Not sure what was in that deleted post, but who's the one missing the point here?
The anti-choice movement is all about inflicting their views (whether religiously motivated or not) on the rest of the known universe. That's pretty much hand-in-hand with a lack of trust of women. So, yes, it's very much at the crux of the abortion debate. And not just in this country, where you've got the Religious Right trying to cram their views down other people's throats. Look to countries where things are the other way around--forced sterilization and/or abortion, and that's very much about not trusting women as well.
And for the record, one can be personally against abortion, but not anti-choice. That's one of the reasons why pro-life/pro-choice is a false duality.
Sorry if this comes off as a little belligerent, but I think your above post is trivializing the issue by casting it in terms of sexism.
Sorry if this comes off as a little belligerent, but I think your above post is trivializing the issue by casting it in terms of sexism.
It's interesting to me how differently you read her post. I had interpreted her sentence, I have decided to expand the topic., to mean she would be talking about more than pro-life/pro-choice, and the progression of topics wouldn't be so linear (if that's the right word?). I had read the whole thing as "as a woman, here's everything on my mind today".
I don't believe we know one another, so here's a bit of background to put my response in context. I'm a "future dead white male American" who spent about four or five years somewhat active in the pro-choice movement, though that was more than a decade ago. I've been called a "whoremonger" by the campus preacher while passing out free condoms, been accused of not being able to truly understand the pro-choice movement because I don't have a uterus, and driven a complete stranger to the next state because she couldn't get an appointment near home. So I take the issue just a little bit personally
( ... )
Thank you for taking the time to explain. It does makes sense, knowing more about your background, how we could read the same words in such different ways. My perspective is that of a white, American woman; most likely, having that in common with j00, I "read" things in the post that aren't actually written. Btw, as a regional dialect quirk - "expand a topic" has a different meaning to me than "expand [upon]" a topic. Thanks, Central PA.
Regardless, learning more about different perspectives is important to me, so I appreciate your response. It made me a bit sad, though, and I pass along my apologies for all angry feminists who poison the well with their narrow-mindedness :( I'm assuming these individuals were all women - I've never personally met a male feminist who was that vitriolic. [I know there is debate about whether men can be feminist, but in my book, yes absolutely they can].
I wouldn't really say that my own well has been poisoned. Perhaps somewhat ironically, one thing I've learned from said angry feminists (yes, all women womyn) is that I don't feel the need to have my actions/views validated by the opposite sex, or the same sex for that matter, in order to boost my self-worth. I'm going to keep doing my thing, and if somebody says my genitalia precludes me from being a feminist, that's her problem, not mine.
Fortunately, the majority of feminists I've met are more level-headed. So there's no need to apologize on behalf of the vitriolic asshats, but the sentiment is appreciated.
"I've met more than my share of angry feminists who just don't get that last point, so again I take it a little personally."
This is something I've noticed getting read into a lot of the blog comments on this type of blog I've seen--it seems like the long history of well-poisoning from both sides is causing a lot more vitriol in arguments than the actual words posted are warranting.
Agreed. I think this is also a function of the essentially anonymous communication that occurs in just about any online environment. There are a lot of straw men floating around the internet.
I am a man and I fully agree with you about this post: "Sorry if this comes off as a little belligerent, but I think your above post is trivializing the issue by casting it in terms of sexism.
It's interesting to me how differently you read her post. I had interpreted her sentence, I have decided to expand the topic., to mean she would be talking about more than pro-life/pro-choice, and the progression of topics wouldn't be so linear (if that's the right word?). I had read the whole thing as "as a woman, here's everything on my mind today"."
When you can point to shit like this happening to men, maybe you'll have a point.
Face facts, man. There are a lot of motherfuckers in this world who want women under their thumb and out of the way. There are a lot of motherfuckers in this world, well beyond the sane abortion debate (see El Salvador's laws making it illegal to surgically correct tubal and ectopic "pregnancies" until the woman is literally bleeding out in many cases, or for that matter the assholes in this country who fight for their right to not give out legally prescribed birth control) who think a woman's right to her own body ends at her uterus. This is not the about something as idiotic as breast cancer vs. testicular cancer--this is a legitimate and awful difference in the way men and women are treated.
Not correcting an ectopic pregnancy is just stupid. Its not pro-life; the "baby" either dies on its own or takes the mother with it. There is no middle ground on that, we do not have the technology to fix this. If you can only save one, the logical thing is to save that one.
I really don't think El Salvador was using any form of logic when setting the policy about ectopic pregnancies. My guess would be, it's based out of a religious view.
(The comment has been removed)
...Oh, it was my point zooming right over your head. Guess I should have told people to duck.
Reply
The anti-choice movement is all about inflicting their views (whether religiously motivated or not) on the rest of the known universe. That's pretty much hand-in-hand with a lack of trust of women. So, yes, it's very much at the crux of the abortion debate. And not just in this country, where you've got the Religious Right trying to cram their views down other people's throats. Look to countries where things are the other way around--forced sterilization and/or abortion, and that's very much about not trusting women as well.
And for the record, one can be personally against abortion, but not anti-choice. That's one of the reasons why pro-life/pro-choice is a false duality.
Sorry if this comes off as a little belligerent, but I think your above post is trivializing the issue by casting it in terms of sexism.
Reply
It's interesting to me how differently you read her post. I had interpreted her sentence, I have decided to expand the topic., to mean she would be talking about more than pro-life/pro-choice, and the progression of topics wouldn't be so linear (if that's the right word?). I had read the whole thing as "as a woman, here's everything on my mind today".
Reply
Reply
Regardless, learning more about different perspectives is important to me, so I appreciate your response. It made me a bit sad, though, and I pass along my apologies for all angry feminists who poison the well with their narrow-mindedness :( I'm assuming these individuals were all women - I've never personally met a male feminist who was that vitriolic. [I know there is debate about whether men can be feminist, but in my book, yes absolutely they can].
Reply
Fortunately, the majority of feminists I've met are more level-headed. So there's no need to apologize on behalf of the vitriolic asshats, but the sentiment is appreciated.
Reply
This is something I've noticed getting read into a lot of the blog comments on this type of blog I've seen--it seems like the long history of well-poisoning from both sides is causing a lot more vitriol in arguments than the actual words posted are warranting.
Reply
Reply
"Sorry if this comes off as a little belligerent, but I think your above post is trivializing the issue by casting it in terms of sexism.
It's interesting to me how differently you read her post. I had interpreted her sentence, I have decided to expand the topic., to mean she would be talking about more than pro-life/pro-choice, and the progression of topics wouldn't be so linear (if that's the right word?). I had read the whole thing as "as a woman, here's everything on my mind today"."
Reply
Face facts, man. There are a lot of motherfuckers in this world who want women under their thumb and out of the way. There are a lot of motherfuckers in this world, well beyond the sane abortion debate (see El Salvador's laws making it illegal to surgically correct tubal and ectopic "pregnancies" until the woman is literally bleeding out in many cases, or for that matter the assholes in this country who fight for their right to not give out legally prescribed birth control) who think a woman's right to her own body ends at her uterus. This is not the about something as idiotic as breast cancer vs. testicular cancer--this is a legitimate and awful difference in the way men and women are treated.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment