Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktI’m trying to decide if my continued participation here is necessary or even valuable for the blog in general or for me personally. As one of the founders of the blog this is an important question for me but in the overall scheme of my life and interests it’s actually pretty minor. In other words, it wouldn’t be that difficult to just walk away. I have other projects waiting in the wings and as someone on the edge of becoming a senior citizen (yikes), I’m beginning to feel the increased value of time well spent.
I don’t want anyone to get the impression that I’m being thin skinned or overly sensitive to disagreement or intense questioning of my opinions, it’s actually a little more of a respect issue for me. Perhaps I’ve simply over estimated my value as a dissenting voice and a woman’s perspective, I really can’t tell. I’m not generally confused by stuff like this, but for now I haven’t been able to work through it, so I’m going to be on hiatus a little longer until I figure it out.
I have two issues, one is that during the last big ATiM kerfuffle, or the “thread that shall not be named”, I worked very hard publicly and privately, behind the scenes, to help save the blog and keep “all” participants on board. I swallowed a lot of pride and nearly prostrated myself at the feet of others in order to resolve our differences. I didn’t mind too much, but it was difficult as I didn’t necessarily believe it was all about mistakes I had made. It’s fine, we moved on and I think became better for it in the long run. ****A number of us across the political divide worked together to bridge our differences rather than assigning blame. I think I’m surprised there hasn’t been the same reciprocal effort in this case. After reading the comments there appears to be a hardening of positions rather than the opposite which fosters further understanding.
In the thread regarding the VA legislation there was one issue the three of us, Michi, Okie and myself, couldn’t get the men to respond to, the issue of coercion/ invasion of personal space. Mark and ashot were the only two who seemed to even respond to it or recognize it for a legitimate concern. There was a lot of dancing around other issues which I don’t want to rehash, some were valid and some weren’t IMO, but as someone who raised five teenagers one of our major focuses here as parents was the distinction in sexual matters between force/coercion and free will. I wouldn’t expect everyone else to agree that this legislation crossed those boundaries but I do believe recognition that this was the primary issue for some of us was in order, and yes we did feel summarily dismissed on this.
And so, I’m continuing my hiatus while I assess my value here and whether the blog is still valuable to me. I’m honestly not looking for a lot of discussion, I just felt a certain responsibility as someone who dragged so many people over here with me to give you all an explanation of my thoughts on this, and then continue to work through it on my own.
____________________________________________________
UPDATE: Regardless of anything else I will be here for the discussion of ABC’s book on the weekend of April 13th. This is an ATiM feature I was excited about on several levels, so I do hope some of you are reading the book.
****Post edited slightly
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
I agree with your representations above, lms, although I cannot speak to any private discussions following “the thread that must not be named” as I was not involved. For the record, I do not intend to permanently leave ATiM, and certainly hope your decision ultimately will be not to leave permanently. But that’s your call and I will respect your decision no matter what. However, I too am taking a break to rethink how I participate. lol, I’m right there with you on the aging process effecting an increased value of time well spent.
LikeLike
So this is going to be come a boys club and a largely conservative one at that?
LikeLike
ashot, I’m not sure who your comment was directed to, if anybody in particular. But I hope not. And there are other women’s voices here albeit not as often (e.g., msjs . . . not a complete list because I’m sure I would inadvertently leave someone out).
LikeLike
Dear L,
You handled the “probe” discussion with aplomb. I would not have guessed the toll that took on you if you had not expressed it in this Hiatus post. Take some time if you must, but do not stay away, please.
I may take a run at MsJS’ point about male-female discussions on biologically differentiated topics in a post here.
The thrust of the post would be that only women are subjected to some experiences. Men are not disqualified from opining about these experiences, because we have witnessed and observed them, and share humanity with women. However, as to the uniquely female experiences, female testimony has great weight; it must be listened to and absorbed, and it cannot be treated dismissively by males. I may ask for the men to think of experiences that can only be male. ED comes to mind, of course.
L, you are an essential ingredient, I think, in this recipe. At least, for me. I am already a member of two live-in-your-face men’s groups. If you go, do you think Okie, ‘Goose, MsJS, ABC, and the seldom seen sue would carry on indefinitely? I don’t. And I don’t need a men’s epistolary group. From my selfish view, which is shared by tens, and probably all, I’ll bet, I implore you to come back soon.
