Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I am a feminist. On most issues, like choice on abortion and equal pay for equal work, I'm likely to agree with the position of the National Organization of Women. At the same time, I am highly skeptical of identity politics. And this is a perfect example of why: the New York chapter of NOW is blasting Ted Kennedy for his "betrayal" of women because he has endorsed Barack Obama for president rather than Hillary Clinton. An excerpt below the fold:
In a sharply critical statement, the New York state chapter of NOW took aim at Kennedy Monday for what it called an "ultimate betrayal," and suggested the Massachusetts Democrat "can't or won't" handle the idea of Clinton becoming President of the United States."Sen. Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard," said the statement. "Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few."
"And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment!" the statement continues. "He's picked the new guy over us. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton."...
But the NOW state chapter suggested Monday Kennedy's decision was a larger representation of society's ongoing disrespect for women's rights.
"This latest move by Kennedy is so telling about the status of and respect for women's rights, women's voices, women's equality, women's authority and our ability - indeed, our obligation -- to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a president that is the first woman after centuries of men who 'know what's best for us.'"
That is just sad. The only possible implication of this is that if you don't support Hillary Clinton for president that can only be because you hate women and want to violate their rights. And that, my friends, is absolutely idiotic. It's every bit as idiotic, and absolutely identical in substance, as someone suggesting that if you don't support Barack Obama you must hate black people.
But if we're going to apply such "logic" consistently, doesn't that mean that those women who are urging a vote for Hillary Clinton must hate black people? If you suggested that, they would no doubt scoff and call you a jerk, but that is the clear logical implication of their position. If your lack of support for Hillary Clinton proves that you just want to keep down everyone who shares ovaries with her, would it not also be true that your lack of support for Barack Obama proves that you just want to keep down everyone who shares an elevated melanin level with him? I mean, if we're going to play such shallow groupthink games, let's not go halfway let's go all the way.
Is this really the message they want to send? After all, if it's okay to argue that one should vote for a candidate solely because they are female, why is it wrong to argue that one should vote against a candidate solely because she's female? And where does that leave black women? Are they supposed to vote for their race or their gender? If they vote for their race, does that show that they hate their gender? If they vote for their gender, does that show that they hate their race?
Hey, I've got a crazy idea: maybe people should vote for the person they think will do the best job in office no matter what their skin color or gender. I know it sounds nuts but I seem to recall a wise man once calling for us to embrace the notion that we should judge a person by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin (or the number of X chromosomes they have).
This notion that not voting for Hillary Clinton is a "betrayal" of women in general is, to be blunt, utterly moronic. Thankfully, the New York chapter of NOW has some opposition from the national NOW, which had this to say:
Meanwhile, the national chapter of NOW sought to distance itself from the state chapter's comments, issuing a statement Monday evening that praised Kennedy's record with respect to women's rights."Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement," NOW President Kim Gandy said. "We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote."
But here's what they should have said: "We continue to encourage all Americans to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote for the candidate they believe is best, regardless of their gender or race. We have fought too long and hard for women to be judged on their merits instead of their gender to turn back the clock and demand that gender should trump merit when it suits our short-term purposes."
Comments
Would a vote against Margaret Thatcher have been an anti-woman vote for the patriarchy?
Posted by: Altabin | January 30, 2008 9:47 AM
Can you make a generalization about feminists (as you seem to in your headline) on the basis of what may be the stupidity of as few as one so-called feminist? (I haven't seen a list of signatories.) I do know plenty of women whose main rationale for supporting Hillary Clinton is their common gender, but most of them don't denounce non-Hil-supporting feminists as traitors.
I agree the letter is pathetic, but I don't believe it's representative of feminists in general.
Posted by: op99 | January 30, 2008 10:23 AM
op99, I didn't see Ed generalizing about feminists. He seems to be singling out the reaction of NOW's NY chapter.
Posted by: Ashley Moore | January 30, 2008 10:54 AM
The really depressing thing is that there are respected bloggers on thie site who would go crazy over the assertion that, "Sometimes feminism can go too far." These are the people who say that being pro-life means you hate women, or who go nuts when you point out that there is a possibility that, on the average, men are just more biologically geared towards the sciences.
However, I don't think I've ever seen anything as insane as what Ed just described. Possibly people arguing for a legally-enforced change from "woman" to "womyn." I kind of wonder where NOW NY stand on that.
Luckily, I know these people are not representative of the rest of NOW, who are good people fighting a good fight.
Posted by: Brandon | January 30, 2008 11:12 AM
I don't think he necessarily means to generalize about feminists (as he calls himself one), but 'When feminists act like a mindless mob' is an awful poor topic line for the actual content of this post, what with the implication that there's a mob of feminists mindlessly doing... something (as opposed to a fairly small chunk of feminists saying something he thinks is stupid.) That's pretty clearly what op99 was pointing out.
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | January 30, 2008 11:17 AM
'When feminists act like a mindless mob'
It's like "When Animals Attack!" It is only a small proportion.
Posted by: Harq al-Ada | January 30, 2008 11:31 AM
NOW should just rename itself THEN because they're always fighting past battles. I'm a feminist as well and I'm sick of it. "Mindless mob" describes it for me, but if you prefer, use "groupthink."
Posted by: Kristine | January 30, 2008 11:35 AM
Kristine: How about, 'NOW NY says something stupid?' It works for anti-STACLU posts, anti-ID posts, and anti-person posts, right? Confining it to the group in question is generally sound policy.
This isn't the first feminist complaint I've seen on this release (or the second, or the third, or the...) It's not much in the way of groupthink or mob mentality. It is much in the way of 'What? Wait, what? That doesn't really work at all!'
-Mecha
Posted by: Mecha | January 30, 2008 11:43 AM
Some people just go nuts when people say stupid and ignorant things. Go figure.
Posted by: Neil Levy | January 30, 2008 11:55 AM
op99 wrote:
You can but you shouldn't, and I didn't. I specified precisely the group behind this absurdity and I even pointed out that another feminist group opposes them, as I'm sure all thinking feminists do. I'm a feminist and I oppose them and consider their position to be entirely contrary to any valid conception of feminism. Clearly, then, I do not think their views represent all feminists.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 30, 2008 12:00 PM
Mother of Pearl
(Feminists don't have a sense of humor)
Posted by: Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD | January 30, 2008 12:12 PM
I find it interesting how some ask for complete balance in the headline. For balance, read the whole post. Then if it's still off, complain. Headlines get people to read; they don't cover all the nuances.
As for the content of the post--right on!
Posted by: Henry Neufeld | January 30, 2008 12:17 PM
Posted by: Alex, FCD | January 30, 2008 12:30 PM
I couldn't agree more. The last thing we need is affirmative action for the presidency.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 30, 2008 12:31 PM
But that's neither what Ed said nor what he implied. What he was trying to get across is that some feminists, plural ("When Feminists") are engaging in illogical groupthink ("Acting like a mindless mob.") If he wanted to impugn feminism generally, he would have done so. As it was, all of the headline does is refer to a non-specific group of feminists. Not one, and not all of them.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 30, 2008 12:35 PM
Plus, for fuck's sake, the fact that the first line of the post is "I am a feminist" makes all of this conversation completely unnecessary.
Okay, done posting now.
Posted by: Gretchen | January 30, 2008 12:36 PM
But weren't you just saying a while back that "I really believe that nominating Hillary Clinton would be a big mistake; she's the one candidate they've got who could lose one of the least losable elections in history because of her high negatives."
But that's bowing to a perception by some segments of the public (and mostly of the looney right, to boot), not really a judgment about who will do the best job.
I said it before and I'll say it again: I think women are sick and tired of being told they are too emotional and too weak to be in charge. Now that a woman as tough and smart and who plays by the same rules as male politicians do has come along, if there is a widespread percetion by women that a bunch of men denied her the nomination because of her "negatives" (i.e., a lot of men think she's a "bitch"), you could wind up sinking the Democratic party as a national force for a generation. NOW's reaction may reflect that perception setting in.
None of that has anything to do with who will do the best job. But, then again, name the last election that turned on that criteria.
Posted by: John Pieret | January 30, 2008 1:10 PM
That's fair. So show me this evidence that, in every major demographic, women are statistically equal to or better than men in every scientific discipline, or that any discrepancy can be attributed to environment or society. Also, this evidence better be so ironclad that pointing out any flaw in the evidence would be "stupid and ignorant." If you can't do this, then thank you for so eloquently demonstrating my point.
That's a good point. Personally, I wouldn't immediately assume that you didn't like Democrats. It would depend on your wording and tone. There are too many people, however, who wouldn't even bother reading through your comment before making the knee-jerk, indignant reaction.
Posted by: Brandon | January 30, 2008 1:11 PM
NY NOW's reaction is an unfortunate short-sighted, shooting-oneself-in-the-foot act, and even more unfortunately, not an altogether uncommon one in "pro-woman" organizations.
