The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Please don't mention the evangelicals. Most of them voted for Trump, and those who did lost any right to complain about how "immoral" america is.

How so?

They voted for a guy who cheated on all of his wives unrepentantly. They need to be quiet about "oh no the gays" when they voted for the degeneracy candidate, half of whose friends are child molesters.

[Sundiata]

How so?

They voted for a guy who cheated on all of his wives unrepentantly. They need to be quiet about "oh no the gays" when they voted for the degeneracy candidate, half of whose friends are child molesters.

Half? Ew.

[Fahran]

I mean they basically do. It's like saying "are you suggesting people who don't believe in life vests support letting people drown?"

Americans really love their distinction between positive and negative rights, but, even in the absence of that somewhat dubious distinction, you're still discussing separate policies that are almost entirely unrelated. Pro-life is just a touch catchier than anti-murder though, and is probably less loaded. Hence why people who believe that personhood begins at conception use pro-life.

[Fahran]

In the case of American pro lifers I think it's less 'Iet's cause human suffering' and more 'let's punish people for having unprotected sex with making them have children because that's what the Bible says!!!'

There's a methodical logic to it.

I think this is less than charitable given the self-described position of pro-lifers. It's also not as though they have to be secretive about misogyny in the same way that racists have to be secretive about racism. People on both sides of the political aisle often make outright sexist remarks on a routine basis - whether they're describing Sarah Palin as a bimbo or calling Nancy Pelosi a bitch.

[Kowani]

In the case of American pro lifers I think it's less 'Iet's cause human suffering' and more 'let's punish people for having unprotected sex with making them have children because that's what the Bible says!!!'

There's a methodical logic to it.

I think this is less than charitable given the self-described position of pro-lifers. It's also not as though they have to be secretive about misogyny in the same way that racists have to be secretive about racism. People on both sides of the political aisle often make outright sexist remarks on a routine basis - whether they're describing Sarah Palin as a bimbo or calling Nancy Pelosi a bitch.

I mean
It’s probably not the way they think of it
But it is, essentially, the inevitable result of the policy they espouse
Which is, I think, far more important

[Esheaun Stroakuss]

I'll let George handle this one:

They’re not pro-life. You know what they are? They’re anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don’t like them. They don’t like women. They believe a woman’s primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

[Fahran]

I'll let George handle this one:

They’re not pro-life. You know what they are? They’re anti-woman. Simple as it gets, anti-woman. They don’t like them. They don’t like women. They believe a woman’s primary role is to function as a brood mare for the state.

Again, this is super uncharitable and doesn't really work to explain the motives of women who support the pro-life movement. One could just as easily retort that "They're not pro-choice. You know what they are? They're pro-murder. Simple as it gets, pro-murder." You're not really engaging with the fundamental philosophical underpinnings when you do this. You're just accusing them of believing and doing what they do because they're hateful. At that point, they have no reason to debate with you because you're not operating in good faith and believe they're ogres.

[Fahran]

I mean
It’s probably not the way they think of it
But it is, essentially, the inevitable result of the policy they espouse
Which is, I think, far more important

And, as I said, the inevitable result of the alternative, in their eyes, is murder. Most people on either side don't really envision their own view that uncharitably though. The real issue is that there's a fundamental disagreement about the nature of personhood and basic rights. You don't have to hate someone to disagree about where those lines are drawn. It's much easier to believe someone is wrong than to believe that someone is simply hateful for no sane reason, and we should offer the benefit of the doubt until we no longer can.

And I'll reiterate that I'm not a diehard on this issue. I just dislike a lot of the venom I see being hurled at pro-life people and the lack of fair characterizations of the arguments they routinely make. It's gotten to the point that a lot of people won't even bring the subject up anymore because of the immediate accusations that they hate women. It hasn't changed anyone's mind. Oddly enough, a lot of those people are women and otherwise pretty pro-women's rights. My opinion is that it's just stifled conversation and is, as I said, not really a moral or logical way to carry on a debate. You can't talk to someone who is going to assume you're an awful person regardless of what you say.

I didn't really have an intention in debating abortion as an issue on the whole, but I thought I'd point out the problems I've observed in some pro-choice arguments - a lot of which are low-effort gotchas. I tend to advocate the practical angle, emphasize medical necessities, or get into discussions about personhood and rights in these conversations because they're more fair, actually engage with the argument presented, and can sway some people's opinons somewhat on the issue from being super hardline pro-lifers.

