs, for housing, for education, for government services.  The fact that sacrifice is required is (to my way of thinking) the reason that there’s so much anti-immigrant sentiment.

     

    Do you know what?  The Americans who have to make sacrifices to uphold immigrant rights aren’t in my set.  I’m more prosperous and better educated than the Americans who’ll have to make most of the sacrifices.  They could very well say to me, “It’s easy for you to be pro-immigrant.  Nobody’s going to cross the Mexican border and take your high paying job.  Nobody is going to move in from El Salvador to your neighborhood.”  What should I say?  They’re right!  I promote justice for immigrants but somebody else besides me has to make sacrifices.  Does this mean that I’ve been convinced that immigrants shouldn’t have rights?  Should I be in solidarity with immigrants, or should I be in solidarity with less prosperous Americans who are anti-immigrant?  I’d be interested in your ‘take’ on the issue.

  • julie-watkins

    Your immigration example doesn’t work for me as an analogy because I don’t believe ZBEFs are “people”.

    .

    I don’t believe people who do believe ZBEFs are “people” should try to have laws passed or try to socially influence pregnant women’s choices because that would be giving a “right” to ZBEFs that no other born person is given.

    .

    I get sick to weariness at how you and other misogynists believe it’s proper for you to try to influence (or legally force) oppressed peoples (women & the poor) to take on additional burdens becasue you see the world in black & white, when the example of nature is grey. [Attempting to] give life (give birth) is a gift not an obligation, or women and poor people are 2nd class. My choice (a pregnant woman’s choice) was/is whether or not to give a gift.

     

  • crowepps

    You all use the word ‘choice’ in a different way.  It seems to me that you’re finessing your way out of having to make a decision on the issue of whether or not you support human rights for the unborn.  Instead of saying, “I don’t acknowledge human rights for people until they’re born”, you say, “Every woman can choose for herself whether or not the fetus inside her has rights or not.”  Can you understand why I think that’s a sneaky way of misusing the word ‘choice’?

    And this is a sneaky way of framing the question because it presupposes that zygotes ARE entitled to ‘human rights’.  My position is not that “every woman can choose for herself whether or not the fetus…has rights” but rather than “every woman can choose for herself whether or not she will remain PREGNANT”.

     

    It’s your OPINON that the fetus has ‘human rights’ that are violated by her decision that she does not want to remain pregnant.  It’s your OPINION that the ‘human rights’ you believe the fetus has should outweigh the negative effects of the pregnancy on the ‘human rights’ of the woman herself.  You fail, pretty consistently, to recognize that your proposition to grant ‘human rights’ to the fetus can be effected only by VIOLATING the human rights of the woman herself.

     

    Your immigration example, while actually quite a stretch, is a fair analogy, except that you don’t take it to it’s logical conclusion.  In immigration there is a real difference in respecting the ‘human rights’ of a legal and an illegal immigrant, just as in pregnancy there is a real difference between a wanted and unwanted pregnancy, and an immense difference between a viable and non-viable fetus.

  • bj-survivor

    Okay, I only have time to address one point. More later.

    It seems to me that you’re finessing your way out of having to make a decision on the issue of whether or not you support human rights for the unborn.

    And here is yet ANOTHER example of your inability/deliberate refusal to listen. We have stated time and time and time again that unborn humans have the same rights as born humans. Which is to say that they have no right to commandeer the body of another human. To grant them this right gives them SPECIAL rights that no born human has, effectively removing rights from women and ONLY women. No born person may commandeer another’s body tissues – not even blood or bone marrow, the extraction of which results in far less risk of morbidity and mortality than pregnancy – even if the would-be recipient requires such to preserve his or her life, even if the would-be donor caused the condition for which the would-be recipient now needs those tissues. Not even death row inmates may be compelled to donate bodily tissues, though they have, of course, lost their right to life.

    In other words, no, we do not support institutionalized discrimination against women, which is what granting ZBEFs the right to commandeer the bodies of unwilling women is. We get that you and your fellow “pro-lifers” value ZBEFs over women and that you consider women to be nothing more than walking, talking incubators who have no rights to their very own bodies and who should be happy to mindlessly spawn regardless of their circumstances, regardless of whether or not they are able to complete a healthy pregnancy or provide for a child. We get that you and your ilk value QUANTITY of life over QUALITY of it. We get that you care not at all about born children, especially born women. We get that, Paul; we really do.