Indulge my tangent, if you will - many years ago, after my wife had earned her BA and I was attending undergrad, we both worked at Planned Parenthood, my wife as an educator, me as a nightwatchman/janitor. During that time, there was discussion about capping or even reducing the amount of money women on welfare would receive for having more children. The president of Planned Parenthood at the time went on record as advocating for MORE money for women on welfare when they had kids and for removing or not having any sort of cap on the number of kids that they could get paid for, as this amounted to a disincentive to have children for these women and was discriminatory or some such nonsense.
My wife and I were FLOORED - as employees of Planned Parenthood, we did not earn nearly enough money to pay for ONE child, and the health care benefits offered were crap.
Planned Parenthood employees did not get automatic raises when they had kids, and in fact, at least at the PP where we worked, having children was discouraged as it meant missing work. And, of course, they did not offer paid maternity leave at the time.
We still supported (and still do) PP's mission, but we tended to be a bit more cynical and skeptical whenever 'our side' made position statements on such issues in the future.
These sorts of antics, unfortunately, can erode support for such movements and organizations, and I would hope that those involved in making such statements or formalizing such position would be a bit more circumspect and visionary.
Posted by: slpage | January 30, 2008 1:16 PM
The word is interactionism. The evidence is the field of population genetics. All phenotypic traits have non-additive norms of reaction; in principle we have no reason to think that current differences in ability are projectible, and every reason to believe that given the enormous narrowing of abilities across the last 30 years, the explanation is not innate. I am not your research assistant. There is a mass of evidence out there and no evidence incompatible with these claims. Go read.
Posted by: Neil Levy | January 30, 2008 1:20 PM
It's funny, I've never heard one peep from the folks now criticizing me for the alleged overgeneralization when I use similar language about Christians or conservatives. It was nothing more than an identifier - the group that I was criticizing are, in fact, feminists. Just like other groups I often criticize are, in fact, Christians. That doesn't mean I condemn all Christians. For crying out loud, I've got Christians here who comment regularly who agree with my criticism of those groups. Just as there are feminists who agree with my criticism of this group. But it seems that when someone talks about groups that we tend to disagree with, we see such statements and labels for what they are; when someone talks about groups we tend to agree with, we demand very explicit disclaimers.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 30, 2008 1:23 PM
Brandon,
Forgive me for being indelicate, but please just shut the fuck up.
Why don't you show us why black people also aren't as good at science? On average, of course? Also, this evidence better be so ironclad that pointing out any flaw in the evidence would be "stupid and ignorant."
Why don't you sit on your hands and try think about why that might be considered a stupid, ignorant, and offensive thing to say?
Posted by: Leni | January 30, 2008 1:28 PM
I wrote:
And John Pieret responded:
That is merely a statement of electoral reality and I still stand by it. Does that mean that those who support Hillary shouldn't vote for her? Of course not. My statement was perhaps too narrow (the one I made today); people vote for all sorts of reasons, not just who they think will do the best job. If they think that candidate A is marginally better than Candidate B but Candidate B is much more electable, that's a perfectly reasonable basis for voting as well. The point is that it is not reasonable to vote for someone based solely on their gender, and it's downright idiotic to suggest that if you don't support a female candidate then you just hate women.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | January 30, 2008 1:30 PM
Thank you for this. I wrote a blog post last night with the same theme. I am a woman and I suppose, a feminist in that I believe that men and women should be treated fairly and equally. The assumption that I should support HRC because she is a woman is insulting. It suggests that I vote with my anatomy instead of my head.
Posted by: Karoli | January 30, 2008 1:32 PM
Well said, slpage.
Posted by: Kristine | January 30, 2008 1:37 PM
Leni, I just fell off my chair laughing. Thanks for making my day.
Posted by: Brandon | January 30, 2008 1:40 PM
Leni, I just fell off my chair laughing. Thanks for making my day.
Posted by: Brandon | January 30, 2008 1:40 PM
Oy, sorry for the double post. My computer's been doing that a lot lately.
Posted by: Brandon | January 30, 2008 1:44 PM
Does NOW think that Hillary would be anywhere near the nomination if her husband hadn't been president? I guess Gloria Steinham's famous quotation needs updating:
"A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle - unless your name is Hilary Clinton"
Posted by: T. Bruce McNeely | January 30, 2008 1:49 PM
Brandon said: "on the average, men are just more biologically geared towards the sciences." was given a smack down by Neil for being an ignorant twit (my words, not Neil's), and then proceeded to ask for evidence to the contrary.
I can't give evidence to the contrary for all sciences, but I can say that I teach science at two major universities, and not only are there consistently more females in my courses than males, the females, on average, perform better overall. While not "evidence", I've spoken with instructors in other science fields who have noticed the same phenomenon. That's not to say that there aren't excellent male students, but it isn't surprising any more to find 70 or 80% females in the top 10% of students in a course, and a higher proportion of males in the bottom half of the grades. In graduate school, there were many more females in my courses as well, though at the faculty level, the ratio was quite skewed to males (but of course there are a variety of reasons for that that have nothing to do with "biological suitability", whatever that is). So, yeah, people get upset when the statement above is made, because it's stupid and ignorant, not because they're rabid feminists.
As for the topic of the post, I am horrified by the statement by NY NOW. I am considering letting my membership lapse, though I hadn't realized it was the NY chapter only that made the statement - I'm glad to hear the national office isn't in lock-step with the insanity of the NYers.
Posted by: Migo | January 30, 2008 1:49 PM
I didn't say that men were naturally better than women. All I said was that, if you say there is a finite, nonzero possibility that biology may be a factor in the male dominance of the sciences, there are people who act really indignant as if you said that women should be locked in the kitchen. How the crap is that previous sentence not true?
I never once even remotely implied that women can't be scientists, nor do I judge people by anything other than their individual merits. In fact, I am an active member of my campus' feminist group and think the shortage of female scientists is a problem. My whole point was that some people become really reactionary to statements that are unpleasant but might have the tiniest basis in truth. And you have all nailed that point home far better than I ever could.
Posted by: Brandon | January 30, 2008 2:24 PM
To be precise, we don't even know how many of NOWNYS' members support this statement.
It could just be one crazy organization head monopolizing the organization's fax machine.
Posted by: Jon H | January 30, 2008 2:37 PM
Jeez, there's a lot of fighting in here over a pretty simple point Ed is making, which no one has denied or refuted.
The NY NOW's statement is a clear example of mindless mob mentality. It's group think--she's "one of us" therefore failure to support her is an attack on us. It's the same kind of thinking that ridiculous nuts on the religious right use when they interpret a failure to be pro-Christian as government attacks on Christianity. You're not endorsing us, therefore you're a traitor/infidel/terrorist/whatever.
Does this reflect on all feminists? No. Does it reflect on all women? No. Does Ed anywhere in his post intimate in any way that his criticism is directed at women or at feminists in general? No. Is there any reason to think his post is anything other than a reasonable indictment of an example of groupthink in a particular left-wing organization? No.
Posted by: Wes | January 30, 2008 2:39 PM
For the first time since I discovered Ed's blog, I can honestly say that reading the comments here have literally made me feel exhausted. And there aren't even that many of them.
I need a nap...
Posted by: Patrick | January 30, 2008 3:03 PM
Posted by: Neil Levy | January 30, 2008 3:06 PM
You can but you shouldn't, and I didn't. I specified precisely the group behind this absurdity and I even pointed out that another feminist group opposes them, as I'm sure all thinking feminists do.
Right. But you might want to realize that the headline's wording could easily be taken to refer to all feminists being a mindless mob and not a small organization of feminists acting like a mindless mob. Yes, the article clarifies what you mean, but the headline colors what one takes away from the article, and you don't point out that NOWNY and NOW are conflicting over this until the very end of the article. Someone who didn't click past the jump would walk away thinking this is a "I normally support NOW but they've gone too far" post and not a "one NOW chapter is showing what feminism shouldn't be" or whatever.
Considering that so far every single other feminist group or blogger I've found is trashing NOWNY for this it just seems like it would be unfortunate to create a situation where your post could accidentally leave the impression NOWNY is speaking for feminism here.
Just saying *shrug*.
Plus, for fuck's sake, the fact that the first line of the post is "I am a feminist" makes all of this conversation completely unnecessary.
Actually, not really. Almost all anti-feminist screeds these days [of which this blog post is not one] begin with "I am a feminist".
Jeez, there's a lot of fighting in here over a pretty simple point Ed is making, which no one has denied or refuted.
