talkpolitics | Trends

Entry tags:

abortion

Trends

An interesting finding in recent polling on social issues. I'll let this piece give the details:

Americans are now evenly split on same-sex marriage: 47 percent support marriage rights for gays and lesbians, and 47 percent oppose them. That stalemate won't last long—critics of gay unions are dying off. According to a new report from the Public Religion Research Institute, only 31 percent of Americans over age 65 support gays getting hitched, compared to 62 percent of Americans under 30.

But strong millennial support for gay marriage has not translated into an uptick in acceptance of other sexual freedoms, like the right to an abortion. The Public Religion Research Institute notes that popular support for keeping abortion legal has dipped a percentage point since 1999, and young Americans are not swelling the ranks of abortion rights supporters. Today, while 57 percent of people under 30 see gay sex as "morally acceptable," only 46 percent of them would say the same thing about having an abortion.

The institute calls this a "decoupling of attitudes." Support for same-sex marriage and abortion rights have traditionally gone hand-in-hand, and that's changing. Though young people today are "more educated, more liberal, and more likely to be religiously unaffiliated" than their parents—all factors traditionally correlated with support of abortion rights—they are not actually more likely to support abortion.

The article goes on to give some reasons as to why this decoupling is occurring, but I believe the issue is much more simple than that - gay marriage, as it is, has been a reality for millennials (folks ages 19-29) for most of their politically/socially aware lives now, and they see quite clearly how the issue really doesn't matter - gay people getting married doesn't impact their straight marriages, or their lives at all, really. There's no harm involved. The difference with abortion is that the harm involved remains self-evident - at the end of the day, we know how many abortions occur, and such "decoupling," as it were, likely reflects that difference. I also speculate that many do not see the abortion issue as one of "rights," but rather one of life. That those who self-identify as pro-life remains competitive ideologically with those who self-identify as pro-choice for the first time in a while may be a sign of that.

Why do you think these issues are separating? Should they truly be falling under the same social umbrella? What am I missing here?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Actually, you did say that (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1038512.html?thread=82576304#t82576304). The notes feature is a wonderful thing!

And god forbid someone be "venomous" when someone is trying to curtail their human rights and advocating forcing them and millions of other women to go through forced pregnancies! To say nothing of your defenses of slut-shaming and rape analogies as in the post linked above. I mean, there's nothing to be venomous about there!

Lastly, I believe I'm allowed to post what I'd like. I said I didn't want to debate the "personhood" issue with you, but the rest, well... I think it speaks for itself that the only part of my post you replied to was the end bit where I brought up your prior bad acts.

And I debunked that below - it wasn't really the sentiment I was trying to convey. Convenient to ignore that amirite?

"I think it speaks for itself that the only part of my post you replied to was the end bit where I brought up your prior bad acts."

That's because I really don't want to talk to you, so I replied to the part where you said /you/ didn't want to talk to /me/ (or so it seemed) and capitalized on that.

Seriously. You won't ever take anything I say seriously and refuse to admit that it might be possible you misinterpreted. You were toxic to me from the start (and arguments don't have to include toxicity). I enjoy civilized debate and discussion and have debated with people who agree with your views on many of the things you disagree with me on, without the kind of shit-spewing that arose in our last, er, debate. I don't want to repeat that. So, unless you're going to stop being a jerk, I don't want to argue with you about this. Okay?

Except that you said right there, with "I was making a philosophical connection," that you meant to compare the two things. You absolutely freaking meant it.

And I think when you say offensive things, you actually do have to deal with the fact that people are going to be -- gasp -- offended, and get angry. So no, I'm not going to apologize and stop "being a jerk" by getting upset when you offend me. But you know, keep on keeping on with that tone argument.

Why are you trying to continue a months-old argument? really?

I actually wasn't. But we're not supposed to insult people here iirc, so I got creative.

Seriously though, it was unnecessary to reference it and I do apologize, even if it still was heinous. It's been That Kind of Day. I'm gonna leave this thread pretty soon and go to Trader Joe's for some grocery-related retail therapy, so I'll check out.

I understand. You might want to also look at my own reply to this comment (I tried to edit it in but by then you had already replied.)

I'm sorry you think the things I say are "heinous". But I don't have the same background with these issues that you and some other members here (such as blue_mangoes) have, so please try to understand that I don't see things the same way - I don't say something with the intention of it coming across as a "heinous" idea even if you are more likely to associate that idea with those words.