  • crowepps

    Maybe I’d be less emotional and less defensive if I didn’t feel as if I were always being attacked.

    If you could get over the notion that having someone disagree with you is equivalent to ‘being attacked’, that might help. 

  • sheena

    if you are male and you come here.

  • sheena

    honestly, thoroughly and carefully, you would see how they validly constitute attacks on male posters. It’s a sad shame! 

  • sheena

    Given his authoritarian leanings? That’s a blatant projection of something for which you have an obvious blindspot. Let me be the first to inform you.

     

     (Gasp!) Your negative stereotypy regarding this man and males in general is totally out of control.

     

    It’s embarrassing.

     

    [Is this what the women's movement has done to you?]

  • sheena

    that all you do here is reinforce your own presumptions, over and over and over and over (ad infinitum, ad nauseam)? Just sayin’.

  • bj-survivor

    Please show me where crowepps or any one of us has stereotyped ALL males as authoritarian and misogynist, because I must have missed that part. I and many pro-choicers have stereotyped forced-gestation proponents, male and female alike, as authoritarian misogynists. I used to believe that “pro-lifers” were sincere, if misguided, but have come to realize that they truly are misogynists, given their penchant for doing everything they can to ensure that women are denied any access to those things, such as access to contraceptives and comprehensive sexuality education, healthcare, and social benefits, that would enable them to prevent getting pregnant in the first place or to avoid financial destitution should they find themselves pregnant. And the rest completely ignore that forcing women to remain pregnant against their will is not only impossible (at least for women of means, as it is all over the world in every so-called “pro-life” country) but a violation of their right to make decisions regarding their health, their lives, and their bodies. And they have yet to convince me otherwise.

  • bj-survivor

    And this differs from what forced-gestation proponents do, how? Obviously, you expect us to capitulate our deeply held convictions that women are persons who have every right to make their own medical decisions without the interference of strangers or the government in favor of your morality which holds that women’s bodies are public property and have no function other than to produce babies and be good little help-meets. Sorry, Sheena, but that just ain’t gonna happen. You are free to manage your uterus, your life in any manner you like, but my and every other woman’s uterus is simply none of your business.

  • ahunt

    Credibility is earned, Sheena. Thought I would let you know.

  • bj-survivor

    Yes, if you are an over-privileged male who is used to female subservience, it will feel like an attack when those lowly wimminz *gasp* disagree with your naturally superior male intellect and morality.

  • ahunt

    Actually Sheena…what is embarrassing is your lack of familiarity with the posters here…most of whom actually know what they are talking about…

  • bj-survivor

    I am even *gasp* married to a male. And my best friends are male. They consider me a person, first and foremost, rather than a vagina/servant/incubator. And, yes, we disagree on many issues and it doesn’t shatter their egos or destroy our abiding friendship/love that I have the audacity to disagree with them.

  • bj-survivor

    My father loves me and he even has a gay friend or two that he cares about, but that doesn’t change the fact that he is both sexist and a homo-bigot. When I was 16 he told me I looked like a whore, in front of my good male friend. In reply, I told him to get out of my house and “Be careful what you say, dad, ‘cuz it just might come true.” As far as I was concerned, I did not have to take that abuse from him and if he wanted a relationship with me, he would have to apologize. Of course, he’s a MAN and, thus, is always right, so apology was out of the question. No skin off my back. I have enormous self-respect and I won’t tolerate that nonsense, nor will I agonize over “why won’t he approve of/love me – wah!”. I was perfectly willing to sever all relations with him. Just because we share some DNA does not mean I have to tolerate abuse. I didn’t speak to him for over 6 months. He finally came as close as he will ever come to offering an apology. I could see that having his daughter repudiate him pained him greatly, so I relented. I’m not such a hard-ass that I’m going to make someone who loves me grovel, but neither am I going to accept abusive behavior.

     

    He is as much a sexist and a homo-bigot as ever, but there are still women in his life that he loves.

  • emma

    Sheena, you might want to consider the possibility that there’s a bunch of us who’ve been around for a long time (crowepps, colleen, ahunt, paul and me, for instance) and who have interacted with one another regularly for a few years now. Unlike you, crowepps isn’t making assumptions about people with whom she’s unfamiliar.

     

     

  • emma

    You all use the word ‘choice’ in a different way. It seems to me that you’re finessing your way out of having to make a decision on the issue of whether or not you support human rights for the unborn. Instead of saying, “I don’t acknowledge human rights for people until they’re born”, you say, “Every woman can choose for herself whether or not the fetus inside her has rights or not.”