That's cuz no one read past the headline, and everyone's either arguing over the headline or arguing with Brandon ^_^
Posted by: Coin | January 30, 2008 3:29 PM
I must admit, that I got my panties in a wad when I first read the headline (mainly because any title with "teh feminist" in it seems to bring out the Neanderthal trolls in full force). So, I played the game of substituting other groups that I don't feel so vested in, and Ed beat me to one of them; if the title had said "When Christians act like a Mindless Mob" I wouldn't have had a second thought.
So, I apologize for the wadded-panty reaction, Ed.
Posted by: ildi | January 30, 2008 3:58 PM
Misogyny is invariably the motive for anti-choice positions - the number of anti-choice advocates whose actual policy positions are consistent with the belief that a fetus is a child and life is sacred and worth protecting regardless of circumstances is somewhere between "infinitesimal" and "forget it." However, the overwhelming majority of anti-choicers' positions are highly consistent with wanting women, especially sexually active women, to suffer, as nicely summarized with the illustration accompanying this post.
Taken literally, it is indeed unreasonable for people to go nuts over the suggestion that this is a possibility - after all, it is possible, at least in the sense of "possible" that square circles are not. Unfortunately, the reaction becomes entirely reasonable when one considers that the people who feel the need to point out this "possibility" almost invariably regard it as "settled fact" (and possibily "self-evident" and "axiomatic") and frequently wish employment and education laws and policies to be rewritten to reflect the truth of this "possibility."
As for the people mindlessly supporting Hillary, I wonder if it would do any good to remind them that Ann Coulter is also a woman, and ask them if she'd have their vote if she ran as a Republican and Hillary dropped out of the race...
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 30, 2008 4:30 PM
(*Hillary Clinton, rather. I just remembered that there are people who are likely to ignore the entire substance of the post and blast me for using her first name to refer to her).
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 30, 2008 4:31 PM
There are people who've noticed that almost all of the people who open with the former try to steer the argument towards the latter. No one is disputing that it's a "possibility" in the trivial, technical sense, but the evidence, as outlined above, strongly contradicts it as a primary factor in the historical gender disparity in science and I'm not aware of any strong evidence supporting such an inclination as even a minor contributing factor. The "evidence" usually offered in support of the idea that women are naturally less inclined towards science almost invariably consists of:
-Circular reasoning from the fact the present and historical gender disparity in the field;
-Willful misrepresentation of the results of certain studies showing that on average members of one sex or the other tend to perform slightly better on certain specific cognitive tasks, many of which are skills that improve with practice; and/or
-C. S. Lewis-level disingenuousness about the differences in social pressures, messages, upbringing, and treatment between boys and girls.
Additionally, such argument tends to proceed implicitly (usually) but unmistakably from the outrageous assumption that "it's genetic/otherwise inherent" is the default position and it is up to everyone else to prove it false, no matter the quality of evidence offered for it. Couple this to the disingenuous insistence of its proponents that the "possibility" is being denied and suppressed for irrational and dogmatic reasons (and the outright dishonesty of said proponents in pretending to only be interested in honestly evaluating the evidence) and, gosh, this style of argument is starting to sound familiar...
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 30, 2008 4:50 PM
Azkyroth believes
Invariably? I'd like to introduce you to some of my pro-life (anti-choice) students, which includes a large proportion of females.
I'm pro-choice myself, and don't agree with my students, but I respect them considerably more than Azkyroth does.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 30, 2008 5:06 PM
'When feminists act like a mindless mob'
It's like "When Animals Attack!" It is only a small proportion.
Posted by: Harq al-Ada | January 30, 2008 11:31 AM
Ya, and I think it was good of Ed to do the post to point that out!
Dave Briggs :~)
Posted by: Dave Briggs | January 30, 2008 5:09 PM
James Hanley: "I'd like to introduce you to some of my pro-life (anti-choice) students, which includes a large proportion of females."
Are you trying to say that womean cannot be misogynists?
Posted by: ildi | January 30, 2008 5:30 PM
This is so transparently stupid that I think this is a ruse by NY NOW to discredit Hillary Clinton by associating her with support from a strident and nonsensical supporter in an effort to help Barack Obama, but doing it in such a way as to seem to support the female candidate. Well played!
Posted by: cm | January 30, 2008 5:38 PM
1) look over the link I gave in support of this, plzthx
2) there's nothing tangible preventing a woman from being a misogynist (I believe I mentioned Ann Coulter earlier?). After all, people habitually act in ways that are flagrantly contrary to their self-interest (poor, non-white, non-Christian, non-straight, and/or female republicans being a case in point) and
3) yes, anti-choice leaders say they're not misogynistic and their followers believe it. They may even themselves believe it. So what? ID advocates say they're interested in an honest evaluation of the evidence, and some may even believe it themselves. Their actual positions and an examination of their rhetoric belies these hollow claims.
(And don't tell me you've never encountered the non-Euclidean mental gymnastics certain "moral traditionalists" go through trying to argue that the subordination of women to men according to the bible is not "anti-woman.")
Posted by: Azkyroth | January 30, 2008 5:48 PM
Just a comment on the "women vs men" thing...
I for one have never seen any studies that really give a good idea on the differences between men and women. In fact, I doubt that such a study is truly possible. I've also never seen anything to suggest that the lack of women in academia is due to anything biological.
BUT saying that arguing to the contrary is ignorant because "most people who argue it are neanderthals" is not a scientific notion. You reject a theory based on evidence, or general plausibility; NOT where the study might lead, or who preposes the theory. Science is science, and facts are facts. While such a statement might be a warning sign to look for bias, it is not grounds to reject an idea completely, or in fact at all. If the DI released a theory claiming to prove that humans did not evolve from an ape-like ancestor, I would be enormously skeptical, but would look at the actual theory, not reject it based on who they are. Is the theory sound? Is there evidence to back it up? These should be what we consider.
I don't think there is a biological difference, but there is NOTHING unscientific or ignorant about claiming the opposite.
Posted by: Chris | January 30, 2008 5:48 PM
Sorry if you've seen this before, but nobody has mentioned it yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
Posted by: Pseudonym | January 30, 2008 7:09 PM
This is only one of the reasons why I refer to them as the National Organization for Some Women.
Posted by: anna | January 30, 2008 7:12 PM
I am a retired woman who has always supported women's rights. Where was this NOW chapter when Ol'Pres Bill was exploiting the young intern in the oval office. Did they not see that as a misuse of power?
Posted by: trufflelily | January 30, 2008 7:13 PM
I think its rather clear that the New York State NOW chapter's condemnation of Kennedy is more an example of what nigh-limitless money and a disciplined political org can get you than one of genuine gender rage. Sad that people in positions of social importance and political authority are willing to sell their integrity like that.
Posted by: Julian | January 30, 2008 7:25 PM
Not that I'm ragging on Ed or anything by saying that. My point is that even the groups founded to oppose our current political and social reality, groups like those who over time would join or grow out of NOW, have over the years become susceptible to its blandishments.
Posted by: Julian | January 30, 2008 7:30 PM
It was said some time back (maybe four years or so) that certain identity feminists would like to empower women without regard to what those women would do with that power.
What if Phyllis Schlafly was running?
Posted by: BaldApe | January 30, 2008 7:45 PM
It's funny, I've never heard one peep from the folks now criticizing me for the alleged overgeneralization when I use similar language about Christians or conservatives.
Funny, but not surprising. What would surprise me is if some of those you are referring to really undertook an examination of the inconsistency in a way that served as something other than an attempt at exonerate themselves.
Posted by: Dr X | January 30, 2008 9:18 PM
Christina Hoff-Sommers draws a useful distinction between "equity feminism" and "gender feminism". The former is about equal rights; the latter is about identity politics.
Equity feminism is noble. Gender feminism is repugnant.
Posted by: keiths | January 30, 2008 10:31 PM
Perhaps true, but says nothing of people who hold pro-life positions. Common civility is to accord to other people their own labels, rather than imposing one on them.
Ed'd point here is pretty straightforward: The NY chapter of NOW is criticizing Ted Kennedy,, possibly the most reliably pro-feminist national politician of the last 40 years, for taking a purely pragmatic and political approach to politics. NYNOW did not bother to analyze why Ted took this position (say, by parsing and criticizing his endorsement speech), but rather condemned the man for being a fair-weather feminist who never really supported the cause. Further, they didn't bother to criticize Kennedy's private life, but instead took aim at his public positions, on which he is close to a 100% rating over his life in Congress. This is idiocy, squared.
Identity politics tends to be counterproductive to begin with. This is just self-parody.
Posted by: kehrsam | January 30, 2008 10:53 PM
That's right. The Ku Klux Klan is an organization of good Christians, humble protectors of traditional values, and certainly not racists.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | January 30, 2008 11:04 PM
I don't think the KKK counts, since they don't really deserve our common civility.