LikeLike
Lms, and our other gentle ladies, I hope your hiatus remains temporary as all your contributions are valuable.
As far as the law, I don’t think there was one conservative here that endorsed the VA law or even thought it was legal.
LikeLike
McWing, I understand that, but it wasn’t the point. I’m not going to rehash it again though.
I’m out for now.
LikeLike
My lack of consistent participation in the discussions stems from a lack of interest in much of the subject matter as much as anything. I read many of them, but have little to add.
Also, I get where many of the regulars stand on certain issues. I may or may not agree, but I respect that this is where they stand and have little interest in hashing our agreements/disagreements further.
It is a gross overstatement, but my personal experience in discussing female biology and its political ramifications with a group of men is not to do it. One-on-one, great. It’s not that men are in general are dumb or insensitive or anything else. For me, the intense personal experience of trying to discuss the biological differences gets in the way of seeing all the things we have in common. Also, I’m extremely introverted and there are limits on what I’ll share in a blog forum. Hence, my lack of participation on “that thread.”
People will judge what you write on a blog. It’s part of the sharing process. Sometimes the feedback is more pointed than we bargain for. That’s the risk we all take here.
I hope this doesn’t sound trite, but every experiment like ATiM takes a great deal of courage. If it didn’t, we’d see blogs like this everywhere.
LikeLike
A man’s country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle. George William Curtis”
One might say the same about a blog.
LikeLike
lms:
I’ve reached out to you privately and extensively to convey how I feel, so there is no need to repeat it here. I’ve done and said what I can.
LikeLike
McWing: the problem (from my personal point of view) is that the way that some of you word your comments makes me feel that my contributions aren’t valuable. You may not have felt that the VA bill was legal, but what you said made me feel like you thought they had a valid point long after both lms and okie had explained what we objected to. I was doing my best to largely not comment on that thread because I knew it was pushing many emotional buttons–and that was why, when I did comment, it was over the top.
What ashot said above, about this becoming a male conservative dominated blog, is what is happening because I (speaking for myself, but I think that okie and lms in particular agree with this) don’t feel like my opinions are respected. Yes, it’s a “feeling”, and yes, it’s personal–but that’s what many discussions are. I don’t ever expect any of you to agree with me on some things, but I do expect you to acknowledge my right to have my own opinion. Trying to persuade me to yours is perfectly valid–and welcome, as I’ll try to persuade
me to yoursyou to mine–but to simply dismiss me is insulting, and that’s what it has come to often feel like.LikeLike
I left off with that discussion for the reason I noted in one of my comments, and because I am simply too busy with other things. A couple of notes:
We didn’t bring up the topic. We were asked to comment on it.
I didn’t even remotely dismiss or disrespect anyone. Nor did I see anyone else on the male/conservative side who did.
But I was (as were we all on my “side”) told to “kiss [michi’s] ass” and told that by examining the issue we were asked to examine we were justifying state-mandated rape. I saw that no actual discussion was possible at that point and so didn’t try to participate in what was not possible.
Michi said:
but I do expect you to acknowledge my right to have my own opinion.
Your right to your opinion was consistently acknowledged. You didn’t reciprocate; quite the opposite. This makes it obvious to me that there is no conceivable way to satisfy your need to feel acknowledged or valididated, and that it was foolish and pointless for us to respond at all on the issue. All that would have been acceptable was absolute deference.
You may not have felt that the VA bill was legal, but what you said made me feel like you thought they had a valid point long after both lms and okie had explained what we objected to.
I know this was directed to TMW, but it illustrates something important: it implies that no one was allowed to disagree or could have a valid point once the Plum Girls “objected.” That is, it confirms what I just said above, and lays a premise upon which discussion is obviously impossible: disagreement with you was not allowed.
TMW said:
As far as the law, I don’t think there was one conservative here that endorsed the VA law or even thought it was legal.
Just for the record, I didn’t endorse and said I probably wouldn’t support it, based on the little I knew. After seeing the actual amendment, it is clear to me that it was misrepresented by its opponents, that those misrepresentations got echoed and amplified through the media echo chamber, and that there could be a better justification for it than it might have appeared (but I still have no desire to discuss it).
If “legal” means “constitutional” here, I don’t have an opinion at this point under Roe/Casey, but it clearly is “legal” under the actual Constitution. That’s a question entirely different from whether it is good legislation.