    Rubbish. I’ve said numerous times that zygotes and foetuses and blastocysts and whatnot aren’t people and aren’t entitled to human rights, and I’m not the only one who’s expressed that view. I’ve said before that I’d save my cat over a foetus of any species any day of the week. You don’t ever bother to address why a human zygote has more worth than a canine zygote by virtue of having human DNA, other than to tell us how much you, personally, like humans and ramblings about how we recognise that which is made from the same ‘stuff’.

     

    So, the decision I’m supposedly trying to finesse my way out of making is that no, I do not support human rights for zygotes, blastocysts, embryos or foetuses, in any way, shape or form. Some pregnant women will allow those organisms to continue to develop inside their bodies until the point at which those organisms no longer need to reside in women’s bodies in order to survive, at which point those organisms acquire the same human rights as every other human who doesn’t live in a womb. Those organisms do not, however, have a right to reside in women’s wombs.

  • emma

    Capitalism as a global economic system is failing the vast majority of the world’s population – which means it’s working exactly as it’s supposed to: enriching a very few at the expense of the many. I think it’s more like people like the idea that if they work hard, they’ll be able to save and buy and profit and so on, but for most people, that doesn’t ever happen.

     

    But yeah, honestly, I’m completely brain dead right now (seriously, I’m not sure I’d register an EEG reading) – I was driven entirely by irritation when responding to Paul earlier, and now I have to fall over (wrote essays for nine hours today, thus brain deadness). I’m sorry for being a crappy debater here.

  • crowepps

    I don’t have either the time or inclination to go dig the various statements out of the old posts, but Paul has stated several times that he finds it outrageous that we believe that different people can be allowed freedom of conscience and the right to act based upon their personal beliefs.

     

    He insists instead that some sort of societal consensus MUST be reached and that when an agreement on the ‘one right belief’ is reached, it should then be propagandized to the public and social pressure brought to bear to coerce everyone to conform.

     

    In addition, he has stated that people who have strong ProLife beliefs can’t be expected to ‘tolerate’ the fact that others believe something else and act on their beliefs.

     

    We all have to believe the same things.
    We all have to act the same way.
    People who do not believe and act correctly must be ‘educated’ until they do so.

     

    I think that can fairly be described as authoritarian leanings. A pure authoritarian, of course, would be threatening people with death penalties for nonconformity but since he’s trying to come across as ‘kinder and gentler’ here he stops short of that.

  • crowepps

    Male posters must be awfully wimpy if they feel that someone disagreeing with their IDEAS is attacking them because the opinions are held by males. There have been a number of (purportedly) female posters whose ideas I disagreed with as well.

     

    I don’t think I have disagreed with your ideas on the issues we’re here discussing, because so far as I am aware you have limited your participation here to critiquing the ideas and posting techniques of others without actually contributing anything to the discussion yourself.

     

    I don’t have any comprehensive prejudice against “male posters”. I do tend to be dismissive towards “self-appointed critics who lecture others condescendingly” but it isn’t my assumption that males are all part of that group or that all members of that group are male.

     

    You, for instance, judging entirely by your screen name (which is all we have to go on since you haven’t filled out your profile), seem to be female, and yet you’d fit right in.

  • paul-bradford

    Perhaps at least a little of your stridency arises from the fact that you personally don’t have anything at stake in the issue, because no matter how much pain is generated by your idea, it will never be inflicted on you.

     

    crowepps,

     

    Let me make sure I’ve got this right.  You’re suggesting that I advocate for social justice concerns only if other people are the ones to have to sacrifice.  Am I reading too much into your statement if I then conclude that I resist social justice concerns that do require me to make a sacrifice?  You’ve advanced a rather powerful comment about the depth and breadth of my hypocrisy!  I sound like the kind of person I wouldn’t like at all!!

     

    We will, I’m sure, take up the issue of my spiritual depravity some other time — but what about the social justice concern itself?  Three to four thousand people die every day in the United States in an abortion.  I say that that’s an enormous injustice.  What reason can you give to dispute that contention?  You do see, I hope, that a comment about me is beside the point.

  • paul-bradford

    I don’t believe ZBEFs are “people”.

     

    Julie,

     

    It’s more than obvious to me that, if you’re right about this, the age-old problem of unwanted pregnancy is solved.  That would be great for women and great for the people who love women.

