The War on Women

[unstoppable_II]

… However for those women who either as part of a family or on their own are living paycheck-to-paycheck and hand-to-mouth, this kind of thing becomes extremely important. …

Both my sons delivered pizzas, and they told me the most expensive satellite TV sports packages could be found in the poor sections of town. Besides, B/C pills are available free from PP. With the introduction of politically correct victimhood as a vocation, whole new horizons were opened up. Ordinary complaining became an academic endeavor. Protests against “inequality” naturally come to be seen as a more productive activity than personal effort. Reality doesn’t conform to ideology, and when people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination. Ergo, go crying to a political group and have them paint the situation as a denial of equality and VOILA! victimhood, and the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Who said anything about running around naked?

How did you come to this conclusion?

In this case, that the remedy to sexual harassment of interns in the Missouri House of Representatives, is for the interns to dress differently. (If dress code was an answer, then why wasn’t it equally suggested that the lawmakers’ dress code should involve a sturdy chastity belt and horse blinders?).

If “Murmurs” can use hyperbole, so can I.

 

[Sarcelle]

If “Murmurs” can use hyperbole, so can I.

You can but should you?

Hyperbole can be counterproductive to a conversation.

 

[Murmurs]

You can but should you?

Hyperbole can be counterproductive to a conversation.

Yeah, sorry about that

 

[unstoppable_II]

You can but should you?
…

Why are you picking on me?

 

[Sarcelle]

Why are you picking on me?

Not picking on you but just pointing out that when hyperbole is often deployed the conversation can be derailed.

Come to think of it the phrase “war against women” can also be hyperbole.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I was thinking that it means women do not think men understand their problems very well so any advice from a man is not very useful. If that is true, then the task falls to women. However, if men understand in an inferior way, then women are on equal footing with one another. So it would not be very hard to override another woman either. I think the poster thinks that it must be a women’s movement to curtail abortion. Can anyone say this is true? Is it something women have to figure out for themselves? Can I, as a man, just step away from the issue and say, “i don’t think it is right but it’s a woman’s issue.” With a clear conscience? I am not an especially gifted man anyways when it comes to persuasion. To be clear, can I be excused from the issue, before the Almighty?

Thank you James, you understood what I was getting at.

A bunch of men telling women that they’re wrong is not the best way to convince women. Similarly, a bunch of white people telling African-Americans that they’re wrong is not the best way to convince African-Americans. A bunch of Christians telling Jews they’re wrong won’t convince them.

If you heard of a group of Europeans saying that the US must change its policies, would your reaction be “they’re right, we’re wrong and must change” or would your reaction be “what do they know?”

I don’t think that means that men, whites, Christians, and Europeans should be silent on important issues. But I do think it means they have to take the support position, not the leadership position.

To use abortion as an example. I think there are arguments on many levels and some of them come into contrast. For example, one argument centers on protecting vulnerable lives. Another argument centers on power. While a person makes the argument on one side, the other person hears the argument on the other side.

A says “I want to save and protect tiny, vulnerable babies.”
B hears “I want to take away your power to decide if you want to be pregnant or not.”

And Ms. B isn’t going to give up power willingly because Mr. A demands it.

I would suggest changing the argument from “you can’t do this” to “let me help make it possible for you to make a different choice.” That recognizes that it is the woman who has the choice and the power. And I think it would ultimately be more effective than trying to pass laws to limit abortions that will end up being thrown out by the courts without changing hearts or changing society.

 

[unstoppable_II]

Not picking on you but just pointing out that when hyperbole is often deployed the conversation can be derailed.

Come to think of it the phrase “war against women” can also be hyperbole.

My question was intended to be a play of the victim card.

 

[kozlosap]

Oh if you want an immediate example, this kind of victim-blaming nonsense is the unwitting war on women being waged right now.