___________________________
I am not angry or upset with anyone about this. It is what it is. I still like and respect all of you, but it is tedious to try to discuss topics on which any disagreement is received as an insult. I would apologize, but in this instance I am quite certain I have nothing to apologize for. I was ever so respectful and nondogmatic, but it really made no difference what I said, if it was not complete deference.
I am still going to be very busy for a while. so if I am not here it isn’t because I quit. I think it would be great to have more participants on both/all sides, and particularly more vigorous progressives, since some of you seem to feel intimidated or disprespected by much of what we right-wingers say.
LikeLike
msjs, thanks for a comment that was quite relevant for me. As usual, I think you perfectly nailed several things. [Cue kevin’s(?) hammer and nail analogy]
But, “. . . I respect that this is where they stand and have little interest in hashing our agreements/disagreements further.” Often this hashing causes me to better examine my own positions more critically, and so I often appreciate this input. [Now cue “different strokes” Sly and the Family Stone.] Edit: I love being an old hippie.
LikeLike
I felt the women on this blog expressed their positions eloquently and powerfully, As a man I felt I had little to add or contribute to their perspective but I was strongly moved by it. I hope my silence wasn’t construed as a lack of support.
I found the whole legislative initiative distasteful and was shocked that, as the Washington Post reported, that it wasn’t until the potential invasiveness of the procedure was made known that public opinion turned against it.
There will always be issues were some people just don’t ‘get it’ and there is little that can be done except move on. These include, but are not limited to, reproductive rights, homosexuality, gun control, and it seems even tax policy. Unfortunately, sometimes a desire to back away in public debate can be considered an admission of defeat. I find there are just times when it isn’t right to continue to press an issue once positions have been clearly demarcated.
LikeLike
yello:
As a man I felt I had little to add or contribute to their perspective…
I didn’t have anything to add to their perspective either. But I had my own perspective, which I thought was worth expressing.
There will always be issues were some people just don’t ‘get it’ and there is little that can be done except move on. These include, but are not limited to, reproductive rights, homosexuality, gun control, and it seems even tax policy.
How can you tell when someone just doesn’t “get it”, and when they do get it, but disagree with your judgment about it? Are there any issues over which you just don’t “get it”?
LikeLike
Okie, I totally get the value that hashing out ideas and opinions can bring to some. You’re one of those people, I’m not. Like yello, I don’t press on once positions have been spelled out for me.
As to formally acknowledging each opinion expressed, the very fact that we’re all here says volumes. At least it does to me. Also, the blog format doesn’t allow for non-verbal cues that often say what words don’t. Words are powerful, but they aren’t everything.
Yes, there are those of us who are more versed in ‘diplomacy’ and others of us who are ‘straight shooters.’ The experiences can get rocky as a result. I’ve sometimes felt raw or invisible. But I value the authenticity each contributor brings. It’s rarer than you think.
So thank you, one and all.
LikeLike
yello:
I felt the women on this blog expressed their positions eloquently and powerfully, As a man I felt I had little to add or contribute to their perspective but I was strongly moved by it.
Thank you
I hope my silence wasn’t construed as a lack of support.
It wasn’t; at least not by me. Reading your comments here and on the PL from your point of view as a Catholic were very illuminating–so thank you again.
qb:
I didn’t even remotely dismiss or disrespect anyone.
This:
Good talk.
Glad someone asked us to discuss it.
Isn’t dismissive? You weren’t being sarcastic? Really???? When you’re dealing with three women who have expressed VERY EXPLICIT VIEWS on a subject you don’t think we’d interpret that as dismissive and disrespectful?
LikeLike
Michi wrote: ” the problem (from my personal point of view) is that the way that some of you word your comments makes me feel that my contributions aren’t valuable. “
and
“don’t feel like my opinions are respected. “
I’m not trying to be an a-hole (or even more a-holier than usual) but I just don’t know what either of those statement mean. I certainly respect your opinion, though I often don’t agree with it. My assumption has always been that unless someone says “I don’t respect your opinion and don’t value your contribution,” they otherwise do. What words do you need read so that you’re confidant that your opinion is respected and your contribution is valued? Again, not being snarky, genuinely confused.
As far as QB’s comment that you cited as dismissive, that was written after it was requested that all Republicans can kiss your ass. It’s hard not to take your statement as dismissive.