Posted by: Brandon | January 30, 2008 11:16 PM
Brandon, the reason I told you to shut the fuck up is not because I think the subject can't be broached, but because I think you broached it in such a pompous, asinine, way that you earned it. (Yes, that's the nice version. I am censoring myself because some people frown on cussing. I think it adds humor and pizazz, but that's me.)
Anyway, look. I have proof.
I'll just take that as an affirmation that you don't think it is problematic to ask why certain racial groups are possibly, on average just less "biologically geared towards the sciences".
Good. Now that we've got that out of the way, you've had several good responses to your point. Neil Levy above pretty well summed it up:
So, your demands for evidence ruling out the merest possibility of such a thing sound about as informed and reasonable as the creationist's neverending demands for intermediate fossils.
So, if Brandon can suggest it and no one can prove it like, totally wrong in each and every possible case, then it's a legitimate suggestion that, even while being fucking offensive and retarded and not supported by evidence, shouldn't bother anyone.
See why I told you to shut the fuck up? I'm actually trying to do you a favor. Gift horse...mouth.
Posted by: Leni | January 30, 2008 11:22 PM
Does that actually work? Have you ever said, "Shut the fuck up," to some random guy online and he's actually stopped talking? I'm just wondering.
Posted by: Brandon | January 30, 2008 11:32 PM
Alas, not everyone agrees.
Posted by: Skemono | January 31, 2008 12:20 AM
Are you aware, Brandon, of what a nebulous thing 'doing science' actually is? And how many ways there are to think about science? Any kind of intelligence, believe it or not, is helpful in doing science.
And even if it were the case that 1. Men are better at 'abstract thinking' (why? how? who knows?) 2. Science is done marginally better by 'abstract thinkers' - well then, what do you plan to do with that information? Shut women out of science? Feel better about being a misogynist pig who doesn't want to think about the real, far more obvious reasons why there might be a dearth of women in the upper echelons of science?
Men happen to be taller than women, on average. That's a net plus for getting things off of tall shelves, like in the lab. Therefore, men deserve to be scientists more than women. I will need vast amounts of proof that the incredibly fucking marginal advantage this might be has nothing to do with why women do not do as well in science as men. Otherwise, I'm going to feel fine with being a man who doesn't have to think about the fact that maybe, just maybe, there are social factors that have to do with this disparity. Oh, and I'm going to be fine with being a man who continues the misogynistic attitudes that do keep women in their place.
Oops, I forgot the first rule of parody - you shouldn't advance a better argument than the person you're trying to parody. Because while there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to suggest that 'male intelligence' is different, on average, than 'female intelligence.' Whereas men do tend to be taller, on average, than women.
So like Leni said: shut the fuck up.
Posted by: Brian | January 31, 2008 12:38 AM
Brandon, I'll see your special pleading and raise you a corollary: anyone who wants to restrict access to abortion does not deserve civility.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | January 31, 2008 1:09 AM
One need only read NY State NOW President Marcia Pappas' previous press release to discover the real reason Kennedy endorsed Obama. Apparently it's the same reason Edwards and Obama resorted to a "psychological gang bang" of her during the pre-New Hampshire debate. Fear of a powerful woman:
http://www.nownys.org/pr_2008/pr_011108.html
Posted by: foist | January 31, 2008 1:41 AM
Grammar RWA,
As long as you're accusing others of logical fallacies, this quote...
...is a fallacy called the Fallacy of Accident. The Fallacy of Accident is committed when you apply a general rule as if it is a universal rule, without considering whether the case to which you're applying it might be an exception. I seriously doubt Kehrsam intended his comment regarding "civility" to be universal, since rules regarding civility rarely are. It is safe to assume that in any rules of civility there will always be exceptions, and any counterexample to a rule of civility needs to take that into account.
Posted by: Wes | January 31, 2008 1:47 AM
Brandon wrote:
I'm just wondering... has just reiterating your stereotypes about whole fucking classes of people ever worked?
Posted by: Leni | January 31, 2008 2:19 AM
A noble effort on your part, Wes, but you missed. I did not commit the fallacy of accident, because I merely noted an exception. I did not claim that the exception invalidated kehrsam's generality (which it would have only if kehrsam's statement was asserted as universal, as you rightly note, but kehrsam said "common").
Your shot did make me blink twice, though, and I may try it sometime when I'm arguing unscrupulously against careless people.
I may as well speak frankly since we're digging into the details. I do reject kehrsam's generality, on other grounds: it's stupid. Really, fuck civility if it means we should call people other than what they in fact are. There exists a minority of pro-lifers who do not want to restrict access to abortion or contraception. They pray and do rain dances. Good for them.
The rest are anti-choice, and like Brandon, they would do well to leave women and their doctors alone, and spend their time fucking themselves.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | January 31, 2008 2:21 AM
I hope readers will enjoy a comic by Tim Kreider, on the ill-advised tactic of taking assholes at their word.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | January 31, 2008 2:37 AM
Aw, piss.
http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly041124a.htm
Posted by: Grammar RWA | January 31, 2008 2:39 AM
They seem to think there will never, ever be another female candidate and this is our only chance for a female president. Yes, obviously she's a woman, but is she the right woman? More importantly, is she the right person for the job?
Posted by: Michelle | January 31, 2008 8:25 AM
What if Brandon's comment had been about black people being better at sprinting? Would that be racist?
We know that biology can have an effect on mental abilities by looking at the results of the self-selection of Ashkenazi Jews, unless I am much mistaken.
So when you see that women make up a tiny proportion of scientists, even after years of trying to put this right, it is legitimate to ask the question: are women just not naturally inclined to this discipline or have our efforts to equalise the gender ratios in the field of science just not worked yet for other reasons, such as the obvious social ones.
I think we all assume the answer is the latter. I get the impression that Brandon assumes this as well as he has never, if you read his posts, actually implied that he thinks women are innately worse at science.
What he has done though is very neatly prove the point that the very same reflex groupthink that these New York lot are engaged in is entirely alive and well in other areas.
Would you say that asking whether or not men are more genetically inclined to aggression and violence was a sexist question? And given that people from certain environments are under sufficient local selective pressure to end up with different body types and hair colour why would those same pressures be incapable of producing different mental capabilities?
Just hunting different kinds of prey - rabbits vs, say, grouse - should surely lead to subtely different mental abilities eventually, shouldn't it?
If men and women have had sufficiently different roles for long enough that our respective mammaries are as different as they are then it is not at all preposterous to suggest that our brains may have also diverged slightly.
I do not think that Brandon was pre-supposing answers to any of these questions and I am not either.
And, incidentally, I don't think we really know enough about how the brain works just yet to actually give definitive answers.
But you are being blinded by the fact that it is normally people with ulterior motives that ask these questions into thinking that the questions themselves are completely inappropriate, which they aren't.
Posted by: Matthew | January 31, 2008 9:23 AM
Exactly Michelle! There will be other women. I think she is paving the way for future women to campaign, there will be fewer question marks from the press and talking heads about what to say and how to say it.
I am tired of people acting that women *should* vote for her just because she is a woman. That's as stupid as not voting for her because she is a woman. Besides -- she turns me off by bringing Bill into the picture. He has been campaigning on her behalf and I've seen too many references to "we" will do such and such. How the heck is that independent and feminist?
Posted by: Kelly | January 31, 2008 9:26 AM
However, the overwhelming majority of anti-choicers' positions are highly consistent with wanting women, especially sexually active women, to suffer, as nicely summarized with the illustration accompanying this post.
Really, so pragmatism = not pro-life and woman hater? Wow!
Posted by: tonyl | January 31, 2008 10:28 AM
Thank you, Matthew! Somebody finally gets it!
Posted by: Brandon | January 31, 2008 11:11 AM
Azkyroth wrote:
Sorry, but the article in the link does not provide support for your claim that pro-life people are invariably misogynist. You made an absolute statement, I said it's not absolute. No blog entry can prove that it is absolute.
ildi wrote:
It's amazing how often people fail to interpret words carefully. I say that pro-life people are not invariably misogynist, and ildi thinks "not invariably" = "never."
If one of my Research Methods or Senior Research students concluded in their findings that "x is not invariably correlated with y, therefore x and y are never correlated," I'd give 'em hell.
"Not invariably misogynist" is not equal to "never misogynist." I can't even pride myself on my understanding of it, because it's just not that difficult a concept.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 31, 2008 11:52 AM
I'd give Matthew props for best comment on this post, and will add just a bit to it.
It is likely that natural selection led to some differing abilities between males and females. It certainly did lead to size and strength differences, so some cognitive differences are more than a remote possibility.
But 3 caveats are critical:
1. We don't know with any reliability what, if any, differences are real, whereas we do know which cultural discriminations are real, so we should be very hesitant to say OK to the status quo on the grounds of evolved sexual differences.
2. Superiority in any given difference could go either way. It's not at all likely that all superiorities are found among males rather than females. This means that some cases of disproportionate representation could actually be worse than we think.
