this auld wan that's up the duff (1 Viewer)

[jane]

You might not have meant to say that, and I realise you probably don't think that, but that's the clear implication of your argument


Of course. Do you believe all men are sexist? Of course not. But that's where the rant about controlling women's bodies leads. You get personal when someone talks about wombs (your womb), I get personal when someone talks about men's (my) attitude to women

But I'm not talking about your attitude toward women. Sexism affects all of us. What I'm saying is that there are underlying attitudes that are unconcsiously reproduced in thoughts, words and actions all the time, that reinforce unhealthy attitudes that are very much related to gender.

First of all, I didn't say taht these attitudes were men's attitudes about women. They are attitudes, and they are often held by women, too. In fact, I have found cause sometimes to think about my own responses to things, and to try to pick apart the assumptions so that my opinion can be based on something I define for myself, that acknowledges reality more than assumptions.

And the fact is, Ro's attitude actually does imply that women should not have equal rights to men. To suggest that a man have veto power over a woman's body is sexist.

I never argued, never have, and never will argue that all men are sexist. In fact, as I often point out, women are capable of sexist behaviour, too. And not just toward women. The argument is not that controlling women's bodies leads to 'all men are sexist' because society isn't just made up of men. And these arguments are far more complex than that.

The reason I brought up sexism at all is that it is facilitated and reproduced all the time in ways people don't always realise. Sometimes it is very overt, and sometimes it is subtle, but it is something everyone engages in to some degree, and doesn't make everyone a sexist. It just means sexism is far more complicated than something for which anyone can legislate. Just like decisions around women's bodies/abortion/reproduction/however you want to define it, are too complicated to be cut into digestible chunks of legislation.

 

[snakybus]

Ro's attitude doesn't imply that at all Jane, you're putting words in his mouth. La La made the exact same argument.

 

[jane]

Do you believe that sexism against men exists? Assuming every man who is anti-abortion is a misogynist is a tad anti-male.

Could you point out where I said that, please?

If you think I'm anti-male, then you're definitely misreading my posts, or you just want to believe I blame all men for the existence of misogyny, which is up to you, but is not true at all.

I said that the legislative pro-life debate is underlined by the existence in society of particular gender assumptions that have not been sufficiently challenged. I did not say that every man (or woman) who is anti-abortion is a misogynist.

There is a difference between the existence of misogyny and sexism (which does, yes, affect everyone, not just women) that can underline the way debates are framed, and trying to discuss it, and actually calling all men misogynists, which just caricatures me, and is unfair to everyone.

By the way, yes, I do believe there are gender assumptions that harm men. I don't go around saying, "Men are so dumb, blah blah blah," and in fact, many of the women who do that are the same women who accuse feminists of being man-haters. I believe that the assumption that all men should be rock-solid emotionless workaholics is damaging. I believe that the attitudes that define masculinity very narrowly are sad and wrong.

So to answer your question, yes and no. I believe sexism can hurt men. I don't believe there is 'sexism against men' per se, but that is because I believe all sexism harms men AND women, no matter who is on the losing end of it.

 

[La La]

Could you point out where I said that, please?

If you think I'm anti-male, then you're definitely misreading my posts, or you just want to believe I blame all men for the existence of misogyny, which is up to you, but is not true at all.

I said that the legislative pro-life debate is underlined by the existence in society of particular gender assumptions that have not been sufficiently challenged. I did not say that every man (or woman) who is anti-abortion is a misogynist.

There is a difference between the existence of misogyny and sexism (which does, yes, affect everyone, not just women) that can underline the way debates are framed, and trying to discuss it, and actually calling all men misogynists, which just caricatures me, and is unfair to everyone.

just so i don't mis-read this; is your point that misogyny is to do with semantics and not gender?

 

[MDR]

And the fact is, Ro's attitude actually does imply that women should not have equal rights to men. To suggest that a man have veto power over a woman's body is sexist.
.

Absolutely untrue. A man is entitled to have a say on whether his child is aborted without being called a sexist. It's not sexist for a man to assert equal rights as a parent.

 

[glen]

You're disagreeing with a woman. That's pretty sexist if you ask me.

 

[jane]

Absolutely untrue. A man is entitled to have a say on whether his child is aborted without being called a sexist. It's not sexist for a man to assert equal rights as a parent.

But veto power is not equality. It simply is not.

You are saying that men should have, enshrined in the law, the power to veto a woman's reproductive decision. That is sexist. You can refute it all you want, but it's taking rights away from a woman and giving them to a man. It is unfair, unequal, and unproductive.

 

[snakybus]

Glen, you're just not taking this seriously at all.

 

[MDR]

edit

 

[MDR]

You're disagreeing with a woman. That's pretty sexist if you ask me.

Well if you can't impress, oppress.

 

[La La]

But veto power is not equality. It simply is not.

You are saying that men should have, enshrined in the law, the power to veto a woman's reproductive decision. That is sexist. You can refute it all you want, but it's taking rights away from a woman and giving them to a man. It is unfair, unequal, and unproductive.

he's not saying that, i think his point is that men deserve and should have the right to be involved in the decision. it would be just as sexist for the woman to veto the man's opinion and go ahead with the abortion too, wouldnt it?