LikeLike
Michi: Regarding your comment to qb above: I’m answering for myself only here, btw—
Non-verbal cues not being available, I read it as being a sincere appreciative comment, albeit a short one. If a person (in this case qb, but it could have been anyone) expresses appreciation but chooses not to take the discussion further, that’s his/her choice.
We’re not all able to guess how a particular phrasing might or might not be received by others, especially when we can’t see the reaction. That the response didn’t get received well at one end does not automatically imply malice by the sender.
LikeLike
McWing:
It’s hard not to take your statement as dismissive.
I understand that. I have already said that I went over the top. What
i’sI’m asking is that you guys review your comments and look at them from our point of view. Your bringing into the discussion a waiting period on getting a handgun was totally off-point (from what we were objecting to in the bill) and seemed to trivialize our point. Can you see that?LikeLike
Isn’t dismissive? You weren’t being sarcastic? Really????
That was my response to this:
Right now all of you Republicans can kiss my ass, because the people your Party is putting into office are most definitely trying to throw women’s rights back into the nineteenth century. And cry me no rivers about female Republicans in office; they’re possibly even more despicable as far as I’m concerned.
Which of course followed accusations that we were justifying rape and the like.
Yes, I would agree that those were very explicit views, but really more like insults. At that point, there was no discussion. You had terminated any discussion by telling us to “kiss [your] ass.”
If you think that those comments called for some other
timetype of response, then you really are wasting your time talking to me. When A tells meyI am a rape advocate, and B tells me to kiss her ass, that conversation is over.I’m just weird like that.
And that’s my last word on this.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, MsJS, about not giving context. .. but you’d have to go back to that whole thread for about 15 or so comments before what I quoted qb directly on to see what I was referring to. I took it as a totally sarcastic comment–as in we’d been discussing something about which we knew nothing about.
LikeLike
qb;
Yes, I was being emotional–but can you see why?
LikeLike
Michi, I am most definitely not going to go back and attempt to find context for this discussion. In fact, I’m not going to attempt to add any more to it, except to suggest certain issues may be better handled off-blog.
LikeLike
Michi, there’s not likely to be any good to come from my partcipating in more back and forth about my perceptions of your feelings about someone’s response to someone else’s comment, etc. I said what I have to say. You said what you had to say, and are welcome to say whatever else you think needs to to be said. Others have or can have their say, call me an a-hole, deconstruct my points, or whatever.
LikeLike
“I understand that. I have already said that I went over the top. What i’s I’m asking is that you guys review your comments and look at them from our point of view. Your bringing into the discussion a waiting period on getting a handgun was totally off-point (from what we were objecting to in the bill) and seemed to trivialize our point. Can you see that?”
Look, I wrote later that I didnt agree that a three day waiting period / guns was equivalent to an TV ultrasound. (as an aside, I did not/do not accept PP’s characterization that the TVUS was required. I had been reading NRO and WS’s descriptions and felt/feel the PP’s characterization is/was purposefully hyperbolic) I was attempting to demonstrate that even in a right explicitly articulated in the constitution, limits have been placed on the exercise of that right and that a US (a non TVUS) would not be considered, my many people, to be onerous.
Question though, what if I did think a TVUS and a three day waiting period / guns were equally onerous? Why should my opinion on that be dismissed and not valued by you?
LikeLike
Mich:
Yes, I was being emotional–but can you see why?
Looking back on it, do you really think that qb’s response, which you highlighted as evidence of him being disrespectful and dismissive, was inappropriate or uncalled for in the context of it being a response to your outrage post?
I don’t. In fact, in the context of being told to kiss your ass, I think it represents the epitome of restraint.
LikeLike
Scott: you and I have discussed this (as you alluded to upthread with lms) off line and I think we have come to a little better understanding of where we’re coming from.
None of the others have bothered to even try to contact me offline, and I’m trying to not be objectionable on the blog, per what you told me last time I got too emotional.
There. I get to be the bitchy one in public again.
LikeLike
Wow, seems I missed another epic thread. I hope lms and the other women stick around.
LikeLike
…last time I got too emotional.
There. I get to be the bitchy one in public again.
And that is exactly why we can’t let your kind fight in combat. 🙂
Careful, yello, with a scope I can still get you at 3000 meters. 😀 Michi
LikeLike
Scott:
How can you tell when someone just doesn’t “get it”, and when they do get it, but disagree with your judgment about it?