3. Any differences are only statistical differences. It could never mean that all males (females) are superior on that measure to all females (males). Just because most men can run faster than most women doesn't mean there aren't any number of women runners who can outdistance me easily. So the most we might find is that a "natural" distribution of scientists (or a particular field!) might be weighted toward one sex, but it is highly unlikely that it would be weighted to the degree of the current disparities, so it is clear that culture is playing a substantial role at present.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 31, 2008 12:12 PM
Agreed with all three.
Posted by: Matthew | January 31, 2008 12:25 PM
We know that there was once a difference in average IQ scores between southern-Italian-Americans and other white Americans. We know these differences disappeared completely over time. We also know that the differences between African Americans and white Americans have declined substantially. Therefore we know that there are non-biological causes for differences between different cultural/ethnic groups - and the simplest explanation for such differences are only those non-biological causes. There is simply no evidence for biological differences.
You may be aware of the Flynn effect - every year IQ results go up. This of course means that IQ tests do not only measure innate ability. James Flynn, who described this, IIRC in a recent book reportedly demonstrated that apparent differences between east Asian and white populations were caused by selection bias of the samples (Asians were more likely middle class), and that correcting for that bias caused differences to vanish. He also argues strongly against the idea that Africans are innately less intelligent on average than whites. I don't recall him discussing Ashkenazi Jews directly.
Posted by: amk | January 31, 2008 12:31 PM
Yes, amk... I think the point is at this point locking down the relationship between various mental traits and genetics is a difficult business, but one which is admissible as science. We're really in the early stages of understanding how any brain creates mental traits, let alone how genetic differences which we don't even yet understand might give rise to variations in mental traits across people, ethnic groups, or the sexes. Anyone who says "it is likely that x" where x is a prediction about a genetics-to-trait relationship is probably jumping the gun, because I don't think the evidence is solid enough yet. It'll be very interesting to see how this all develops in our lifetimes, but it is slow work.
Posted by: cm | January 31, 2008 1:16 PM
Ed,
I am a feminist, and I totally agree with you. This is mental. It reminds me of the day I saw a (Salvadorian) friend telling another friend of mine (African) that his lower lip was pink and it was so cool - which made both laugh their head off. This gay, Jamaican feminist happens to pass by, and starts a whole sermon about how my Salvadorian friend was "objectifying" the other dude.
Talk about being out of proportion.
Posted by: steppen wolf | January 31, 2008 1:21 PM
To clarify, there have been two separate "genetic vs. cultural differences" threads here, one based on sex, the other on race. Although I wrote supporting the scientific possibility of evolved sex differences, I agree with amk and cm on race, where I think evolved cognitive differences are less likely. The reason is that there are fewer differences between races than between males and females. It's perhaps not scientifically unthinkable, but I'd be highly shocked. I especially support amk's comments on IQ scores, which I think are highly unreliable as correlates of racial differences. (Probably for sexual differences, too, but I don't know if any differences are reported there.)
Cm's comment that "Anyone who says "it is likely that x" where x is a prediction about a genetics-to-trait relationship is probably jumping the gun, because I don't think the evidence is solid enough yet," is correct. That's why in my prior comment I spoke only of Xs and Ys, rather than point to any specific. While I think the sex differences are more probable than race differences, I don't think we know enough (I certainly don't) to speak confidently about any specific one of the purported cognitive differences between males and females.
Posted by: James Hanley | January 31, 2008 2:11 PM
I have to weigh in here simply because I have experience with Marcia Pappas and the NY NOW. I naively joined the Albany chapter years ago when she was president of the chapter and my experiences there wound up disgusting me so much that I won't even join NOW any more even as a member at large.
If you want to talk about stereotyping women, what I found was Marcia Pappas in a stereotypical catfight with the president of the Buffalo chapter over presidency of the state NOW. She'd spend half the meetings of the Albany Chapter ranting about it. Frankly, I was embarrassed to be joining a movement for women to find them in this hissy fit.
The other thing that pissed me off was the (small) membership (that attended meetings, there were much more who never came) were middle class white ladies who would do a lot of talking about getting the poor and women of color to join but in actuality did little to recruit their membership. We met in the downtown branch of the Albany Public Library (one reason I was able to attend) and they discussed changing the meeting place, I protested that they should keep it because all the bus lines came there and it was convenient for all (including those who drove because the library had a parking lot in back). They talked about including the poor but didn't listen to the one poor member they had and moved the meetings out to a white suburb damned near impossible to get to by bus (hence, women like me who can't afford a car).
With the outset of this (and boy does it ever sound like the Marcia I know who'd caution us not to talk on camera at protests but didn't hesitate to shoot off her mouth, which, at the time, I dismissed because someone had to speak and the chapter president did seem the logical choice, now I'm wondering), I checked their site for the first time in a couple of years. Now their the big kick the Albany Chapter is giving lip service too is recruiting college women (we've several colleges) but, while the meeting location is somewhat better, it's still a mile off the bus line and I see where they'd use to let you come check them out before joining, now you can but only if you let them know in advance. Hmmm, still sincere I see.
When some male members did come to the meeting once, they weren't given much of a chance to talk.
NY NOW cannot be taken seriously. Sad but true.
Posted by: Donna | January 31, 2008 2:30 PM
I think you're misrepresenting the dialogue, James. Here is what you said earlier:
You offered the fact that some anti-choicers are female as a counterexample to the assertion that anti-choicers are misogynists. How else can that be interpreted, except as implying that their femaleness alone means they are not misogynists?
If all you meant to say was that you know some anti-choicers who you believe are not misogynists, I think you thoroughly obscured your meaning by emphasizing their femaleness. If you do believe that women can be misogynists, I don't see why you'd emphasize these students' femaleness, since it's just an irrelevent red herring. You, not ildi, engineered the misunderstanding.
Now, I'll continue the argument that all anti-choicers are invariably misogynist, since I believe this as well.
First, let me reiterate that there are a minority of pro-lifers who do not want to restrict access to abortion. They limit their activities to respectfully and civilly asking women to reconsider abortion, streamlining adoption services without misrepresenting their propaganda as "abortion counseling", and useless prayer. These people, who use no deception or coercion, are not anti-choice. They are also relatively rare.
The rest are anti-choice, because they seek to limit or subvert women's options through coercion or deception. In so doing, they implicitly state that women do not deserve, or are incapable of utilizing, the right to bodily autonomy: women either must not be allowed to make decisions concerning their own bodies and reproduction, or do not possess rational agency and so cannot be trusted to make those decisions. Thus men, and/or the state, must step in and prevent women from exercising their rights to bodily autonomy. To restrict or to desire to restrict women's rights (that is, to be anti-choice) is misogynous.
Ergo, all anti-choicers are misogynist, because simply to be anti-choice is misogynous. And before someone invokes correlation and causation, I'll say that a person cannot desire to restrict choice and override a woman's agency without first holding the misogynous belief that women do not deserve or do not have agency. So I stand by a slightly expanded version of Azkyroth's statement: "misogyny is invariably [one of] the motive[s] for anti-choice positions."
Posted by: Grammar RWA | January 31, 2008 8:04 PM
Lets step back a second and look at the big picture. Here we have a situation where a black man just might become President of the United States. What an amazing sign of progress! It is not that long ago the whole notion of a black man as President would have been considered absurd. To make the situation all the more amazing is the fact that a white woman also has a good chance of making it to the Oval Office. Again the idea of a woman as President is pretty revolutionary in the large scheme of things.
So at this wonderful crossroads in history....The NY NOW decides to cast the whole event as a war between those who are FOR WOMEN and those who AGAINST WOMEN. How pathetic is that!
Posted by: Cheddar | January 31, 2008 9:02 PM
This isn't exactly "not that long ago", but... example!
Posted by: Skemono | January 31, 2008 11:24 PM
I have never encountered one that isn't. I have encountered many that claim not to be but clearly are. It has been invariably true in my experience and in the experience of everyone I know who has examined the issue objectively. Do you expect me to suspend judgement indefinitely on everything simply because somewhere, somehow, there might be an exception to an otherwise solid generalization?
By all means, provide me with examples that actually constitute an exception, show that they constitute an exception (assuming that women won't endorse a misogynistic position is not showing this) and I'll amend any future statements to that effect.
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 1, 2008 12:16 AM
Matthew, I suggest you try debating, at length, one of these people who claim that they aren't attempting to legitimize present social inequalities or confirm their own prejudices, that they are just interested in the actual data, that they honestly believe there is a substantial body of valid scientific evidence that objectively supports their views, and that they merely want the possibility to be fairly considered and judged on evidential merits without being rejected on ideological grounds.