I read it. All I can really say is that I will try to refrain from a knee-jerk reaction, but I do ask that you pay more attention to what you are saying sometimes. Because a lot of times, the things you've said here have been extremely offensive to others, and may trigger people (especially when talking about slut-shaming, rape apologism, and such). And a lot of times the things you say are similar to, if not the same as the things that people who are rape-apologists, flagrant misogynists, and slut-shamers say. You have to be willing to accept that when you parrot those words, you are going to get the same reaction they would, because people are sick to death of dealing with that shit. Especially if you come in saying those things in posts that are already volatile and where similar arguments have been going on.

Further, I'd say having an open mind is important, certainly, but not so open that your brain falls right out. I am open-minded, but if someone sounds and acts like a misogynist, I'm... probably going to assume they're a misogynist. If someone says things that are slut-shaming, I'm going to assume they're slut-shaming.

And sometimes, with things like the "education = sexual assault" thing? The best thing to say is not "but I didn't mean it like that!" it's, "I'm sorry, I'll think more about my words next time." The former just made me more angry, because it smacks of "it's your fault if you're offended" and "I can say whatever I want and as long as I didn't 'mean it' you can't get angry". The apology, however, is actually productive. As I've said, intent isn't magic, and saying you didn't mean something the way it came off doesn't erase the fact that people got offended or hurt by what you said... and you are responsible for it, because they're your words, regardless of your intent.

I really, really think you should try to educate yourself on these issues, maybe by joining some actual feminist groups, like ontd_feminism or something similar.

I would've joined, but I don't like being yelled at by a group of people for disagreeing with one or more of them.

If you consistently disagree with important things most of the community agrees on, try examining your point of view. I won't say the entire community is always right or some nonsense, because it's of course not, but generally, with big things... if everyone ever is saying being anti-choice is misogynistic and basically monstrous (which it is, btw), and you're anti-choice, maybe you should re-examine your stance. Get it? If everybody's saying you're an asshole for saying X, maybe you should look at why you said X and why you don't think Y.

But I've seen people yelling at someone who's been there for the first time and is disagreeing with something for the first time, not "consistently disagreeing" with "the most important things the community agrees on" (whatever that is supposed to mean in the context of a group of individual, supposedly critically thinking people).

I get what you're saying about misogyny, but on the other hand, implying that I must reconsider my points of view simply because a group of other people happen to disagree with me, sounds kind of disturbing to me. Exactly what kind of community is that? A place where people present their opinions for discussion, or where you have to adhere to certain opinions as an obligatory condition for being "accepted"? If it's the latter, then I'm not interested.

First, by "the most important things the community agrees on," I mean in a general sense -- groups like ontd_feminism are fundamentally pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-isms, and so on.

Sometimes people who are first-timers disagreeing do get yelled at. A lot of times it's because they say something really, egregiously offensive to people in the group -- shockingly, most people aren't going to bother taking the time to check whether someone is consistently a misogynistic asshole before they get offended, upset, or angry. Being a first-timer also doesn't give you a "pass" to freely upset and offend people. By "consistently" I didn't mean "in a number of posts" or something, I meant "whenever you come across an important issue, you disagree with the consensus" or something to that effect, you know?

I didn't say you had to change your mind, note. I said you should look at what you're thinking and why you think that way. Critical thinking is important. When people refuse to reexamine their own viewpoints in the face of evidence that they may be wrong about them, there's a problem. A serious, serious problem. And if someone is saying your viewpoint is wrong because it is offensive and sexist/racist/whatever, you should really shut up and see if what they're saying has any validity before you try to defend it. Assuming, of course, that the general "you" there accepts that being misogynistic/racist/etc. is a bad thing, which isn't always true, but I generally assume people understand it is.

Ultimately, what's more important - consensus, or the individual right to hold an opinion? Because I can give you a number of examples when consensus agreed on one thing which wasn't necessarily the right thing (slavery, flat Earth, fairies, etc).

I'm not talking about saying egregious and offensive things just for the sake of annoying people, and neither am I talking about being deliberately obtuse and stubbornly holding a view even in the face of evidence. I'm talking about someone holding an opinion that's different from that of a majority. Granted, I'm pro-choice, but let's suppose I was pro-life and I went into a place where the majority are pro-choice, and I say I'm pro-life. Then what? Will I be talked down, and asked (in rather uncivil terms) to "take it or leave it"?

