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

[jane]

Note the question mark. How about logical fallacy? Straw man argument? Casual vs causal relationship? Whatever, dude, take yer pick, but the fact that some "pro-life" individuals might also be anti-single mothers is irrelevant and proves nothing.

Really?

Ehhh... why is that even relevant to the question(s) i asked?

Because if you don't think that there are deep-rooted things involved in social inequality, then what is involved? If you do believe that, then no need to answer that question.

Basically, I don't get why you believe a theoretical notion of an extremely negative collective subconcious / hive mind attitude towards women which nobody is aware of, nobody speaks of and no specific individual is to blame for trumps the rather more straigtforward and far easier to digest idea that abortion is murder.

Just because it's more digestible doesn't mean it's true.

When i actually agree with most of what you say?

Then we're mainly in agreement. Mainly.

 

[Cluff]

thush ush bawlucksh

 

[krystal]

I don't have any problem with janes whores/liars analogy - just because you don't think it's appropriate to your own feelings on women doesn't mean that on a societal level there are no inequalities relating to women and their treatment in law - for example.

Jane has just condensed down those inequalities to an essence. Societies in general can display lots of characteristics that aren't necessarily held by individuals. To give a fairly inflamatory example, the Irish, as a nation, are pretty anti-english. But individually lots of people aren't remotely anti-english. Doesn't mean that prejudice doesn't exist, because it does. It just might not apply to you, but there's no point in denying its existence.

 

[jane]

no worries at all Jane!

No problem. But I do think you bring up an important point about theory being used as a crutch sometimes. There's a real problem with not being able to always provide clear evidence for everything, and then not really being comfortable -- which we shouldn't be -- with just accepting some sort of intuitive explanation. Finding the right balance between the two has to come from a combination of theoretical understandings and practical realities. However, in order to achieve this, we have to be able to understand the theories, too.

I recently did have an argument with someone over the way I deal with my archaeological data. I know this is off-topic, but basically, I was torn between just leaving it all hanging in mid-air, and saying really general things while using the data as little more than a pretty picture to illustrate what I already believe I know, and finding a new way into the 'stuff' that has real practical applications. And I did, and while it's not particularly conventional, it works as well as many other approaches (if you want detail, I can bore you with how I'm trying to use paper archives and show that we can not just 'assume' that they are archaeological objects, but actually use their archives as material contexts -- and if that's boring as fuck, I apologise), and has as many caveats as those for buried objects, but they are just different ones.

Anyway, in summary: theory is good, practice is good. But rather than 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it', everything could use some fixin, because sometimes we just get so used to the way it's broke that we think it ain't.

Why did I just start talking like a good ol' boy?

 

[egg_]

i sincerely hope you weren't trying to be as patronizing there as that came across. perhaps jane has done her own reading on the subject! perhaps jane actually deals with related issues in her research! imagine!

Em dudes ... that was a little satirical joke of mine, based on Jane's "I'm tired of having to prove this over and over again" schtick when it comes to her proposed explanations for social and gender inequalities. Read it again:

I assure you Jane, it's been proven that biology causes social inequality. Couldn't be bothered explaining it to you, go look it up in a book

Maybe "witticism" is a better word than "joke" - Niamh keeps saying to me "but Corm, jokes are supposed to be funny". Perhaps I should ask Andy for some comedy lessons

 

[pete]

Perhaps I should ask Andy for some comedy lessons

Please don't.

anyway i thought it was a reference to this http://www.thumped.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=536391&postcount=670​

 

[classic seanc]

dude

 

[egg_]

anyway i thought it was a reference to this http://www.thumped.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=536391&postcount=670

Yep. Phew. Glad somebody got it

 

[JohnnyRaz]

dude

womb

 

[classic seanc]

YOu must spread some...Raz again

 

[jane]

Yep. Phew. Glad somebody got it

Am I right to assume you were also joking about the biological cause of inequality?

 

[1000smurfs]

Basically, I don't get why you believe a theoretical notion of an extremely negative collective subconcious / hive mind attitude towards women which nobody is aware of, nobody speaks of and no specific individual is to blame for trumps the rather more straigtforward and far easier to digest idea that abortion is murder.

