NATION

PASSWORD

The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Borderlands of Rojava
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10519
Founded: Jul 27, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby Borderlands of Rojava » Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:57 am

The Emerald Legion wrote:
Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
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.
Last edited by Borderlands of Rojava on Tue Jan 19, 2021 7:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Leftist, commie and Antifa Guy. Democratic Confederalist, Anti-racist

"The devil is out there. Hiding behind every corner and in every nook and cranny. In all of the dives, all over the city. Before you lays an entire world of enemies, and at day's end when the chips are down, we're a society of strangers. You cant walk by someone on the street anymore without crossing the road to get away from their stare. Welcome to the Twilight Zone. The land of plague and shadow. Nothing innocent survives this world. If it can't corrupt you, it'll kill you."

User avatar
Sundiata
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6599
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Tue Jan 19, 2021 8:28 am

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
The Emerald Legion wrote:
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.
Gender: Male
Religion: Catholic (Opus Dei)
Politics: Solidarity (Catholic Social Teaching)
Economics: Rerum Novarum (The Encyclical)
Alignment: Lawful Good

"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva (Founder of Opus Dei)

User avatar
Fahran
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13628
Founded: Nov 13, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Fahran » Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:23 pm

Borderlands of Rojava wrote: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.
Last edited by Fahran on Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The conservative, nationalistic, gun-toting Jewish Southern belle that your momma warned you about.

User avatar
Fahran
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13628
Founded: Nov 13, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Fahran » Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:25 pm

Agarntrop wrote: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.
The conservative, nationalistic, gun-toting Jewish Southern belle that your momma warned you about.

User avatar
Kowani
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34353
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Tue Jan 19, 2021 12:50 pm

Fahran wrote:
Agarntrop wrote: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
read your own damn sources
Bahia Roja wrote:I think Kowani shared that news a few hours ago.
Kowáni's big list of sources, Be Kowáni for a day!
Headline of the day: Chad opposition leader’s home raided by state police, several family members killed
“Dale limona, mujer, que no hay en la vida ná, como la pena de ser, ciego en Graná”

User avatar
Esheaun Stroakuss
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1989
Founded: May 23, 2015
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Esheaun Stroakuss » Wed Jan 20, 2021 12:57 am

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.
For: Socialism, Democracy, LGBT+, BLM, Freedom of Speech, Marxist Theory, Atheism, Freedom of/from Religion, Universal Healthcare
Against: Religious Fundamentalism, Nationalism, Fascism/Nazism, Authoritarianism, TERFs, Tankies, Neoliberalism, Conservatism, Capitalism

Esheaun Stroakuss is leaderless.

User avatar
Fahran
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13628
Founded: Nov 13, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Fahran » Wed Jan 20, 2021 1:55 am

Esheaun Stroakuss wrote: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.
The conservative, nationalistic, gun-toting Jewish Southern belle that your momma warned you about.

User avatar
Fahran
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13628
Founded: Nov 13, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Fahran » Wed Jan 20, 2021 1:58 am

Kowani wrote: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.
Last edited by Fahran on Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:15 am, edited 4 times in total.
The conservative, nationalistic, gun-toting Jewish Southern belle that your momma warned you about.

User avatar
Kowani
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34353
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:15 am

Fahran wrote:
Kowani wrote: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
read your own damn sources
Bahia Roja wrote:I think Kowani shared that news a few hours ago.
Kowáni's big list of sources, Be Kowáni for a day!
Headline of the day: Chad opposition leader’s home raided by state police, several family members killed
“Dale limona, mujer, que no hay en la vida ná, como la pena de ser, ciego en Graná”

User avatar
Fahran
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13628
Founded: Nov 13, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Fahran » Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:21 am

Kowani wrote: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.

Kowani wrote: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.
Last edited by Fahran on Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:23 am, edited 2 times in total.
The conservative, nationalistic, gun-toting Jewish Southern belle that your momma warned you about.

User avatar
Istoreya
Diplomat
 
Posts: 862
Founded: Dec 13, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Istoreya » Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:25 am

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

And what choices would those be?

User avatar
Kowani
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34353
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:29 am

Fahran wrote:
Kowani wrote: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.