Like I said, I said if the majority says one thing for an apparently good reason (i.e. "X is misogynistic," "Y is racist") you should re-examine what you're saying and why... and you aren't required to change your opinion to suit the group consensus or anything.

Umm.. in cases like that, yeah, a pro-lifer would and should be told to "take it or leave it." The "pro-life" (I prefer "anti-choice" since "pro-life" implies they care about anyone's life but that of a fetus, which they plainly and blatantly don't) point of view is inherently misogynistic. There's not going to be any debate on that -- to quote a slogan, anti-choice is anti-woman. Pro-choicers and feminists in general shouldn't be required to tolerate an offensive, shitty opinion just because "bawwwww it's my opinion!".

Now, if the opinion in question was like... "I like cheese" or something, or "I love DC comics," then you know, whatever. But if the opinion is essentially woman-hating, or racist, or whatever? Then that person does, in fact, have to "take it or leave it" if the community they want to enter is opposed to sexism or racism or whatever -ist or -ism they happen to be.

So, no compromise and agreement to disagree, i.e. the take it or leave it approach, without a chance of stating their different opinion, and outright postulating that certain sorts of opinions are automatically hateful, therefore run counter to the "principles" of said community.

Having cleared that out, I'd say that staying away from such kind of forums seems to have been a wise choice. I'd rather spend my (rather limited) online time on forums where free exchange (and often clash) of competing ideas is permitted (as long as it remains civil of course).

Hey, this is just my personal opinion. I can't speak for a community I am not even a member of (I left ontd_feminism ages ago for unrelated reasons). Debate is certainly allowed/encouraged, but you were talking against people getting "dogpiled" and, um, yes, certain viewpoints that are offensive are going to get a lot of negative feedback. This shouldn't be a freaking shock to anyone!

And yeah, some opinions are "automatically hateful." That shouldn't be a shock. There's no way to ~nicely~ be sexist or racist, for example. There's no way to ~nicely~ say you don't think women should have rights over their own bodies. The idea that opinions are sacred and unassailable because they're ~opinions~ is pure and total bullshit.

I'm not talking about being sexist or racist. The issue of abortion for example is much more multi-faceted and nuanced than that.

Honestly, I don't think it is. Anti-choicers think a fetus's continued existence is more important than the life, livelihood and rights of an already-living, independent woman. That's pretty fucking gross and sexist no matter how you slice it.

You don't think that it is. You, as in "the person - you". And that's my point. When a pre-conceived notion completely stifles debate, then debate doesn't happen. And that's my entire point - I want to debate things, rather than wrapping myself with like-minded people in an echo-chamber.

I may be sharing your opinion on the particular issue of abortion. But that's irrelevant for the purposes of this conversation.

So... what, exactly? Communities should coddle and accommodate people with offensive and bigoted opinions just because that's their "opinion"? Even if those people are actively seeking to deny those selfsame community members their rights? Bullshit. Bullshit. Women shouldn't be obligated to tolerate sexism in their communities.

I'm not saying people can't debate those issues, or what-the-fuck-ever. But no one is obligated to sit down and have a debate with someone who is spewing offensive, gross garbage. Especially not women in a feminist community who have someone coming in going "you know what, I don't think you women deserve the right of bodily autonomy after all! BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION LULZ." They absolutely have the right to tell that person to get the fuck out of their community and come back when they're less of sexist douchebags.

Or well, that's my opinion. It wouldn't be the first time I've gotten shit for refusing to "tolerate" anti-choice opinions. But as far as I'm concerned, if you're anti-choice you're anti-woman, and if you're anti-woman, you're anti-me (being a woman). And well, would you be friends with someone who was anti-you? Didn't think so.

For the 6th time, I'm not talking about offensive opinions. I'm talking about opinions differing from those of the majority. You and I seem to keep talking about two different things, and this is kind of exhausting.

See, I'll give you another example since this one bugs you so much. A guy recently posted a conspiracy theory here about HAARP and some other weird stuff like that. For some it sounded outrageous, for others it was obviously done for fun, and for third ones it was some poor attempt at trolling. 9-11 truthers regularly get a lot of ridicule here, but they don't get yelled to piss off, or banned, or insulted with names (if they receive something like this, they get defended by the mods). Are you getting my drift?