Do this a few times, and if afterwards you can still say with a straight face that you believe any of their claims above are truer than the identical claims made by the Discovery Institute, we'll discuss then. For the mean time, please refer to Grammar RWA's caution about "taking assholes at their word."
Posted by: Azkyroth | February 1, 2008 12:30 AM
Leni and Azkyroth,
So would you say that the editors of Scientific American Mind are a bunch of misogynists trying to justify gender disparities in science by publishing this article, which explicitly acknowledges that biology might be a factor in women's underrepresentation? See page 3 of the article for that consideration.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 1, 2008 12:26 PM
I have been reading this blog for some time but have never posted before. I just find the comments equating pro-life to misogyny ideological and unfounded. I am staunchly pro-choice but come on Azkyroth, Grammar and your fans, you are off base. The abortion debate can't be reduced to a gender rights issue. Someone who values all life equally born or unborn, by definition cannot be misogynistic, and even if I disagree in principle to their claims it still doesn't invalidate their beliefs and ergo, make them misogynists.
Posted by: JoH | February 1, 2008 1:45 PM
Wrong. To value the life of a non-thinking clump of undifferentiated cells more than, or as much as, the bodily autonomy of an actually existing woman, is profoundly misogynous.
There are very few stances more misogynous, except for murdering women simply for being women. And since some anti-choicers want to ban abortion even when carrying the fetus to term would endanger the woman's life, some anti-choicers really do want to murder women simply for being women.
Either abortion is fully legal, fully accessible, and as safe as possible, and women have a right to bodily autonomy, or abortion is restricted because women are not allowed to have bodily autonomy.
Men have bodily autonomy. If women do not, then women are made to be less than men, less than the human "default", less than fully human. To say that women are less than fully human is misogynous.
All anti-choicers hold beliefs that restrict women's bodily autonomy, so all anti-choicers believe that women are less than fully human.
You, JoH, are acting as an apologist for misogyny. Are you proud of that? If not, you can reverse that stance whenever you feel like getting around to it.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | February 1, 2008 8:04 PM
I will not apologize. As a feminist, I recognize the value in the views of those that I do not agree with and your venom towards anti-choicers is all about gender and not rights. It is obvious that you do not believe life is a viable human before one exists the womb. Fine, but others do and many are women. Having had my own children, I have some compassion for the idea that they hold. It is ridiculous to compare bodily autonomy of men to women in the case of pregnancy. You also cannot definitively define when one becomes "human" as opposed to "a clump of undifferentiated cells". Your generalizations about non-choicers are unconvincing and I have no interest in reversing my stance on defending their opinions as I am my own. This issue is not a simply black and white here. I am beginning to wonder if those NY Now members became so obsessed with your form of arrogant feminist thought that is how they became so off base thinking that a vote for someone other than a woman would be considered a betrayal.
Posted by: JoH | February 1, 2008 8:38 PM
Yawn. Are you interested in having a dialogue, or just in making ridiculous ad hominems and baseless smears by association? Let me know lest I waste my time. I've said nothing arrogant here and I find the New York NOW chapter's press release to be downright bizarre.
Explain yourself. How is demanding that women have the right to own their own bodies "not about rights"?
I'm not sure what you mean by that. Can you rephrase the sentence?
Posted by: Grammar RWA | February 1, 2008 8:54 PM
I am not really interested in any more debate but I will clarify-
Pro-Lifers (not all, but ones I am defending) consider ALL HUMANS to have a right to life, and if a woman is carrying a HUMAN why is it so hard to understand that all things equal, that the unborn HUMAN also does not have the same right to life as the mother? You use the most extreme example of those who want to force a woman to carry to full term if it is a risk to her health. This is a case of one life for another and most pro-Lifers I know would not choose the unborn child over the mother. They are not interested in murder, they value the sanctity of life for everyone.
As for your accusing me of smears by association comment, your "some anti-choicers really do want to murder women simply for being women." I think that comment is without merit and worse than anything I said.
As for rights - I believe that a woman has a right to her body and what is in it but if I am being true to my sense of equality of all humans, then in the eyes of a pro-Lifer, I am giving her more value than another human being since I also believe that life begins and is viable before birth. I am OK with that.
I mistyped exists, should be exits. Unless you believe in infanticide, I assume you make the distinction that life begins to have value once the fetus exits the womb. To Pro-Lifers, the issue of rights is not one of denying the rights of the woman but in giving the unborn rights as well. Denying the woman rights temporarily is of less value to them as allowing another human their right for life. I may find that logic misguided but I don't see it as misogynistic.
Posted by: JoH | February 1, 2008 9:51 PM
I think the suggestion that everyone who is anti-choice on abortion is automatically a misogynist is the same kind of shallow thinking that right wingers exhibit when they say things like "liberals just want the terrorists to win." It's not really an argument at all, it's just a declaration that anyone who disagrees with them is inherently evil. It's a means of a priori dismissal rather than a substantive argument. And now you can call me a misogynist for not thinking that everyone who disagrees with me is a misogynist. And I'll take it as seriously as I did the previous sneering dismissal.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 1, 2008 10:47 PM
Hey Grammar RWA, I know JoH pretty well. Trust me, she is not an apologist for misogyny! Ed's right--you're too shallow to understand that reasonable people can have some disagreements. Again, I'm pro-choice, and I know JoH is. We've just gotten out a bit more than you and Azkyroth--you might actually meet some folks who don't match your pathetically narrow stereotypes.
It would actually be easy to call you misogynist, because you can't allow women the individuality to have their own differing views on abortion. I don't think it's an accurate statement, but it's just as valid as your stereotyping.l
Posted by: James Hanley | February 1, 2008 11:18 PM
Azkyroth, I read that link and you make a lot of very good points. Unfortunately, your argument hinges on a false dichotomy: that people want either women's rights or fetus' rights, and not both. Most of those compromises you described, such as exceptions for rape and incest, are the result of people's attempts to reconcile their desire both to protect women and protect babies.
Think of the argument, not as pro-life and pro-choice, but like a sliding scale. On one end, the mother is allowed to do anything she wants, including neglecting the baby after it's born. On the other end, the mother must carry through term, even if it kills her. Now clearly, you wouldn't place your viewpoint at the far end, because you believe the baby has some rights. So everybody has a spot on this sliding scale, and very few people would take it to the extreme. Now, please explain to me why your particular spot on the sliding scale is better than everybody else's.
But anyway, there's a very easy way to settle this. Theoretically, in the future it will be possible to implant wombs into men and impregnate them. And it might even be possible for men to become pregnant on accident. So ask a pro-lifer if, if this time ever comes, he would support abortion rights for men. Hook him up to a polygraph if you have to.
Posted by: Brandon | February 1, 2008 11:52 PM
Yes, yes, I'm shallow, pathetic, narrow, sneering, etc.
And yet none of you are actually engaging with the argument I put forward.
It isn't particularly complicated, so it shouldn't be that hard to take down.
1) Just as it was racist to deny human rights to black people, it is misogynous to deny human rights to women.
2) Bodily autonomy is a human right.
3) Anyone who wants to deny bodily autonomy to women is a misogynist.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | February 2, 2008 1:49 AM
Gretchen wrote:
I never said I thought Brandon was a misogynist, if that's the point of your comparison. I think I was pretty clear about that.
I also said my point in telling him to shut the fuck up was not to forbid discussion on this topic in general. It was because I thought he did a particularly abysmal job of it.
Posted by: Leni | February 2, 2008 2:06 AM
Unless you consider the fact that it is as inherently wrong the way racism or homophobia is.
Sometimes the shit people think and say is evil.
Posted by: Leni | February 2, 2008 2:20 AM
Leni,
Brandon didn't really actually discuss, or attempt to discuss, the merits of whether, or how much, biology might affect women's underrepresentation in science before you told him to shut the fuck up. He merely mentioned that some people "go nuts when you point out that there is a possibility that, on the average, men are just more biologically geared towards the sciences," which Neil then called a stupid and ignorant statement. Brandon then, understandably, pointed out that Neil was making his point for him.
You then asked "Why don't you show us why black people also aren't as good at science?" Which just assumes that a) people who suggest that there might be a biological component to women's underrepresentation in science are simply sexist, because b) the biological difference between men and women is as small as that between the races, making the two questions equivalent. Which is false on its face.
So really, Brandon said nothing wrong, and your telling him to shut the fuck up and basically calling him a sexist was uncalled for.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 2, 2008 2:28 AM
I think Grammar RWA is wrong, but I don't think he was merely calling those who disagree with him evil. What he said was "To value the life of a non-thinking clump of undifferentiated cells more than, or as much as, the bodily autonomy of an actually existing woman, is profoundly misogynous."