In this case, that the remedy to sexual harassment of interns in the Missouri House of Representatives, is for the interns to dress differently. (If dress code was an answer, then why wasn’t it equally suggested that the lawmakers’ dress code should involve a sturdy chastity belt and horse blinders?). The implication of these kind of suggestions (and yes they were not enacted but that’s not the point - the attitude behind the suggestion is key here) is basically "Darn it, all you young women…stop tempting me with your flirtatious memoranda on Bill 2213: A Bill to Reclassify Fish-Waste Processing Facilities as Nonpolluting Entities! " If one is so distracted by female interns that one can’t keep focussed on one’s job, one ought to not be representing the people of one’s state.

Why does this link back to contraception (etc) coverage? Because both represent a myopic patriarchal view that women don’t matter. It might not always be intended to imply that women don’t matter, but that is the effect. And that’s a big problem.

Awesome observations!
If we were to accept what those good old fashioned men put forth, then the logical next step is true victim blaming, ie., “She was wearing a mini skirt with thigh high gogo boots, so she tempted me to rape her, it’s all her fault.” Sure makes me wonder how on earth society manages with so many women who are tempresses.

 

[Murmurs]

I would suggest changing the argument from “you can’t do this” to “let me help make it possible for you to make a different choice.” That recognizes that it is the woman who has the choice and the power. And I think it would ultimately be more effective than trying to pass laws to limit abortions that will end up being thrown out by the courts without changing hearts or changing society.

I think is is one of the most perfect things I have ever read on this site, about any issue. I cannot agree with you enough.

God bless you,

Murmurs x

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Wow. Thanks.

 

[MarcoPolo]

I don’t think that means that men, whites, Christians, and Europeans should be silent on important issues. But I do think it means they have to take the support position, not the leadership position.

Shouldn’t the listener accept the person’s argument on it’s own merit rather than discounting it because of the person’s sex or race? What you are espousing here sounds like you are deliberately accommodating another’s unfair biases.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Shouldn’t the listener accept the person’s argument on it’s own merit rather than discounting it because of the person’s sex or race? What you are espousing here sounds like you are deliberately accommodating another’s unfair biases.

I’m suggesting that people communicate rather than talking at each other. Communication may mean accommodating someone else’s bias. It may also mean recognizing that what you’re doing now isn’t working and you need to change your approach.

 

[MarcoPolo]

It may also mean recognizing that what you’re doing now isn’t working and you need to change your approach.

While I’m all about not causing a brother to stumble, i.e. accommodating their weaknesses, I think what you said about reducing oneself to a “supporting” role on abortion because one is male creates a whole new problem. David Deleiden is the lead project manager with the Center for medical progress and they have made a number of strides educating the public about the abortion industry.

Case in point, I would reject the suggestion that anyone named James or Kenny telling the truth about abortion somehow “isn’t working.” That’s just a gratuitous assertion based on the notion that males either have a weaker capacity to speak on the subject or that females are all averse to a male speaking to them on the subject.

It makes me think of people who would say what Jesus did “isn’t working” because one can point to a bunch of examples of people rejecting him and walking away from him from then all the way to the multitudes today.

 

[SuperLuigi]

One tactic that defenders of abortion or planned parenthood like to use to deter opponents is by asserting that you are engaging in a “war on women”. You seek to remove their rights, limit their access to health care, etc. For those struggling with this tactic and find yourself becoming defensive, here is the way that I thought it through.

I can go with the struggle as being a “war”.
There are women who support the opposition. But also men.
The war is not about gender. It is about truth.

Assertion: “You are waging a war on women” (lie)
Response: “I am waging a war against lies.” (truth)
Motivation: I seek to change your sense of the truth.
Understanding of most supporters of abortion: decieved

It’s a technique used to rouse the low-information crowd in the United States to support certain leaders and causes while avoiding the substantive issues because post-modern progressive values cannot win on a even playing field.

 

[Murmurs]

I would reject the suggestion that anyone named James or Kenny telling the truth about abortion somehow “isn’t working.” That’s just a gratuitous assertion based on the notion that males either have a weaker capacity to speak on the subject or that females are all averse to a male speaking to them on the subject.

It makes me think of people who would say what Jesus did “isn’t working” because one can point to a bunch of examples of people rejecting him and walking away from him from then all the way to the multitudes today.