Kowani wrote: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)
read your own damn sources
Bahia Roja wrote:I think Kowani shared that news a few hours ago.
Kowáni's big list of sources, Be Kowáni for a day!
Headline of the day: Chad opposition leader’s home raided by state police, several family members killed
“Dale limona, mujer, que no hay en la vida ná, como la pena de ser, ciego en Graná”

User avatar
Suomalainem
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Dec 27, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Suomalainem » Wed Jan 20, 2021 2:30 am

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

User avatar
The Blaatschapen
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 57999
Founded: Antiquity
Anarchy

Postby The Blaatschapen » Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:00 am

Istoreya wrote:
Fahran wrote: 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.
Forumer mod, now a rocker mocker. Thank you Ringo
Five blank lines will now follow





This is the 8th line. If your sig is longer than mine, it is too long.

User avatar
Thepeopl
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1923
Founded: Feb 24, 2019
Democratic Socialists

Postby Thepeopl » Wed Jan 20, 2021 3:49 am

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Istoreya wrote: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

User avatar
Des-Bal
Post Czar
 
Posts: 30469
Founded: Jan 24, 2010
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Des-Bal » Wed Jan 20, 2021 4:33 am

Istoreya wrote:"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
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos

User avatar
Istoreya
Diplomat
 
Posts: 862
Founded: Dec 13, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Istoreya » Wed Jan 20, 2021 5:17 am

Des-Bal wrote:
Istoreya wrote:"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?

User avatar
Suomalainem
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 10
Founded: Dec 27, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Suomalainem » Wed Jan 20, 2021 8:10 am

Bro did you hear what I said?!

User avatar
Stellar Colonies
Minister
 
Posts: 2355
Founded: Mar 27, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Stellar Colonies » Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:40 am

The New California Republic wrote:
The New California Republic wrote:Btw there is an abortion thread.
349 days since local 'stay-at-home order' was announced

Native of The East Pacific and Northern California


Stellar Colonies is a loose confederacy comprised from most of the human-settled parts of the galaxy.

Ida Station is the only Confederate member state permitted to join the WA.
An Incomplete List of Ida's Interpretations of WA Resolutions

Add 3000 years for the date I use.
If you want a mental image of me: Straight(?), white male.

I try to be objective, but I do have some biases.

I don't think the political compass is
fully accurate, but here are my results:

X-Axis: -5.38
Y-Axis: -2.62

Also, I'm diagnosed as a high-functioning autistic.

User avatar
Wink Wonk We Like Stonks
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1407
Founded: May 20, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wink Wonk We Like Stonks » Wed Jan 20, 2021 10:45 am

Thepeopl wrote:
The Blaatschapen wrote:
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
nation mostly represents my views.
for every bad reply, a political opponent will be sent to the Capitalist Gulags of Alabama. To date, 56+ have been sent.
stonks for apotheosis 2024 my platform
[insert obligatory political test]
there should be a joke here. looks like someone forgot about it.

User avatar
Fahran
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13628
Founded: Nov 13, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Fahran » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:02 am

Istoreya wrote:
Fahran wrote: 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.
The conservative, nationalistic, gun-toting Jewish Southern belle that your momma warned you about.

User avatar
Fahran
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13628
Founded: Nov 13, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Fahran » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:05 am

The Blaatschapen wrote: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.
The conservative, nationalistic, gun-toting Jewish Southern belle that your momma warned you about.

User avatar
Suriyanakhon
Diplomat
 
Posts: 918
Founded: Apr 27, 2020
Democratic Socialists

Postby Suriyanakhon » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:07 am

The Blaatschapen wrote:
Istoreya wrote: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.
Liblefter & Theravada Buddhist
dO yOu LiStEn tO gIrL iN rEd

User avatar
Fahran
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 13628
Founded: Nov 13, 2017
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Fahran » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:08 am

Kowani wrote: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.

Kowani wrote: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.
The conservative, nationalistic, gun-toting Jewish Southern belle that your momma warned you about.

User avatar
Northern Socialist Council Republics
Diplomat
 
Posts: 724
Founded: Dec 13, 2020
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Northern Socialist Council Republics » Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:09 am

Fahran wrote: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.
Last edited by Northern Socialist Council Republics on Wed Jan 20, 2021 11:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Call me "Russ" if you're referring to me the out-of-character poster or "NSRS" if you're referring to me the in-character nation.
Previously on Plzen. NationStates-er since 2014.

Social-democrat and hardline secularist.
Come roleplay with us. We have cookies.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aredita, Dresderstan, Insaanistan, Luziyca, Mathuvan Union, Monsone, New haven america, Odreria, Resilient Acceleration, Thermodolia, Thyrgga, Violent Mike

Advertisement

Remove ads