     

    I wonder, though, how you arrived at the conclusion that ZBEF’s aren’t people.

  • paul-bradford

    Your immigration example, while actually quite a stretch, is a fair analogy, except that you don’t take it to it’s logical conclusion. In immigration there is a real difference in respecting the ‘human rights’ of a legal and an illegal immigrant, just as in pregnancy there is a real difference between a wanted and unwanted pregnancy, and an immense difference between a viable and non-viable fetus.

     

    crowepps,

     

    You’ve just demonstrated the fact that you and I can have a comprehensive discussion about respect for life, and respect for human rights without ever bringing up the topic of abortion.

     

    All immigrants have rights.  To respect the rights of ‘legal’ immigrants while disrespecting the rights of ‘illegal’ immigrants is to make an unjust distinction.  If an immigrant works in America, s/he ought to be protected by American labor laws.  If an immigrant procures housing in America, s/he ought to be protected by housing laws.  If an immigrant is accused of a crime in America, s/he ought to enjoy the legal protections that other accused people enjoy.  This isn’t happening, and it’s a violation of human rights, and human dignity.

     

    Similarly, a distinction between ‘wanted’ fetuses and ‘unwanted’ fetuses or a distinction between ‘viable’ fetuses and ‘non-viable’ fetuses is also unjust.

  • sistacrowepps

    Gee, I wonder why?

  • sistacrowepps

    I think you can infer something about a person from what she repeatedly and consistently posts. By the way, I am to infer that this is your private, personal comments section? It sure sounds like it!

  • paul-bradford

    Rubbish. I’ve said numerous times that zygotes and foetuses and blastocysts and whatnot aren’t people and aren’t entitled to human rights, and I’m not the only one who’s expressed that view.

     

    Emma,

     

    I love it!  We’ve dispensed with the misleading label of ‘choice’ and we’re discussing the matter that needs to be taken up which is the issue of human rights for the unborn.  I certainly do not dispute a woman’s right to choose whether or not to be pregnant.  The issue is about whether a fetus has a right to live.  You say no.  I say yes.  We agree about women’s rights.  We disagree about fetal rights.

     

    The issue of whether fetuses have rights will not be determined by the individual “choice” of individual pregnant women.  It will be determined by the society’s choice.  I have as much right to participate in the society’s discussion of the matter as anyone; and when we disagree, we have to focus our disagreement on the matter of whether or not to respect the humanity of the fetus — not about how that respect will impact the well being of women.

  • sistacrowepps

    I am sure you’re mistaken. This is an open comments section.

  • crowepps

    I think you can infer something about a person from what she repeatedly and consistently posts.

    You sure can.  The ‘making up mocking screennames’ thing is a sure tipoff.

  • ahunt

    Okay…yer done.

  • sistacrowepps

    It’s simply not true! What are you going to do? Call me a racist? A Klu Klux Klanner? A homophobe? A Capt Outrageous? What?

     

    http://dearwhitefeminists.wordpress.com/update/

  • crowepps

    All immigrants have rights. To respect the rights of ‘legal’ immigrants while disrespecting the rights of ‘illegal’ immigrants is to make an unjust distinction.

    No, it isn’t. Actually, to erase that distinction and provide to illegal immigrants exactly the same ‘rights’ to which legal immigrants are entitled, people who have spent years waiting while correctly following all the processes involved in immigration, is far more unjust. While I will agree with you that illegal immigrants have ‘inalienable rights’ to fair treatment, they do not have an ‘inalienable right’ to hurt others by illegally jumping themselves to the front of the line.

    If an immigrant works in America, s/he ought to be protected by American labor laws. If an immigrant procures housing in America, s/he ought to be protected by housing laws. If an immigrant is accused of a crime in America, s/he ought to enjoy the legal protections that other accused people enjoy.

    I absolutely agree with you that all of those rights should indeed be safeguarded for legal immigrants. The issue doesn’t come up for illegal immigrants, however, because they should not be working at jobs in America, should not be renting housing in America, and should be deported quickly when they are identified so that they can start the necessary process of becoming LEGAL immigrants.

  • sistacrowepps

    Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Mocking? No … I’ve been reading your posts for the last month now.

  • ahunt

    not about how that respect will impact the well being of women.

     

    …not about how that respect will impact the RIGHTS of women.

     

    Fixed that for you, Paul.