I think pro-life attitudes stem mainly from religion which is generally sexist. So both attitudes are at play, abortion is murder, and women can't be trusted. So i agree with Jane and Pete, I'd like to conclude by agreeing with Egg, that this inequality in religion came about from biology.

 

[pete]

Just because it's more digestible doesn't mean it's true.

Well that's me convinced.

Aaannd if i throw in a reference to occam's razor here it means i've met my quota of internet argument clichés for the day. Nice one.

 

[jane]

Pretty well said.

But could you explain this bit? I would not argue that biological realities are divorced from cultural ones, but, like, er. Explain?

this inequality in religion came about from biology.

 

[glen]

Oh, I know this one. It's on the tip of my tongue...

 

[mazzyianne]

Ah I've avoided this all morning, it's time to do some work now so I'm back.
It seems to me that when jane said to go and read a sociology book it was because some people just dont believe in a dominant ideology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#Ideology_in_everyday_society

People equating 'there are these sexist ideas which regulate how we think, they portray women as liars and whores' with 'all men think women are whores and liars' is an example of this.

Thinking about this last night, I think part of the argument reiterates an earlier point. Ro's argument assumes that if you treat two people the same that is equality. That is not equality.
That is hiding something which in reality is totally unfair and cruel, behind a guise. Those kind of guises cover up sexism (and racism and classism) in all areas of society and we need to look beyond the rhetoric of equality to see who our laws etc. are benefiting.

 

[pete]

I don't have any problem with janes whores/liars analogy - just because you don't think it's appropriate to your own feelings on women doesn't mean that on a societal level there are no inequalities relating to women and their treatment in law - for example.

Sure, I won't lie - found it to be an extremely offensive suggestion on that level. But I think i'm familiar enough with wee janey's writings here to know that she didn't mean it like that.

Jane has just condensed down those inequalities to an essence. Societies in general can display lots of characteristics that aren't necessarily held by individuals. To give a fairly inflamatory example, the Irish, as a nation, are pretty anti-english. But individually lots of people aren't remotely anti-english. Doesn't mean that prejudice doesn't exist, because it does. It just might not apply to you, but there's no point in denying its existence.

But you don't have to dig very deep to find the anti-english sentiment in ireland, do you? It's not like people who are cheering for anyone but that lot in the world cup will be puzzled by their own actions.

Discounting the rather more obvious baby killing angle in preference to a waaay cooler, waaay more complicated, deeply buried, unspoken sociological reason just seems.... somewhat unnecessary.

And I can think this without denying the level of sexism in society... go figure.

 

[snakybus]

Brits out

 

[billygannon]

Tits out

 

[jane]

Sure, I won't lie - found it to be an extremely offensive suggestion on that level. But I think i'm familiar enough with wee janey to know that she didn't mean it like that.

But Pete, we should all be concerned by the existence of the attitude, rather than focusing on the person who brings it up.

But you don't have to dig very deep to find the anti-english sentiment in ireland, do you? It's not like people who are cheering for anyone but that lot in the world cup will be puzzled by their own actions.

Yes. And you don't have to dig very deep to figure out that there are some people who tolerate the hostility toward women in ways that are dangerous. These people are not generally on Thumped, as far as I know, unless they don't post or keep it to themselves. All you have to look at -- which I said before -- is the fact that there is a market for the illegal trafficking of women to know that it's there.

Discounting the rather more obvious baby killing angle in preference to a waaay cooler, waaay more complicated, deeply buried, unspoken sociological reason just seems.... somewhat unnecessary.

And I can think this without denying the level of sexism in society... go figure.

I'm not discounting the baby killing argument at all. I never said that these people didn't believe that abortion is murder. However, the way that it is treated under the law does. And the fact that there has been no meaningful debate (which I think I pointed out on like page minus 46633) is that essentially, people are arguing about two different things that are kind of mutually exclusive (i.e., murder vs reproductive choice). But there are other factors at work, too. Just because one fits neatly, doesn't mean that the others are just fashionable accessories.