No one is saying (well I wouldn’t say anyway) that men are less able to make cogent arguments about issues that substantively only involve adult women (abortion involves babies too, but obviously one reason why this ‘debate’ exists at all is that they can’t actually make their own contributions). However if you look at it from the pro-choice side, having men in the vanguard of the anti-abortion movement underlines the idea that ‘men are trying to control our bodies’.

While having anyone articulate never mind legislate a pro-life agenda doesn’t get away from the not entirely incorrect assertion that “someone is telling me what I can/can’t do with my own body”, at least if it is primarily led by women it puts paid to the “the biggest exponents of the pro-life side are slightly creepy older white men” lie. Watching the GOP primary debate the other week, when abortion came up, even as someone who is entirely against abortion save for emergencies (and we ought to work out how to reduce those ever more), it was extremely patronising (however wonderfully empathetic any of the candidates may be, they can quite literally have no actual idea about the emotional trauma of realising that you either want or need an abortion). It was a little sickening to be honest.

It is possible that the abortion battle is one that will go on forever, and no one side will truly win because the other will never truly give up. But, it would probably easier if at the very least it was primarily a discussion between women about an issue that only effects women. Otherwise the impression is “well dear you don’t really know what is best for you, so we’ll make laws for you,” and it reinforces the (obviously quite erroneous) idea that social conservatives want to yank the modern world back to the 1950s (or 1850s).

 

[SWolf]

It shouldn’t need an abortion proponent to point out, however, that men don’t ever need (at least in their own minds) to access abortion.

Yes they do.

Abortion is very good at relieving a man of child support, or covering up an underage sex crime.

 

[Murmurs]

Yes they do.

Abortion is very good at relieving a man of child support, or covering up an underage sex crime.

True of course but beside the point. Men don’t get abortions, obviously. So abortion restrictions might impact the ability of certain variously nefarious men to get away from their ill-gotten responsibilities, but they never have to go through with it themselves. It is never a choice any man has to make for himself. It’s because of this obvious biological fact, that the anti-abortion movement has to come primarily from other women. Because abortion IS a thing bound up in emotion, and the most loving and caring (or indeed the most callous) father in the world can never experience what a mother does in this regard

 

[SWolf]

True of course but beside the point. Men don’t get abortions, obviously. So abortion restrictions might impact the ability of certain variously nefarious men to get away from their ill-gotten responsibilities, but they never have to go through with it themselves. It is never a choice any man has to make for himself. It’s because of this obvious biological fact, that the anti-abortion movement has to come primarily from other women. Because abortion IS a thing bound up in emotion, and the most loving and caring (or indeed the most callous) father in the world can never experience what a mother does in this regard

Men have to go through 18 years of child support if she chooses to keep the baby. Men have to go through 0 years of child support if she aborts the baby. The woman is trying to run from her responsibilities by getting an abortion.

More importantly, why should only the woman choose whether or not to murder another man’s progeny?

Women have the power to leash a man for 18 years of child support, or murder his offspring. #WarOnMen

 

[Peter_Plato]

True of course but beside the point. Men don’t get abortions, obviously. So abortion restrictions might impact the ability of certain variously nefarious men to get away from their ill-gotten responsibilities, but they never have to go through with it themselves. It is never a choice any man has to make for himself. It’s because of this obvious biological fact, that the anti-abortion movement has to come primarily from other women. Because abortion IS a thing bound up in emotion, and the most loving and caring (or indeed the most callous) father in the world can never experience what a mother does in this regard

One of the myths of the pro-abortion movement is the hidden fact that a very large proportion of women are forced into having abortions by fathers, husbands, mates, pimps and other significant male figures and NOT by the choice of the women involved.

I find it rather perplexing to call pro-life support a “war on women” when the stacked bodies of the 55 million casualties in the US alone are determinably not women, but very tiny human beings of both genders. Since when does a “war on…” result in such an obscene toll (collateral damage?) on the innocent by those who are purportedly the ones “warred upon?”

This is decidedly a war on the yet-to-be-born by the oligarchy of the living who wish to have their conveniences, pleasures and privileges AND rationalize that fact by hiding behind a mantle of alleged victimization.