this auld wan that's up the duff (2 Viewers)

That'll be the old multitasking.

Like having an argument about what's for dinner while doing the vacuuming at the same time.

amazing.

continue.

JohnnyRaz said:

and most people I know who would be pro-choice would also be anti capital punishment and generally not too keen on adults being killed for whatever reason.

moral ambiguity is not the purely preserve of the right.
there goes all those rep points!

Click to expand...

No, moral ambiguity is not purely the preserve of the right, I agree with you.

I don't know what it's like here because there is no capital punishment in Ireland, but in the US, you will often find (and look no further than the White House for this) that anti-choice people are also often PRO capital punishment. Now, I'm sure there is also a large number of people who are anti-choice who are also against the death penalty because they do believe that abortion is babykilling and that all killing is wrong. And I would be wary of drawing too general a distinction between the pro-choice/anti-death penalty and the anti-choice/pro-death penalty connections, but they are definitely pretty significant and worth thinking about.

Haven't bothered to read the last, um, four pages.

Anyway, should it be illegal for a husband to get a vasectomy before he and his wife have children without his wife's consent?

Fuck Schillaci said:

Haven't bothered to read the last, um, four pages.

Anyway, should it be illegal for a husband to get a vasectomy before he and his wife have children without his wife's consent?

Click to expand...

someone get me a can o' worms please.

jane said:

No, but I'm teetering dangerously close to doing so, but since you seem to be enjoying winding me up by deliberately twisting my words because you want so badly for me to accuse you of misogyny, I will try my best to use the detached reserve everyone seems to expect regardless of how strongly I am having to argue.

Click to expand...

No, I don't want you to accuse me of misogyny, I have not twisted your words, and you ain't teetering anywhere.

jane said:

These 'commonsense' arguments that pretend that there is no such thing as an underlying attitude about gender do, in fact, get my back up. And with good reason, too.

Click to expand...

we are all emotional about this issue

jane said:

Dude, the fact is, the anti-choice camp does, yes, talk about unborn babies. But how about the absolute and utter reality that many of these people are the same people who also demonise single mothers? How do you explain that? Because if they really believed that it was all about babies, then they would value all of the born, of all ages, equally, and because they would value them all equally, they would have a lot more trouble than they do placing the lives of the unborn before those of the born.

Click to expand...

see now, you can argue without coming off as a mad yoke

jane said:

As for the men's organs thing, I don't usually like the 'turn the tables' argument, but if that bothered you, maybe then you know a little bit about what it feels like to have your body (and I am a woman, and therefore abstract discussions about women's bodies do affect me) talked about as if it was someone else's to make decisions about?

Click to expand...

the point is valid, but it doesn't change the fact that you were inciting, Jane, I'm sorry. You know, it's cool if you were. It's a free internet.

jane said:

Explain, please.

Click to expand...

i thought it would be self explanatory.

you say there exists in society "attitude X". well, there also exists in society a contrary opinion. what you fail to address is whether this is the prevailing attitude in society. a lot of what you say, with all due respect, sounds like you've read to many sociology books and you are trying to peg square blocks in round holes.

snakybus said:

the point is valid, but it doesn't change the fact that you were inciting, Jane, I'm sorry. You know, it's cool if you were. It's a free internet.

Click to expand...

I may be trying to challenge, but a challenge should not result in an immediate accusation of incitement. If we can't challenge our own internal assumptions, how will we ever do anything that even contributes a tiny bit to increasing the chances that our own children will live in a more equal society? I'm neither joking nor trying to incite anyone's hostility.

jane said:

I'm so cross I could snap a pencil.

Click to expand...

try not to beat yourself up over it Jane

Be the Hokey said:

i thought it would be self explanatory.

you say there exists in society "attitude X". well, there also exists in society a contrary opinion. what you fail to address is whether this is the prevailing attitude in society. a lot of what you say, with all due respect, sounds like you've read to many sociology books and you are trying to peg square blocks in round holes.

Click to expand...

It sounds like you're just trying to disagree on principle because you feel left out.

But yes, I do think it's the prevailing attitude. And if you want me to go through AGAIN, having to prove that inequalities can be deep-rooted as well as overtly expressed, maybe you could come back when you've read a sociology book or two?

And is it a problem that I happen to acknowledge that there is some value in thinking about what social theorists say?

YOu must spread some....anal h again.

I think it's time we took the "wo" out of women.

jane said:

If after all of the explaining I have done about how this is not the equivalent of saying that women are whores and liars, you still insist that in order for me to fit your image of the Angry Feminist, this must be what I meant by it -- and all the fucking multiple times I have qualified that statement by providing more detail, and more explanation, and the more theoretical stuff I give you, the more you accuse me of hostility, then that's really not something I can help you with.