  • sistacrowepps
  • ahunt

    You are offensive.

  • sistacrowepps

    That this is an exclusive club? Yeah, right, …. so much for “inclusion”. It’s supposed to be an open comments section …. yes? No? None of you own it!

  • sistacrowepps

    You are the only one with the “my way or the highway” attitude. You are THE only one!

  • sistacrowepps

    I’ve read all posts, from beginning to end, and you haven’t done anything but bait and attack anything you see as opposition!!!!!

  • crowepps

    Let me make sure I’ve got this right.  You’re suggesting that I advocate for social justice concerns only if other people are the ones to have to sacrifice.

    That isn’t what I said.  I said it may be easier to be STRIDENT as an advocate when other people bear the pain.

    Am I reading too much into your statement if I then conclude that I resist social justice concerns that do require me to make a sacrifice?

    Yes, you are reading to much into it.  The far more common reaction to social justice concerns that will require personal sacrifice is to ignore them and get everyone to focus on the kind that put the burden on someone else.

      You’ve advanced a rather powerful comment about the depth and breadth of my hypocrisy!  I sound like the kind of person I wouldn’t like at all!!

    I don’t consider you a hypocite.  I’m sure you honestly and sincerely believe that your sentimentalized conception of conception justifies requiring women to stay pregnant when they don’t want to and have children they don’t want.

    We will, I’m sure, take up the issue of my spiritual depravity some other time –

    I don’t think you’re spiritually depraved.  I think you have the average beliefs of a religiously devout man who feels that the way to ensure ‘morality’ is to make sure the women are controlled, for their own good, because they can’t possibly understand how wrong it is of them to not be willing to sacrifice themselves to be mothers.

    but what about the social justice concern itself?  Three to four thousand people die every day in the United States in an abortion.  I say that that’s an enormous injustice.

    And you are absolutely entitled to say that, just as I am entitled to disagree with you.

    What reason can you give to dispute that contention?

    Apparently we do not have the same definition of justice.  Justice is “the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals under the law”

     

    In my view, a woman is entitled to make the decision as to whether she wishes to share her body, bear the metabolic load with her organs, and take the physical and mental health risks of continuing a pregnancy.  In instances where the woman decides she does not, the BZEF involved shares the fate of the far more numerous BZEF which are spontaneously aborted or stillborn.

     

    As I understand your view, the presence of a BZEF obligates the woman to share her body, bear the metabolic load with her organs, and take the physical and mental health risks, which I believe reduces pregnant women to an inferior, subject class with fewer rights and more obligations than anyone else because no other person is ever required to involuntarily provide support even remotely approaching that level.

    You do see, I hope, that a comment about me is beside the point.

    If you did not keep bringing up what a terrific, wonderful, charitable person you are as an argument to support your positions, perhaps people would stop pointing out that describing oneself as a terrific, wonderful, charitable person is not actually a convincing argument in support of ones beliefs.  It is possible to be a terrific, wonderful, charitable person and still be wrong.

  • crowepps

    Now I have those great Queen songs from Highlander running through my head — I’ll have to go home and dig out that CD.

  • ahunt

    No…it means that I am seeking to have you removed from the board, something I have never done before.

  • sistacrowepps

    Not one of you is attempting to reason with anybody outside your clique. It is very blatant to the rest of us. [Now what are you going to do? Ask me what I mean by us? Tell me you're not sure what my point is?]

  • sistacrowepps

    ahunt.

  • ahunt

    Far?

     

    Spew!

  • sistacrowepps

    Forget this, did ya?

    visionary ideas

    Did you notice that (most) of the people from the anti-misandrony sites seem to be reading from the exsact same script? I mean really, their coments are mostly the same– Only the by-line is different. Clones? *hmm* I wonder…

    Submitted by Wendy Banks on April 8, 2010 – 11:45pm.”
  • ahunt

    heeeeere we are, born to be kings. We’re the princes of the uneeeeeeverse!

  • sistacrowepps

    Small typo made into a big thing. Snicker, snicker!

  • sistacrowepps

    And , NO, I don’t see a script or anything clone-ish about them.

  • crowepps

    I was going to quilt tonight, but now I’m going to have to dig around and find that box with the VCR tapes –

     

  • ahunt

    My lust for Adrian Paul is secondary only to the equal parts of passion for Sidney Poitier, Gregory Peck and Paul Newman.