Well, one way would be to say “I understand that you consider the insertion of a foreign object in your vagina to be rape, whether it is legislated or not. But I disagree, because if you’re getting an abortion, you’re asking for foreign objects to get stuck up there anyways, so what’s the big deal in having an ultrasound getting stuck up there first?” Which is basically what this comment is saying.
I won’t presume to speak for Michi, but I found this comment by QB, which preceded the “kiss my ass” comment, to be pretty dismissive. Though, based on his comments, I know that at least KW doesn’t agree with me.
LikeLike
Mike:
Well, one way would be to say “I understand that you consider the insertion of a foreign object in your vagina to be rape, whether it is legislated or not. But I disagree, because…
Please read my very first response to the rape claim, which began with “I disagree”. Do I “get it”? How can you tell?
I won’t presume to speak for Michi, but I found this comment by QB, which preceded the “kiss my ass” comment, to be pretty dismissive.
You note that it preceded Mich’s outrage post, but you fail to note the context in which it was posted, namely in direct response to okie’s accusation against us that we had spent the day justifying state-sanctioned rape. That context both explains and justifies his demeanor, I think.
LikeLike
[…] today’s earlier thread, ashot posed what seemed to me to be an intriguing question. In the face of lms’ hopefully only temporary […]
LikeLike
I would like to pose a question. Do the women here think that males should defer to them on the subject of “reproductive rights?”
LikeLike
McWing: I would suggest, as an answer to your question, that perhaps thinking about the first four words above the comment box would go a long way toward making these discussions easier. They’re never going to be easy, and we will always disagree to an extent, but a lot of what was lost in the discussion was the first four words.
LikeLike
Mark:
However, as to the uniquely female experiences, female testimony has great weight; it must be listened to and absorbed, and it cannot be treated dismissively by males.
Two things. First, I don’t think anyone here needs to be told not to treat female testimony dismissively, because none of us would ever do so. What some of us need to be told, perhaps, is how to express disagreement with a women about issues on which she has given testimony without it being interpreted as being dismissive.
Second, you might also want to get into just how one is to weigh female testimony when different women are providing conflicting and indeed diametrically opposed testimony about the same uniquely female experience.
LikeLike
What some of us need to be told, perhaps, is how to express disagreement with a women about issues on which she has given testimony without it being interpreted as being dismissive.
Well put. I would also invite that.
I went through some counseling on this in my forties. I don’t think it stuck, because I still fall into the trap of male-female discussions of me trying to immediately discern the problem that can be fixed, before addressing the feelings that were expressed. I try to remember that emotions for all of us are operative facts [the counselor taught me that]. This is only supposed to be true in personal matters, conversationally, where you and the other person have a relationship, but I see it bubble over into labor negotiations all the time. The cheap trick for me in the VA conversation was that I stayed out of it until I could read a thread that made clear what the women were pissed about, and what they actually wanted us to recognize. I freely admit that if I had jumped in early I just would have said that it seemed like a dumb law, but one that would pass constitutional muster. So other times I am sure that I have claimed, or would claim, a proposed solution without fully comprehending that what I was actually being asked was to understand how it felt [in this case] to be a woman, singled out by a statute for an invasive treatment that a man would never have to undergo, during a stressful time in her life, because a bunch of men seemingly perceived her to be a perp who deserved to be punished.
So I would be tempted to say about a reproductive or gender related issue, in response to any point raised by ‘Goose, “Before you consider figuratively doing that Herman Cain reversal on me, tell me if you want me just to propose a solution or if you want me to discuss something more basic. And please tell me what you want, assuming that I have jumped to solution mode, which has been a career choice for me.”
Second, you might also want to get into just how one is to weigh female testimony when different women are providing conflicting and indeed diametrically opposed testimony about the same uniquely female experience.
Not going there. I only have a relationship here with the women who comment here.
LikeLike
mark:
Well put. I would also invite that.
I have spent much time in the last week seeking an answer to that question, and I am still none the wiser. In all honesty, at this point I tend to think that it is not possible. The mere expression of disagreement on some things will be considered insulting or dismissive. I’m not sure there is any way around it.
Not going there. I only have a relationship here with the women who comment here.
Fair enough. But then we should be clear that your concern is not how much weight should be given to women’s testimony qua women when discussing a particular political issue involving uniquely female experiences, but, rather, how much weight should be given to the testimony of a particular woman you have a relationship with while trying to maintain that relationship during a discussion of that issue.
