Women’s deaths are a useful goad for keeping other women in line.
Discuss.
Barry’s BlueSky- Untitled May 8, 2024"I won't vote for someone who supports genocide" IS a valid response, and one I entirely respect. I'm furious at Joe Biden and the idea of voting for him sickens me. Nonetheless, I think people should vote for Biden. Let me give a few reasons why. (thread) [contains quote post or other embedded content]
- Untitled May 8, 2024Thread. And see also in replies - we should both understand that many protesters sincerely don't intend "from the river to the sea" to be antisemitic, and to understand why many Jews sincerely find the phrase threatening. Neither view is disingenuous. (Also, many =/= all.) [contains quote post or other embedded content]
- Untitled May 8, 2024The extent to which anti-trans ideology consists of making up ad hoc rules about what "real women" do and then pretending what they made up is universal truth. They have much more fealty to their spite than to reality.
- Untitled May 7, 2024Deux Ex Machina, Suckers! Another #PoliCartoon (I consider religion political!) by me and @nadinescholtes.bsky.social
- Untitled May 7, 2024Deux Ex Machina, Suckers! Another #PoliCartoon (I consider religion political!) by me and @nadinescholtes.bsky.social
- Untitled May 7, 2024New ruling from the Board of Masculine Masculinity: Using your hands to pull your boots on is now effeminate. Real men use their teeth.
- Untitled May 8, 2024
I think that both are disgusting but that the difference between the two is huge. I think trying to create some equivalency between the two diminishes the horror of what those freaks did to that poor girl. I think it also risks alienating the middle if it creates the impression that we can’t see the difference.
That said, it’s worth pointing out that there’s a segment of the Pro-Life movement that’s completely nuts.
The logic behind the two is identical in this way: Women’s lives are expendable so long as their deaths contribute to maintaining the patriarchy’s version of sexual morality.
I see the similarities in the underlying principle. And I think that some (small I hope) percentage of religious people would like our country to more closely resemble the Middle East. I just think that the details make the two very different and that difference is important from a strategy stand point. My thought is that telling people who think a late term abortion is bad that they’re morally equivalent with a gang of brutal killers will alienate potential allies.
The people who agitate for legislation that will cause women pain and death while agreeing that the pain and death are good things, are engaging in the same moral reasoning as people who agitate for the continued legality of honor killings, if not those who perpetrate it.
Also, I don’t believe one should avoid saying things because they’re alienating. I’ve said that before; I’ll say it again. If nothing else, you alienate me by intimating that one should avoid certain ways of speaking about violence done to women because of the way that white men will feel when those connecitons are made.
Mandolin,
I must say I agree with joe on this one. The mob in Kurdistan *intended* to kill the girl involved and did so outside of any legal proceeding. The anti-choice adherents don’t care whether women are subjected to greater risk as a result of abortion legislation, but they don’t intend for them to be killed, and, by and large, they don’t exact their toll through extralegal proceedings. Are they motivated by the same abiding spirit? Yes, perhaps. But the difference between them is real, and not really subtle.
Mandolin, I think that what you said is sometimes true, sometimes not. If you’re expressing yourself or venting obviously you’re right. If you’re trying to win support on a contentious issue you may be wrong. It’s a question of tactics.
For example: My sil is somewhat pro-life. (close to safe legal and rare) She really feels that pba are morally wrong because she thinks the fetus is alive at that point. In general she dislikes abortion, but isn’t what I’d call a strong pro-lifer. (accepts that it should be legal) She feels she’s ‘moderate’ on abortion. She’s not likely to be persuaded to further agree with me by an argument that equates her with the murderous freaks above.
I wasn’t trying to chastise you, or control how you express yourself. I’m sorry if it came across that way. I just had the point about tactics and that I see a very large difference between the two groups. I don’t like either one, but I don’t see them as equivalent.
I’m going to take a break after this comment.
“The mob in Kurdistan *intended* to kill the girl involved and did so outside of any legal proceeding. The anti-choice adherents don’t care whether women are subjected to greater risk as a result of abortion legislation, but they don’t intend for them to be killed, and, by and large, they don’t exact their toll through extralegal proceedings.”
I didn’t mean my claim to encompass any of these things. Merely that, internationally, partiarchy appears to encompass and embrace the idea that women’s lives are expendable if their deaths can be employed to enforce standards of sexual morality.
Certainly, the two situations are unlike in many, many, many ways.
[Nick, this is a feminist only thread. ~Mandolin]
For example: My sil is somewhat pro-life. (close to safe legal and rare) She really feels that pba are morally wrong because she thinks the fetus is alive at that point.
Is she aware that third trimester abortions are non-elective and that the term “partial birth abortion” is not even remotely a medical term? Does she realize that D&E and D&X third trimester abortions are done to save the lives of the mother?
Then she’s saying the fetus is more important than the woman, and the risk of a woman dying for a fetus that will not survive is acceptable.
A relevant article from yesterday’s New York Times.
awwwwwwwwwww.
Kittens are cute!
The videos were really hard to watch. I don’t comment here much, if at all; I usually just lurk. This blog makes me think about things I often don’t want to think about it. It also makes me face what I really think and feel about things, people, events. And sometimes I’m disappointed in myself. Thanks for challenging this reader.
And kittens are cute!
This is appalling, more patriarchal crap. I also am uncaring as to how I might offend someone (oh noes!) if I make clear the connection between the honor (puke) killings and the anti-women’s bodily integrity crowd.
Love the cat picture, it reminds me of the last answerman column I read, can you have two people high-fiving and a rainbow too, it’s like recycling a nestle product to make a re-usable water-bottle, recycled comments.