glen
New Member
That'll be the old multitasking.
Like having an argument about what's for dinner while doing the vacuuming at the same time.
Like having an argument about what's for dinner while doing the vacuuming at the same time.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
jane said:Explain, please.
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.
jane said:I'm so cross I could snap a pencil.
![]()
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.
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.
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?
snakybus said:In my opinion, you're not being honest.
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?
jane said:*resists strong urge to make probably unproductive wisecrack*
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.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
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.
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.
Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...
Upgrade nowWe use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.