The latter, BTW, is certainly a worthy goal. But in terms of an objective discussion about the merits of a position on a particular political issue, it needs to be recognized that generally speaking there is no such thing as a “women’s” view, despite repeated references and appeals to the notion. Women disagree with each other about politics all the time, even the politics of uniquely female experiences.
LikeLike
I found it to be a mine field when I took a course called _The History of Women in America_. There were only two men in the course and the women, including the Professor, assumed I was there to disrupt their course. When they learned that I was there because of a thesis based on New England women after the Civil War their attitudes changed. It was difficult to learn a new language in order to speak in that class. Having said that I still think the VA law and the TX laws are an invasion of privacy. Choosing to have an abortion should not be assumed to be taken lightly and this seems to be one of the attitudes I read and see provided by politicians. To subject females to further probing by law it pretty much close to rape. Period.
LikeLike
There is such a thing bas a woman’s view. Historically, women had control of the home and the education of the children. When the vote was coming along there was a battle between those who thought they would lose that home control and those women who wanted a career. This debate was really ignored by the males and when it wasn’t it was misunderstood.
LikeLike
mcurtis:
There is such a thing bas a woman’s view.
Please read what I actually said.
LikeLike
Scott:
Do I “get it”? How can you tell?
No, I don’t think you get it — either my point or that of the ATiM ladies. My point was that you fail to recognize that the other side has a legitimate opinion. In doing so, you make the other side think: a) that you don’t understand the point because they haven’t been clear, so more explanation is necessary; or b) you don’t think it is a legitimate opinion, so you are summarily dismissing it. By acknowledging the other side’s point, but then disagreeing with it, at least both sides are on relatively equal footing and one side doesn’t feel like they are being condescended to. Clearly, you didn’t get that point because you subsequently wrote the following to Mark:
“What some of us need to be told, perhaps, is how to express disagreement with a women about issues on which she has given testimony without it being interpreted as being dismissive.”
In regards to the ladies’ point, you show that you don’t get the TV ultrasound/rape comparison because you trivialize it by comparing it to taxes. You clearly do not understand the emotional violation that rape is, the physical violation notwithstanding. Not that I understand it fully either, but I have seen the lasting emotional toll it has taken on friends of mine who have trusted me enough to tell me they have been raped. Many women don’t feel comfortable opening up to men about being raped, which made okie’s admission on that thread pretty jarring (for me, at least) to read.
You will likely defend the rape/taxes comparison by saying that you were only using the example to show the how the logic might apply to a different situation. But that displays a lack of sensitivity to the issue at hand. IMO, you don’t win people over solely by force of logic, especially if you are discussing a volatile issue.
LikeLike
I read what you said Scott and I should not have to quote it. You said that there is no such thing as a women’s “view” despite repeated appeals to that notion. Blah, blah. I said that there IS a women’s view and despite disagreeing with each other those views are NOT those of the male argument. I gave an example. Now if I misread your phrases you might point out how I’m missing your point.
LikeLike
Mike:
No, I don’t think you get it — either my point or that of the ATiM ladies.
Given that my response to your point consisted simply of a question, I am hard pressed to see what you could possibly be basing your judgment on regarding my understanding of your point.
My point was that you fail to recognize that the other side has a legitimate opinion.
I thought that was your point. And you are wrong.
By “legitimate” I take it you mean worthy of consideration. If that is what you mean, then of course I recognize that they have a legitimate opinion, as evidenced by the very fact that I went on to consider and discuss it. I just happened to disagree with it. If I thought it was not worthy of consideration, I would have simply ignored it.
BTW, is my opinion legitimate? Perhaps it would be useful to show me how the ladies acknowledged the legitimacy of my opinion, so that I can use that as a model for how to reciprocate in the future.
In regards to the ladies’ point, you show that you don’t get the TV ultrasound/rape comparison because you trivialize it by comparing it to taxes.
How do you know that you are getting my point? The fact that you think I have trivialized the rape claim indicates to me that, well, you just don’t get it. (This “you just don’t get it” claim is very convenient.)
But suppose that I actually was saying that rape is no more of a violation than is theft. Shouldn’t you, by your own standards, recognize that this is a legitimate opinion to hold before you disagree with it? How have you done so?
IMO, you don’t win people over solely by force of logic, especially if you are discussing a volatile issue.