Except, see, when you're talking about people being anti-abortion and shit, you are talking about offensive opinions, because being anti-abortion is offensive towards women, it is offensive because it is sexist. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp. Being anti-abortion = being sexist. Ergo, being anti-abortion = FUCKING OFFENSIVE.

General political debate communities like this aren't what I'm talking about here, though. We were, very specifically, discussing feminist communities. Feminist communities are absolutely within their rights to ridicule, yell at / insult, and even, yes, ban misogynists (which, yeah, again, anti-abortion..). Many also ban for racist, homophobic, or other -ist behavior/opinions/etc. Those groups may be about debate, but many are not allowing of any and all opinions no matter how offensive they may be. They shouldn't have to be.

Anyway, um, in no other community I'm part of is "play nice" an actual rule that I'm aware of. People get mad sometimes when people bring up bullshit, offensive opinions, and react accordingly. Just because a lot of people do so doesn't mean the community is a "hivemind" or some such shit -- it means someone said something offensive and, gaspshock, a lot of people were offended/angered.

Sorry if this is yet more circular arguing, but you don't seem to grasp that what you're trying to pose as a simple "difference of opinion" actually IS something that is OFFENSIVE, and I don't know how to explain that any more clearly. Also it's 8am, and I haven't slept, so that might be hurting things. I'm going to go get some sleep now, I'm trying to get up and see if I can catch them filming The Avengers later today. Squee an' all. Cheers.

(no subject)

badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com - 2011-09-02 11:57 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

luvdovz.livejournal.com - 2011-09-02 12:11 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

curseangel.livejournal.com - 2011-09-02 19:05 (UTC) - Expand

On a side note, I don't see what this has to do with "friends" at all. Political forums are supposed to be an arena for political debate, not seeking friends. I thought "Add_Me" and "Pen_Friends" are for that.

As I said above, wasn't talking about purely political take-all-comers comms like this, but actual feminist communities.

The "friends" thing was just me talking about my personal views, and how they mesh into this kind of thing, ha. Like, "comms get shit for XYZ, and I have before too in my personal life."

(no subject)

luvdovz.livejournal.com - 2011-09-02 12:08 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

curseangel.livejournal.com - 2011-09-02 19:13 (UTC) - Expand

Sorry it took so long to get back to you. Yesterday was super shitty so I just sort of stayed away from this whole thread all day. And now I've been online for a really long time already and am ready to go be productive. So later today I will post a response to all this.

To be fair, though, I can see where you're coming from, and I recognize that you are trying to be nice.

I just really can't get over your consistently condescending way of speaking. No, that's not a "tone argument". Maybe it's just the way you are. Whatever. I'm just trying to explain why I get so irked whenever I talk to you, and I think that's probably the reason. I have a very hard time dealing with condescending people. (not trying to be judgmental, just stating something about me.) So maybe it would be better overall if we just avoided each other.

also, jsyk, I'm not using your "tone" (i.e. being a jerk) to try to invalidate anything you are saying. so the "tone argument" thing is bullshit. I'm just using it to say that I find talking to you to be extremely unpleasant to talk to and I don't want to do it.

You can take that or leave it. If you want to talk to me, be nice. Give me a change to explain myself if I say something that you think is offensive rather than just jumping to conclusions about how I think. Try not to unleash all your RAEG on me when you don't really know much at all about the kind of person I am and how I see things. I get the feeling you and I could read totally different things into a statement spoken by someone entirely different. We just see things very differently. I'm not a rape-apologist, woman-hater, or slut-shamer. I'm just not. You are convinced that I am because of a single conversation over the internet (in which you took much of what I said in a completely different way than I meant it). You don't get to decide what I meant by what I say. You hardly know anything about me, yet are extremely judgmental.

Okay, I kind of went off on a rant there, I admit it. I just find the way you treat me to be very upsetting. So if you're going to continue along the path of "I am right, the end, your are wrong and evil and hateful because I said so," then I. do. not. want. to. talk. to. you.

tl;dr have an open mind; listen to me when I say I didn't mean something the way you took it, and respect that (and I will in turn respect you when you say the its common for people to interpret something a certain way when maybe I didn't know that); and don't lash out at the slightest provocation - or don't talk to me at all.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only