Trends

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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?

Comments

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

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.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

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.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

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"?

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

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.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

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).

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

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.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

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

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

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.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

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.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

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.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

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?

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

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.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

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.

That's a fairly fringe viewpoint to hold. You do realize that, right?

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

I'm not talking about abortion any more.

Fair enough, obviously those sort of communities have set some frames within which debate can occur, and they deem anything outside those frames inappropriate. Good. That's why I'm not interested in them in the first place. It's really that simple.

Get some sleep. Cheers.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

Fair enough, obviously those sort of communities have set some frames within which debate can occur, and they deem anything outside those frames inappropriate.

That's basically what I was trying to say the whole time, jfc.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

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.

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

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."

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

Question of curiosity. Do you choose your friends according to their political views and the level to which their opinions match yours?

[curseangel.livejournal.com]

No, of course not. However, I'm a very outspoken feminist and pro-choice activist, so conservative folk tend not to friend me. I do actively confront people in my life who are, well, bigoted or awful in some way, too, sooo... yeah.

Anyway, uh, I tend not to run in circles that are conservative, etc. TBH, being friends with someone very socially conservative wouldn't ever work for me - I consider views like being anti-abortion or anti-gay marriage inherently offensive. This tends not to mesh well with friendships, and given how I view those issues... well, I'm pretty okay with that.