Click to expand...

Well, in fairness, you have no idea what my idea of an angry feminist is. I'm sure that's an assumption you wouldn't normally make. And if you don't accept that you were being hostile, then there's nothing I can do about that. In my opinion, you're not being honest. But hey, it's just my opinion. Let other people decide.

jane said:

Rather than try to understand all of the qualification I have tried to provide, you still have to be obsessed with equating those statements, which I never intended -- even if you ended up reading it that way, I have tried to explain my intention, and thus, you should drop the accusation that that is what I said -- then perhaps you might ask yourself why you bothered making me jump through hoops like that in the first place?

Click to expand...

I'm not making you jump through hoops - you're providing most of the hoops yourself. And no, I've read your qualifications and I think some of them are fair enough, some not - all in all, good arguing. But I'm glad that you "never intended" to equate those statements. I guess that's something.

snakybus said:

In my opinion, you're not being honest.

Click to expand...

*resists strong urge to make probably unproductive wisecrack*

jane said:

It sounds like you're just trying to disagree on principle because you feel left out.

But yes, I do think it's the prevailing attitude. And if you want me to go through AGAIN, having to prove that inequalities can be deep-rooted as well as overtly expressed, maybe you could come back when you've read a sociology book or two?

And is it a problem that I happen to acknowledge that there is some value in thinking about what social theorists say?

Click to expand...

no, no problem that you take on board what social theorists say. no, i don't feel left out in the least, trust me! there is no need to be snide. i certainly didn't mean to be.

the reason i have stayed out is because its between you and whoever and i haven't the time or inclination to read all of this and catch up.

i am not disagreeing on principle. you have no basis to say that either.what i was commenting on, clearly, was my own perception of your general reliance on inapplicable and/or questionable theory. i've read enough sociology to know that its a crutch to alot of people (i'm not going so far as to include you in this!), but thanks for your presumption otherwise that i haven;t read a book.

good luck with this. but i don't think patronising people will get you far in winning them over.

shit, what do i care anyway.

jane said:

*resists strong urge to make probably unproductive wisecrack*

Click to expand...

*sticks out tongue*

jane said:

If you are having real trouble comprehending some things that I'm astonished that people don't already know, given the amount of social theory people here claim to have read -- and so I thought that people would be more familiar with how deep-rooted social inequalities actually are -- then perhaps you could:

1. Tell me what you think explains social inequality

Click to expand...

I don't know any social theory, but you get social inequality among monkeys, and gender divisions within stone age tribes who have never heard of western christian philosophy.

Be the Hokey said:

no, no problem that you take on board what social theorists say. no, i don't feel left out in the least, trust me! there is no need to be snide. i certainly didn't mean to be.

the reason i have stayed out is because its between you and whoever and i haven't the time or inclination to read all of this and catch up.

i am not disagreeing on principle. you have no basis to say that either.what i was commenting on, clearly, was my own perception of your general reliance on inapplicable and/or questionable theory. i've read enough sociology to know that its a crutch to alot of people (i'm not going so far as to include you in this!), but thanks for your presumption otherwise that i haven;t read a book.

good luck with this. but i don't think patronising people will get you far in winning them over.

shit, what do i care anyway.

Click to expand...

Dude, your post to me was pretty patronising, so if you dish it you might think about taking it.

And no, I do not use sociology as a crutch, and in any case, I'm not even a sociologist. Not that it matters to you, but the thing I've been writing all day has to do with critical applications of a lot of this stuff, and how theory can only go so far. In fact, the entire basis of what I do in my non-Thumped life (which has sadly been sidelined for the last few days) has to do with exploring the limitations of theory in practice, and in understanding the implications for research. In fact, what's funny is that while I've been lambasted on here for bringing it up at all (I'm not saying you personally did this, but it was done), that I have also been accused of doing the opposite, of refusing to be in denial that our current practices (in archaeology) do not serve us, and so it's not just that we need new theories, it's that we need new ways of doing stuff.

So I guess what I'm really saying is that I'm already aware that I can't win. I'm always pissing someone off. It's gotten so I'm pretty used to it, actually. Not that you have any way of knowing any of that, though, dude.

Anyway, sorry if I was patronising, but I'm pretty pissed off at this stage. You were in the line of fire, but still, I could have laid briefly off the snideness.

*goes for a poo*

egg_ said:

I don't know any social theory, but you get social inequality among monkeys, and gender divisions within stone age tribes who have never heard of western christian philosophy.

Click to expand...

Dude, egg, don't start going all biological determinism on me. I'm talking about humans. I'm talking about western humans. I never said that you don't get gender divisions elsewhere, either among other humans, or among animals.