This statement uses "autonomy" as a fudge word. If you believe that abortion is actually murder, then it's absurd to say that we should value the autonomy of the woman more than the life of the fetus. Nobody says that we don't have the right to stop a psycho killer from swinging his ax at a person's head because it would impede his bodily autonomy. Whether a specific exercise of one's autonomy (abortion) equates to murder is the very thing in question, so you can't assume that it's not in order to prove that it's not.
The only way you can make a case that being pro-life is inherently misogynous is if you can prove that no pro-lifer actually believes that a fetus is a person, and therefore it's not murder they're trying to prevent but simply women having the opportunity to have a fetus removed and killed-- which, by the way, is still only one very specific kind of bodily autonomy. Pro-lifers aren't arguing that all women should be captured and chained in a basement. They are arguing that the life of the fetus is more important than the right to a surgical procedure.
Just to be clear, I disagree with them fundamentally. But I don't think the position is inherently misogynistic.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 2, 2008 2:44 AM
Gretchen wrote:
No. It doesn't. It assumes that people who suggest that there might be a biological component to women's underrepresentation in science also have a reason why there might be a biological component to underrepresentation in science for other groups.
Posted by: Leni | February 2, 2008 3:02 AM
Why on earth would you make that assumption? Unless you're talking about an innate component to racism, that is.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 2, 2008 3:17 AM
So Leni enjoys long walks on the beach, iced mochas, and screaming her ass off at people because she doesn't like how they reference a controversial topic.
Posted by: Brandon | February 2, 2008 9:50 AM
Thank god Pappas was immediately denounced by feminists young and old from every strata as being unreasonable, or your attempt to paint us all with the same brush might have some relationship to the truth. Though not really, because it can't be assumed we agree with Pappas just because we don't take the time to denounce her. Do you like it when someone declares that all scientists think one way because one scientist said something somewhere?
Posted by: Amanda Marcotte | February 2, 2008 10:15 AM
I have to say that this whole "It's HUMAN, therefore removing it from one's body is murder" argument betrays a stunning lack of education. Philosophers were teasing out the "but-women-are-a-special-case" preconceptions in this one 30 and 40 years ago. (Usually it's a famous violinist who is attached to the strawperson for life support, occasionally Hitler.) But I've never seen a nominally pro-life person argue that ethical behavior requires donating a kidney (even temporarily) to people waiting for dialysis, or bone marrow to those suffering from aplastic anemia. Instead, those who don't bother to do their historical homework are condemned to bore the heck out of everyone else...
Posted by: paul | February 2, 2008 10:20 AM
I am a feminist. In my youth, I had great sympathy for the pro-life/anti-choice point of view. When someone pointed out to me the inherent "misogyny" in my position, it made a lightbulb go off in my head in a way that no other argument had. To value a non-thinking, non-feeling life form with no past over the needs, desires, and bodily autonomy of an adult sentient woman is an anti-woman position. I realized that despite my all my niceness, good intentions, and feminist sensibilities, I was in fact advocating a misogynist point of view, a point of view that utterly devalues the worth of the pregnant woman.
In short, I don't think it is horrible and ridiculous and unreasonable or alienating to view the anti-choice position as inherently misogynist. It didn't alienate me, and I was myself accused of misogyny. Avoiding the "m" word at all costs to spare the feelings of anti-choicers does not strike me as an effective way to engege in a debate on these issue. Conceding the reasonableness of the anti-choice position or having to constantly ackowledge the sincerity of its adherents also detracts from the very important pro-choice point that these people want to deny pregnant women certain very basic rights.
(By the way, someone in the thread pointed out that the fetus is not an undifferentiated, unfeeling clumb of cells throughout the pregnancy. Indeed. But it is the anti-choicers who want to ban abortion at all stages of the pregnancy and who ignore the fact that the vast majority of abortions occur early on.)
Posted by: Margaret | February 2, 2008 11:42 AM
I would also note that I agree with the content of the post, but I think the headline was idiotic, especially from a professed feminist. There was widespread denunciation in the feminist blogosphere of the Pappas piece, and no evidence of which I am aware that the views expressed in the piece are held by anyone but Pappas herself. Yet you choose to characterize this piece as evidence of a mindless mob mentality among feminists, when in fact the whole story proves the opposite -- i.e. that feminists do not engage in groupthink, and are quite willing to say so loudly and publicly when a fellow feminist says something stupid or wrongheaded.
It is not a defense that this blog may have unfairly characterized Christians or Republicans or other more conservative groups in a similar way.
Posted by: Margaret | February 2, 2008 11:55 AM
Amanda Marcotte wrote:
I am one of those feminists who denounced the statement. And if I was attempting to paint all feminists with the same brush, why would I have A) denounced her myself (clearly I couldn't have intended to paint myself with that alleged broad brush, right?) and B) pointed out that other feminists have as well? The only thing you have pointed out is the absurdity of reading a headline, giving it the worst possible interpretation, and then not bothering to read the actual article. Anyone who actually read the article could not reasonably conclude that I was attempting what you allege.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | February 2, 2008 12:39 PM
"To value a non-thinking, non-feeling life form with no past over the needs, desires, and bodily autonomy of an adult sentient woman is an anti-woman position. I realized that despite my all my niceness, good intentions, and feminist sensibilities, I was in fact advocating a misogynist point of view, a point of view that utterly devalues the worth of the pregnant woman. "
"(By the way, someone in the thread pointed out that the fetus is not an undifferentiated, unfeeling clumb of cells throughout the pregnancy. Indeed. But it is the anti-choicers who want to ban abortion at all stages of the pregnancy and who ignore the fact that the vast majority of abortions occur early on.) "
Help me understand how these two statements go together. If you agree that the fetus is more than an undifferentiated, unfeeling clump of cells at some point in the pregnancy, how can treating that fetus with value utterly devalue the woman?
Posted by: Rich | February 3, 2008 3:04 AM
"It isn't particularly complicated, so it shouldn't be that hard to take down.
1) Just as it was racist to deny human rights to black people, it is misogynous to deny human rights to women.
2) Bodily autonomy is a human right.
3) Anyone who wants to deny bodily autonomy to women is a misogynist."
Here is a cut at it Gramar:
1) It was racist to deny rights afforded to people in general to some people based on race. It has never been a right, human or otherwise, to take a life. Therefor, to a pro life person no one has that right and it is not being withdrawn to any subset based on any criteria (race, gender, religion).
2) Bodily autonomy is restricted when two bodies are connected. You and I cannot be fully autonomous if we are bioligically connected. Further, personal autonomy is always to some degree limited by agreeing to be governed by laws. So unlimited autonomy is not a human right.
3) No, anyone who hates women is a misogynist.
Posted by: Rich | February 3, 2008 4:05 AM
Ed, good topic. Two words sum up a lot of this discussion for me. Agenda and Objectivity. All too often the passion and zeal of one's position (or by extension an organization like NOW) becomes an agenda to be fulfilled rather than an objective viewpoint as new facts are presented. Brandon managed to show an example in this very thread when several people reacted not to what he said but to their assumption of his agenda. He very well may have an agenda against women, but why would I assume that sans supporting facts? (hopefully he really doesn't want women tied up in the basement). Overall no surprise considering the two topics (gender equity and abortion).
More importantly, your central theme of how much gender and race play in voting for or against these candidates is pertinent to selecting our next leader. Too bad there will never be a way to know how many votes actually cause candidate A or B to win or lose. But it will be debated endlessly by many as if their speculation were fact. If candidate A loses based on race or gender, it will be said that "we just were not ready". If candidate B wins... it will be "they voted for B because... ultimately we really won't know and it will cloud discussion of real issues facing our country.
Posted by: Rich | February 3, 2008 4:37 AM
Well said, thank you Rich.
Posted by: JoH | February 3, 2008 12:28 PM
Help me understand how these two statements go together. If you agree that the fetus is more than an undifferentiated, unfeeling clump of cells at some point in the pregnancy, how can treating that fetus with value utterly devalue the woman?
Because nti-choicers are not talking about drawing a line somewhere in the middle of the pregnancy. (In fact, that is what Roe did. One can argue that the line drawn by Roe should be re-evaluated, but that isn't what the anti-choicers are saying.)
Posted by: Margaret | February 3, 2008 3:52 PM
Upon re-reading this thread, I regret calling the headline "idiotic." That word choice was unnecessarily rude. If I could do it over, I would say that the headline is "misleading" and "unfortunate," given how beautifully it plays into hateful stereotypes of the way feminists act.
Posted by: Margaret | February 3, 2008 4:00 PM
Margaret,
Do you equate Anti-Choicer = Pro Life = Misogynist? That has been a strong theme here, but perhaps you are not trying to do that.
Anti-Choicer as a label to me implies someone who starts off not liking women and tries to come up with a way to antagonize women by limiting their choice at a vulnerable moment.