  • crowepps

    Okay, you can have Paul Newman but I get dibs on Sean Connery

  • ahunt

    Ohhhhhhhhhhh.

     

    Okay, but only because I get Patrick McGoohan.

  • sistacrowepps

    You think you can dish it out and never have to take it.

  • crowepps

    Actually, I think Sean Connery is worth Patrick McGoohan AND a ‘player to be named later’.

    Maybe TWO!

  • rebellious-grrl

    I agree with you and completely back you up.

  • ahunt

    Clearly…you never saw “The Three Llives Of Tomasina,” crowepps!

  • julie-watkins

    To the audience: I apologize for the amount of bolding in this post, but Paul’s not listening again, *sigh*

    Paul, you wrote:

    It’s more than obvious to me that, if you’re right about [ZBEFs are not "people"], the age-old problem of unwanted pregnancy is solved.  That would be great for women and great for the people who love women. I wonder, though, how you arrived at the conclusion that ZBEF’s aren’t people.

    but I wrote:

    I don’t believe people who do believe ZBEFs are “people” should try to have laws passed or try to socially influence pregnant women’s choices because that would be giving a “right” to ZBEFs that no other born person is given.

    so in usual Paul-speak [ie, Red is Bue, Red is Blue] you take the opposite of what I wrote.

    The debate does not hinge on if ZBEF is a person.

    The debate hinges on whether a pregnant woman has the right to choose whether or not remain pregnant. [Attempting to] give birth [give life] is a gift not an obligation.

    Why do continue to write as if I’ve agreed that’s what the debate hinges on when I conceded no such thing?

  • crowepps

    You’re right, I don’t believe I ever have. Will put it on my list!

  • ahunt

    Snerk…Disney’s version of “Tamed/Made Human…by the love of an emancipated woman, with adorable Haley Mills as the catalyst.

     

    When “The Prisoner” came along…Patrick disturbed my little girl dreams.

  • crowepps

    I had a real ‘thing’ for James Drury in The Virginian. Amazing how effectively those hormones that start flooding us at puberty are at reprogramming our brains.

  • ahunt

    Yummy.

     

    My sister was all about Trampas…

     

    Not me!

  • crowepps

    a distinction between ‘viable’ fetuses and ‘non-viable’ fetuses is also unjust.

    I missed this the first time around.  Are you seriously asserting that the fact that a fetus is missing, just for instance, it’s kidney or heart or HEAD is totally irrelevant to whether the woman should continue the pregnancy and continue to ENLARGE this disaster before it’s born?

     

    Golly, I’m just not sure what to say.

     

    Is it also ‘unjust’ to make a distinction between a live fetus and a DEAD one? 

  • sistacrowepps

    That’s a complete nonsequitur. A very smug one I might add.

  • teedub

    Long time lurker here but I’ve just got to say I 3rd this motion and have already reported many of capt…oops…sheena…..oops again, sista’s blatant personal insults.

  • colleen

    ahunt,

    I completely agree. The admins would have to ban the IP address(es).

  • captcourageous

    Oh, I doubt that very much ahunt!

  • rebellious-grrl

    Thanks TeeDub

  • wendy-banks

    I LOVE Queen. May Freddy Mercury R.I.P.

  • wendy-banks

    Sean Connery has a hot voice! But I have to have Liam Neeson! Yummy! And Ian MacGregor– I love men in kilts. And Butch Hartman the mind behind Danny Phantom and The Fairly Odd Parents. And a actor as well. Blue eyes, black hair *squee*.

    Cute guys, collect them all!

  • squirrely-girl

    Really? I wish I could pretend that arguing accomplishes something but it rarely does. 

     

    Why can’t people engage in polite, intelligent discourse any more? Even if you have disdain for an alternate view, your argument is enhanced by real debate. And simple courtesy has never hurt anyone…

  • saltyc

    In instances where the woman decides she does not, the BZEF involved shares the fate of the far more numerous BZEF which are spontaneously aborted or stillborn.

    See Paul? You said before that you care just as much about the fertilized eggs “who” fail to implant, the spontaneous abortions, etc, as you do about induced abortions, yet you still talk about whatever number of “people” who die in America due to women’s intentional abortions, while failing to mention all the other “people” who tragically “die” in utero due to other causes. You only spend time and energy on induced abortions, not spontaneous abortions and the only reason I can see is your opinion that women are incubators, that pregnancy us not an act of giving, but as given as oxygen in the atmosphere.