More to address your point, I object to the use of the word misogyny in this context because the motivation doesn't appear to be an ingrained prejudice against women in most cases and because, while pro-life policies to negatively impact women more so than men, it might well be more accurate to describe them in a way that emphasizes impact rather than underlying attitude. Patriarchy perhaps. Since one does not have to hate women to reinforce patriarchal conventions and mores.

[Kowani]

I mean
It’s probably not the way they think of it
But it is, essentially, the inevitable result of the policy they espouse
Which is, I think, far more important

And, as I said, the inevitable result of the alternative, in their eyes, is murder. Most people on either side don't really envision their own view that uncharitably though. The real issue is that there's a fundamental disagreement about the nature of personhood and basic rights. You don't have to hate someone to disagree about where those lines are drawn. It's much easier to believe someone is wrong than to believe that someone is simply hateful for no sane reason, and we should offer the benefit of the doubt until we no longer can.

And I'll reiterate that I'm not a diehard on this issue. I just dislike a lot of the venom I see being hurled at pro-life people and the lack of fair characterizations of the arguments they routinely make. It's gotten to the point that a lot of people won't even bring the subject up anymore because of the immediate accusations that they hate women. It hasn't changed anyone's mind. Oddly enough, a lot of those people are women and otherwise pretty pro-women's rights. My opinion is that it's just stifled conversation and is, as I said, not really a moral or logical way to carry on a debate. You can't talk to someone who is going to assume you're an awful person regardless of what you say.

hm
from my perspective, what they believe it to be is less important than the policy they espouse to actually prevent that thing
in much the same way that a person who is heavily pro-police may support them because of their perceived effect on crime, but reject any other possible solution to the issue of crime, so do most people who consider themselves "pro-life" reject almost any other policy that would reduce the number of abortions
that is, in hamlet's words, the rub
you don't get to claim to be pro-life if you reject every attempt to prevent abortion from happening in the first place except for criminalizing it
you're just anti-abortion

[Fahran]

hm
from my perspective, what they believe it to be is less important than the policy they espouse to actually prevent that thing

That's a fair distinction and one I tried to address last minute. The issue with the term misogyny, which is the one that I believe was employed, is that it doesn't neatly align with the term systemic racism in how it's used - either in academic or in political circles. It almost always entails hostile, socially constraining, or dismissive attitudes about women. In the case of pro-life activists, one could describe them as reinforcing patriarchy by defining personhood and rights as they do since it disproportionately disadvantages women as a class. But the philosophical arguments they use to get there, on the whole, don't strike me as misogynistic.

in much the same way that a person who is heavily pro-police may support them because of their perceived effect on crime, but reject any other possible solution to the issue of crime, so do most people who consider themselves "pro-life" reject almost any other policy that would reduce the number of abortions
that is, in hamlet's words, the rub
you don't get to claim to be pro-life if you reject every attempt to prevent abortion from happening in the first place except for criminalizing it
you're just anti-abortion

Pro-life, much like pro-choice, is a neat little slogan/label. It doesn't really work if you move beyond the immediate context of abortion in a lot of cases. There are plenty of choices pro-choice folks won't accept for instance. As for the police example, see above. Systemic racism isn't really tantamount to misogyny - which is the word that got me worked up in the first place. Patriarchy might work best. Sexism could potentially work if we defined it more narrowly. The problem with a lot of these words is that meaning isn't consistent across audiences. Without spelling out specific meaning, you might well be accused of an ad hominem. Even more so because some people on one side are clearly using them as an ad hominem.

[Istoreya]

There are plenty of choices pro-choice folks won't accept for instance.

And what choices would those be?

[Kowani]

hm
from my perspective, what they believe it to be is less important than the policy they espouse to actually prevent that thing

That's a fair distinction and one I tried to address last minute. The issue with the term misogyny, which is the one that I believe was employed, is that it doesn't neatly align with the term systemic racism in how it's used - either in academic or in political circles. It almost always entails hostile, socially constraining, or dismissive attitudes about women. In the case of pro-life activists, one could describe them as reinforcing patriarchy by defining personhood and rights as they do since it disproportionately disadvantages women as a class. But the philosophical arguments they use to get there, on the whole, don't strike me as misogynistic.

in much the same way that a person who is heavily pro-police may support them because of their perceived effect on crime, but reject any other possible solution to the issue of crime, so do most people who consider themselves "pro-life" reject almost any other policy that would reduce the number of abortions
that is, in hamlet's words, the rub
you don't get to claim to be pro-life if you reject every attempt to prevent abortion from happening in the first place except for criminalizing it
you're just anti-abortion