Many men and women (including both pro-choice and pro-life) have said to me that they are very uncomfortable with abortion due to the issue of where in the timeline does life begin. They do not have a sure answer, and so they have missgivings about the whole issue even if they believe strongly in a woman's right to choose. I would not characterize any of these people as Anti-Choicers, simply out to mess with women's bodies. They have great uncertainty and because a life depends on an uncertain answer, pro-life people come down on the side of not setting a line in the middle but saying we can't draw a line. You can certainly dissagree with that position but for most of these people it is hardly born of anti-women or anti-rights agendas.
Posted by: Rich | February 3, 2008 5:14 PM
Upon re-skimming the comments thread, I see what are arguably two lines of argument about the connection between misogyny and the anti-choice position. Azkyroth said that misogyny is invariably the motive for anti-choice positions. Grammar RWA and I have argued that the anti-choice position is inherently misogynist. These are slightly different things.
I think that misogyny is at least an unconscious motive of many of the leaders of the "pro-life" movement in the U.S.
However, I would agree with what others have pointed out that there are many rank-and-file pro-lifers who don't hate women but who (to varying degrees) do not value the woman's interests in the matter when compared to the interests of the fetus. I find that position, particularly when applied to the fetus in the early stages of development, to be inherently anti-woman; however, I recognize that there are adherents to that position, my younger self included, who do not have subjective feelings of hatred towards women consciously or otherwise. But I think the cultural ideas that lead even well-meaning people to assume that the pregnant woman should subordinate herself to the interests of a zygote are ideas grounded in a hatred of women. (Early church fathers, anyone?) Thus, even a nice young woman like my younger self, could come to hold a "misogynist" view of the matter.
I understand that the word "misogynist" is an emotionally charged word and that most people who hear it will not see all the subtleties I have just outlined. I personally DO find it useful to think of the anti-choice view as "misogynist" but I think the usefulness of saying so varies depending on the context and the audience.
They have great uncertainty and because a life depends on an uncertain answer, pro-life people come down on the side of not setting a line in the middle but saying we can't draw a line. You can certainly dissagree with that position but for most of these people it is hardly born of anti-women or anti-rights agendas.
This was basically the reasoning I was using in my pro-life days. But setting the line at concepption just to be safe again privileges the fetus at the expense of the woman for no particularly good reason. You may be lowering your risk of doing a grave wrong to a fetus -- but in doing so, you are doing a grave wrong to the woman who is forced to carry the fetus to term against her will. Believing that risking a grave wrong to the woman is worth it in order to avoid the risk of wronging the fetus is an anti-woman position. I think we can draw a line that is fair to both. Viability was a line that made sense back in the day. Now that we know more, a new line based on neurological and cognitive function of the fetus may make more sense. However, that is not the debate at hand in this country because the pro-life movement is about making abortion illegal from conception onward.
Also, in my experience, very few pro-lifers are as pure or abstract in their reasoning as what you describe. As a lot of feminist bloggers (like Amanda Marcotte for instance) have illustrated, pro-life reasoning is often in reality based on all sorts of unexamined prejudices. The classic one is that sex "without consequences" is wrong. (Really? So women are supposed to be punished for having sex and forced childbirth is the punishment? Nice.) Dip your toe into some pro-life sites some time, and it becomes much easier to understand why a lot of feminists allege a strong correlation between misogyny and "pro-life."
Posted by: Margaret | February 3, 2008 6:08 PM
That is awful logic. The vast majority of pro-lifers also believe that it's the father's responsibility to take care of the mother and child. While I'm sure there are true misogynists who think men can just sleep around while women have to suffer, that is definitely not the mainstream view. Essentially, a pro-lifer believes that the consequences of an accidental pregnancy should be the same for the man and the woman, except for those nine months. Unfortunately, we won't be able to do anything about that for a long time.
It is a fact of nature that only women can get pregnant. Therefore, an anti-abortion law would mainly affect women. However, it's a big case of correlation implying causation to assume that someone who wants to protect a fetus hates the woman, just because that fetus happens to be inside a woman.
This is exactly the reason why I remain on the fence about abortion. How is there any practical distinction between having an abortion and killing an infant? Why is it just so obvious that you don't have the right to live until you pop out of a vagina? Until someone can answer this question, I can't respect a pro-choicer who demonizes the entire pro-life philosophy.
Posted by: Brandon | February 3, 2008 6:53 PM
Odd: It is argumentation such as "All those who hold pro-life positions are misogynists" that led Ed to write this thread in the first place.
Nevertheless, thank you, Margaret, for the last comment. It makes your position a lot clearer than before. My criticism would be that you are using "misogynast" functionally, rather than to indicate an actual feeling held. This allows your prior arguments to make more sense, but only at some cost to the actual meaning of the word.
It also leaves it difficult to figure out where I personally fit on the scale. I consider myself pro-life, in that I believe that the vast majority of abortions are avoidable, and perhaps best avoided. At the same time, I have no desire to impose restrictions on abortions in this country, for reasons both practical and philosophical. Am I a misogynist?
Posted by: kehrsam | February 3, 2008 7:00 PM
I support kehrsam's statement here. As I've been looking at this surprisingly long-lived discussion, I've seen little discussion of what the term misogyny means.
Misogyny means hatred of females. I understand the argument that restricting abortion restricts the rights of women, and I am in agreement with it, in nearly all cases, if not quite absolutely.
But to say that anyone who believes the fetus is a human life that is deserving of rights hates women reveals little but a refusal to think the issue through. It's not subtle, it's not intelligent, and it's certainly not persuasive. It's no improvement on the right-to-lifers' claim that anyone who supports abortion wants to kill babies.
If you stick with the argument that pro-lifers deprive women of rights, I'll stand by you. If you take the illogical leap of saying they're all necessarily women-haters, I'll stand with neither your nor them.
The analogy to racism is not a strong one, because there's no other life involved, when denying rights to one racial group--not even an undifferentiated lump of cells. To make the claim is to wholly ignore what matters to the right-to-lifers, which means you're not actually responding to their claims at all, so you haven't defeated their arguments.
And, for those who want to depend on the undifferentiated lump of cells argument, you've shot yourself in the foot as soon as those cells start to differentiate, and certainly after the fetus becomes viable. There's a good reason why most Americans support abortions very early on, but very few support them later on. The more the fetus comes to resemble a real human being, the more people are inclined to grant it more rights against its mother.
Please don't argue against me as though I personally agree with those claims. I really don't. But to just call people with those beliefs misogynist is simply a feel-good argument--it makes the user feel good and superior, but it is a failure to deal with the real arguments.
In all these posts, I've seen nothing remotely compelling in those arguments. They were unsophisticated to begin with, and they remain unsophisticated. My personal interpretation, wholly subjective, is that its an argument that stems from anger, and hatred of the political opponents--the type of anger that causes blindness, an inability to look at an argument objectively, rather than from a purely subjective and personal basis.
Posted by: James Hanley | February 3, 2008 8:27 PM
Margaret -
However, I would agree with what others have pointed out that there are many rank-and-file pro-lifers who don't hate women but who (to varying degrees) do not value the woman's interests in the matter when compared to the interests of the fetus.
To be clear right off the bat, I am adamantly pro-choice.
That said. I have a number of anti-choice friends who just don't perceive it that way. They are not misogynists. They are not anti-women in any way, shape or form. They just flat out believe in no uncertain terms, that the zygote is a human life. Now there are varying degrees to their consistency in that, but for the most part, they are consistent. To the last, they are all adamantly apposed to the death penalty. They are all (much to my extreme disagreement) apposed to euthanasia. In some form or another, they believe in ensuring that everyone has access to healthcare, though most would prefer to see a market solution, rather than a state funded solution.
The thing is, they do not see it as a zygote's rights versus a women's right. They see it entirely as a right of a human being to live, versus a women's right to kill that human being. The worse inconsistency among any of them, is that most of them object to punishing the women who has an abortion, the same way that one would punish any other murder. A couple of them actually would support that, while most of them would prefer to see them get a slap on the wrists or go into a mental institution.
The major leap of consistency that I admire in them, is that many of them have adopted children from unwanted pregnancies. More of them are just waiting until their natural children are older to do so as well.
Do I disagree with them, certainly. But my disagreement is entirely founded in the definition of human life. They most certainly do not believe women to be inferior.
Posted by: DuWayne | February 3, 2008 11:54 PM
This comic is perfect for this thread.
Posted by: Gretchen | February 4, 2008 12:07 PM
I think this is very good idea, but I am affraid but not for me
Posted by: sex shop | April 4, 2009 8:24 AM
Nevertheless, thank you, Margaret, for the last comment. It makes your position a lot clearer than before. My criticism would be that you are using "misogynast" functionally, rather than to indicate an actual feeling held. This allows your prior arguments to make more sense, but only at some cost to the actual meaning of the word.
Posted by: doğal ürünler | May 4, 2009 4:07 AM