 

[spiritualtramp]

Could you point out where I said that, please?

Never said you assumed those things.

 

[MDR]

But veto power is not equality. It simply is not.

You are saying that men should have, enshrined in the law, the power to veto a woman's reproductive decision. That is sexist. You can refute it all you want, but it's taking rights away from a woman and giving them to a man. It is unfair, unequal, and unproductive.

equally I could say to you that your failure to afford parity of esteem to the views of men/fathers is sexist. Remember the pregnancy happened due to the actions of both people - it is not fair that the woman has an absolute say over what happens after that.

 

[glen]

edit

Saw what you posted there Ro, the stuff about kitchen sinks, BJ's and X marks the spot at the top of the stairs...

 

[jane]

just so i don't mis-read this; is your point that misogyny is to do with semantics and not gender?

Not necessarily. My point is that it's too complex and deeply-rooted to be reduced to simple categories.

For example. Aristotle believed that there were two sides to the human brain, the rational and the non-rational. The former was composed of cognitive intelligence, logic, reason, and the ability to love. The latter controlled basal metabolic functions, and the bestial drives believed to be the natural state of humans who lacked 'civility'.

He believed that only men possessed both sides of this, and that women were only 'non-rational'. In order to prevent their bestial nature from taking over, they needed the powers of a man to subdue them -- their fathers, brothers, husbands, or even their own sons (once they reached a certain age).

Now, this attitude is not spelled out in all writings on classical philosophy, but it pervaded thinking in subtle ways that can't always be clearly discerned. And this classical philosophy, in turn, was used as the basis for Western society, with each generation -- and even each individual -- interpreting it, reinventing it, and renegotiating it. CErtain things would be challenged along the way, but certain others would not. His thinking would influence others, would be the philosophical force behind political systems and concepts of self. These are always reinvented and re-cast, but the fact is, they were made in the context of a society that believed women were naturally beastly.

Aristotle is only one example, but basically, what I'm saying is that gender assumptions are anything but simple, and the harmful ones cannot just be surgically removed, because they pervade everything, right down to the language we speak. It doesn't mean we should just chuck out society as we know it, but that we should actually be challenging our own assumptions, so that we can better understand how to re-cast them with social justice (not just gender equality) in mind.

 

[spiritualtramp]

But veto power is not equality. It simply is not.

You are saying that men should have, enshrined in the law, the power to veto a woman's reproductive decision. That is sexist. You can refute it all you want, but it's taking rights away from a woman and giving them to a man. It is unfair, unequal, and unproductive.

How on earth is that sexist?

The child is the creation of both the man and the woman, thus it would be fair if both parties have a say on the childs life.

 

[jane]

equally I could say to you that your failure to afford parity of esteem to the views of men/fathers is sexist. Remember the pregnancy happened due to the actions of both people - it is not fair that the woman has an absolute say over what happens after that.

I never, ever said this.

The fact is, unwanted pregnancy is going to be unfair. As La La pointed out, depending on how you see the foetus, there may be more than two people involved.

The difference is that I object to the enshrining of this in the law. That's what I mean. Enshrining it in the law is enshrining an inequality. Not enshrining anything in the law does not. It may tip the balance in favour of the woman in a personal sense, but that is something to be negotiated between the individuals involved.

You are justifying -- in part, and as it seems to me -- your argument based on the notion that it's going to be unequal to someone. The fact that you think men deserve the benefit of the legal ground is not, in fact, just related to abortion, it's related to a real fear of women making choices that may or may not include your voice. That is a real fear, and it is a legitimate fear, in the context of your relationship, but passing laws about it creates more problems than it solves.

 

[jane]

How on earth is that sexist?

The child is the creation of both the man and the woman, thus it would be fair if both parties have a say on the childs life.

And they do both have a say. They both have mouths. They can talk.

 

[krystal]

he's not saying that, i think his point is that men deserve and should have the right to be involved in the decision. it would be just as sexist for the woman to veto the man's opinion and go ahead with the abortion too, wouldnt it?

Ok. No one 'wins' in a situation where one party does something the other isn't happy about. This is one of the reasons abortion is so contentious. But ro's scenario is way more damaging than the scenario where the woman says 'tough, I hear you but it's my body and it's my decision'. I'm sure in many cases both parties are in pefect agreement and there is no problem.

But when there is contention, Ro is asserting that men should have the power to overule the womans desire not to be pregnant, not to gain lots of weight, develop varicose veins and haemmoroids, stretch marks and suffer hormonal changes. That's just the physical side of things. There's also the emotional stress of carrying a child you didn't want to have and the impact on job or education. And he should have the right to affect the womans life in this way because he will be the one raising the child.

I just don't see how that's fair in any way, shape or form to the woman who said no. Sure, it might not be fair to abort a child the father would have gladly gone ahead and had, but at the end of the day the womb is in the woman and the woman does have the greater say. Might not be fair, but neither is ro's scenario.

 

[spiritualtramp]

You are justifying -- in part, and as it seems to me -- your argument based on the notion that it's going to be unequal to someone. The fact that you think men deserve the benefit of the legal ground is not, in fact, just related to abortion, it's related to a real fear of women making choices that may or may not include your voice.

So is any woman who thinks that the man has rights regarding an unborn child is scared of making choices by herself?