Pro-life, much like pro-choice, is a neat little slogan/label. It doesn't really work if you move beyond the immediate context of abortion in a lot of cases. There are plenty of choices pro-choice folks won't accept for instance. As for the police example, see above. Systemic racism isn't really tantamount to misogyny - which is the word that got me worked up in the first place. Patriarchy might work best. Sexism could potentially work if we defined it more narrowly. The problem with a lot of these words is that meaning isn't consistent across audiences. Without spelling out specific meaning, you might well be accused of an ad hominem. Even more so because some people on one side are clearly using them as an ad hominem.

ugh
terminology debate
bo-ring

anyway!
yeah, I'd agree that patriarchy is probably the best term to describe the position that comes from holding pro-life positions on a societal level (though that word has its own unfortunate cultural connotations that a lot of them would also probably disagree with)

[Suomalainem]

THERE IS NO DAMN PRIORITY FOR A CERTAIN GENDER! It and be swapped around left and right, the female doesn't always have to be the one doing all the chores! Anyone who thinks "that's a man's job" or "that's a woman's job" IS COMPLETEY BONKERS

[The Blaatschapen]

There are plenty of choices pro-choice folks won't accept for instance.

And what choices would those be?

Going for abortion because the foetus doesn't have the (assigned) gender you want.

[Thepeopl]

And what choices would those be?

Going for abortion because the foetus doesn't have the (assigned) gender you want.

Going for abortion because the foetus doesn't have the hair colour you want

[Des-Bal]

"Are you suggesting that people who don't support providing people with access to food think it's okay to let people starve?" Yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

I have no idea what you quoted me then quoted and responded to an imaginary person instead

[Istoreya]

"Are you suggesting that people who don't support providing people with access to food think it's okay to let people starve?" Yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

I have no idea what you quoted me then quoted and responded to an imaginary person instead

Sorry, what does this say?

[Suomalainem]

Bro did you hear what I said?!

[Stellar Colonies]

Btw there is an abortion thread.

[Wink Wonk We Like Stonks]

Going for abortion because the foetus doesn't have the (assigned) gender you want.

Going for abortion because the foetus doesn't have the hair colour you want

Going for abortion because the foetus doesn't have the species you want

[Fahran]

There are plenty of choices pro-choice folks won't accept for instance.

And what choices would those be?

Do men have the choice not to pay child support for their offspring? Should citizens have the choice to purchase an AK-47 without a license? When you change the topic of discussion, you're bound to make a label like that ridiculous. That's what you're doing when you move pro-life from being a label that describes a person's stance on abortion to one about their position on social welfare. You're not addressing the actual argument at that point. You're making a gotcha statement that doesn't logically follow in the strictest sense, especially not based on the premises they've presented. Plus... even if they were in favor of social welfare... your position on them wouldn't change. It's better to point out the actual cause of the disagreement instead of accusing them of being insincere or of hating women.

[Fahran]

Going for abortion because the foetus doesn't have the (assigned) gender you want.

I mean a woman does have the right to do that in a lot of places and should have that right theoretically if we do not consider social obligations or the common good more important than her right to choose. The easiest pro-choice argument, as I have stated before, is that a fetus isn't a person and doesn't have rights prior to developing a certain cognitive capacity. If that's argued, I don't see why the gender (or probable gender) of the fetus should matter. No one's rights are being violated.

[Suriyanakhon]

And what choices would those be?

Going for abortion because the foetus doesn't have the (assigned) gender you want.

Just assign them the gender you want them to have.

Because that never goes wrong.

[Fahran]

ugh
terminology debate
bo-ring

I can bully you for your Spanish more if you want entertainment. Though rocks in glass houses and all that.

anyway!
yeah, I'd agree that patriarchy is probably the best term to describe the position that comes from holding pro-life positions on a societal level (though that word has its own unfortunate cultural connotations that a lot of them would also probably disagree with)

Probably, but I don't really think that matters too much so long as the terms are well-defined to set parameters for conversations, discussions, and debates. Once they're defined, we can bring in logical inference/extrapolation and empirical data to demonstrate one point or another.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

If that's argued, I don't see why the gender (or probable gender) of the fetus should matter. No one's rights are being violated.

Distasteful, but agreed. ‘For any reason’ means ‘for any reason’.

I don’t think systematically gender-biased abortions will be that much of a social problem in most high-income democracies, though. Even in relatively social-conservative countries like the US.

Maybe in Japan.