I think it is patronizing and condescending towards a person to assume up front that they cannot be persuaded by logical arguments simply because they are emotionally vested in an issue. And I think it is especially so in the context of a political discussion with women, as it reeks of sexist stereotypes.
LikeLike
mcurtis:
You said that there is no such thing as a women’s “view” despite repeated appeals to that notion. Blah, blah.
Like I said, it would have been useful if you had read what I actually said, which was:
“…in terms of an objective discussion about the merits of a position on a particular political issue, it needs to be recognized that generally speaking there is no such thing as a “women’s” view”…”
My claim about a “women’s view” was plainly qualified with reference to a position on a particular political issue. In your historical example, you don’t explicitly identify what you consider the “women’s view”, but I assume you were referring to the fact that “women had control of the home and the education of the children.” This would be the same things as what Mark described as a “uniquely female experience”, the existence of which I of course I never denied.
You went on talk about “a battle between those who thought they would lose that home control and those women who wanted a career.” This suggests the existence of at least 2 different positions on a political issue, presumably the vote. Which of these two positions could be described as “the women’s view”? Neither, because women held each of the opposing views. That was my point.
LikeLike
Scott:
of course I recognize that they have a legitimate opinion, as evidenced by the very fact that I went on to consider and discuss it.
Perhaps “recognize” was not the word I should have used. A better word would be “acknowledge.” But I guess you expect your readers to infer that you think they have a legitimate opinion if you have decided to address it.
How do you know that you are getting my point?
Feel free to correct my impression that you were using taxes “to show the how the logic might apply to a different situation.”
But suppose that I actually was saying that rape is no more of a violation than is theft. Shouldn’t you, by your own standards, recognize that this is a legitimate opinion to hold before you disagree with it?
I don’t recognize the idea that rape is no more a violation than is theft to be a legitimate opinion.
I think it is patronizing and condescending towards a person to assume up front that they cannot be persuaded by logical arguments simply because they are emotionally vested in an issue.
I didn’t say anything about assuming up front that an emotionally invested person cannot be persuaded by logical arguments. But if you couch your logic in a manner that appears to be condescending or dismissive, then your audience shuts you out and it then doesn’t matter how logical your arguments are, especially if it is a volatile issue. That’s partly what I meant by “solely by force of logic.”
LikeLike
Mike:
But if you couch your logic in a manner that appears to be condescending or dismissive…
I fail to see anything in my post that could be construed as a condescending or dismissive manner. I was invited to offer my opinion, and I offered it in a calm, reasoned, and non-confrontational manner, drawing an analogy in order to explain my opinion.
LikeLike
L, as an infrequent, male, fairly conservative contributor here, I realize what I say may not have a lot of impact. However, as someone who left a previous blog due to many of the same feelings you shared above, I can empathize. I find myself not posting a lot to this or other blogs for a number of reasons….my family life is busy and of a higher priority…a lot of times what I type is misconstrued such that any discussion of substance is replaced with what I will call typical blog crap arguments which is frustrating…just to name a few. There are a number of reasons not to participate. And yet, I like the discussions on this blog and your posts are a big reason why. At a basic level, they make me think which is what I am looking for when I come to places like this. I don’t know that we agree on a lot of things but that is a good thing – at least for me. So I understand if you take a hiatus but selfishly hope you don’t.
LikeLike
Scott:
Well, I wasn’t talking about that post specifically, but just in generalities. The truth is that I don’t know exactly what the ATiM women were reacting to — it could have been a single post (that one or another) or the tenor of the entire discussion. And it might be different for each of the ladies.
To talk specifically about the post that you reference, I think you need to be more careful with your analogies. Comparing rape to taxes can be viewed as trivialization of the violation of rape, even if intellectually the readers know that the analogy is just for the sake of a logical argument. For some, making a similar analogy between abortion and a minor medical procedure (say, wart removal) would be just as insensitive. Then, your logical arguments lose their force because the reader/listener is not inclined to pay much attention to the logic, but rather to the juxtaposition.
LikeLike
Dave!:
Some of us know you put up with a lot of crap for a long time, longer than I probably would have. So, I’m glad to see you here even if it is infrequent.
LikeLike
Mike wrote: “I don’t recognize the idea that rape is no more a violation than is theft to be a legitimate opinion.”
So, can we then get a list of what are legitimate opinions to hold prior to any discussion?
Is the holder of such an opinion do anything but dismissiveness, in your opinion?
LikeLike