You’re pro-choice. Does that interfere with being an evangelical?
Well, I don’t like the [pro-choice] label. I guess the reason I wrote about abortion the way I did in the book is because I have serious moral concerns about abortion, but I don’t believe that it should be illegal. And that puts me in the vast majority of Americans. But unfortunately, there’s no label for us.
Yes, there is. If you think abortion and other forms of contraceptive birth control should be legal—i.e. that women should have the legal right to decide when they have children—you are pro-choice. Even if you still reserve the right to judge them for it. This entire interview with Amy Sullivan, like all her talk on getting the evangelical vote, makes me tired. She appears to have a definition problem, basically, characterizing evangelicals as if they are all Bible-believing Christians, when most self-identified evangelicals are patriarchy proponents with a thin veneer of Christianity over everything as a moral justification.
Amy Sullivan’s entire career seems to be devoted to saying “Gee, I wish I was a Republican theocrat. Aren’t they the coolest? Democrats and feminists are nerds, let’s not talk to them.”
The quote that infuriated me was:
Democrats never mention reducing the abortion rate or the rate of unplanned pregnancies, and so they lose that opportunity to reach out to voters who are less sure about their position on abortion.
Where the fuck has she been sticking her head? Since when have Dems not said this? The basic line for how many years has been “Abortion should be legal and rare”?
“I believe women should have equal rights, but I’m no feminist.” “I’m not a liberal or anything, but I think we should have universal health care.” So now pro-choice joins the list of labels to disavow while adhering to the concepts? Bah. I am so irked by the right-wingers who’ve painted these words as slurs rather than descriptors that middle-of-the-roaders can be proud to apply to themselves.
Last time someone told me she wasn’t a feminist, I pointed out that she was exactly that.
I’ve encountered this attitude a number of times on various forums. “Personally I’m pro-life, but I think other women should be able to do what they want with their bodies.” I think folks like this are more than just ignorant of what it means to be pro-choice or pro-life; they also feel uncomfortable being labeled “pro-choice” for whatever reason and are obliged to add that they themselves wouldn’t ever have an abortion.
They’re too chickenshit to say what they mean: that they intend to force THEIR choice on women personally (or by applauding or otherwise enabling) the whackjobs who gladly do the persecuting, harassing and other violence.
Cause otherwise someone might say they’re not being pious, or, as one of the doofus reporters on CNN said about the leader of a pitchfork wielding mob in Real America, “He’s good people, Wolf,” (using the flingin, flangin’ unpretentious local squawk.)
No choice and pro-choice proponents are part of the same society and must live by the same laws, but it’s always the no-choice “moderates” failing to exercise THEIR particular choice of laissez faire OR putting their piety where it counts and speaking up to change the law and let women have our day in court, so to speak.
I hate this “movement” to make nice or UNIFY with conservative “moderates” or apply other superficial semantic or media fresheners on these stinking mobs.
Two things ticked me off about the article. The first was the bit towards the end about religious people feeling shut out and alone in the Democratic party. Excuse me? That’s a bit like some Mexican screaming “Madre de Dios! They have us surrounded!!!!!!” at the Alamo.
The insecurity of American political Christians of all stripes pisses me off something awful. If they are not just in the majority, not just in control, not just in the constant ascendant then they perceive themselves to be a persecuted and threatened part of the population. It’s not enough that secularists be secondary, they must obviously keep their place. (And, Amy, when you have a moment, would you be so kind as to explain to me what you claim to be 87% of the population gets to feel “alone”?)
The second thing that fracked me right off was her blithely writing off the increasing secularism of the culture: Oh, that’s not real, she says. They all go back to church when they have kids. Nice way to write off inconvenient facts.
I believe women should have equal rights, but I’m no feminist.” “I’m not a liberal or anything, but I think we should have universal health care.” So now pro-choice joins the list of labels to disavow while adhering to the concepts?
you beat me to it, Orange.
They all go back to church when they have kids.
I just heard that up to 50% of Americans leave the church of their parents. it was a story on NPR about a study done by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
link: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19354039
What part of “choice” remains unclear? If you have moral issues with abortion, trust that women have moral agency, and don’t believe that the government should be involved, then you’re in favor of choice. “Pro-choice” even.
As an old bumper sticker said, “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!”
Sing it! Not only apply to themselves but exploit for their own ease of living, self-congratulation and access to the rights and services they deny to those who they continue to castigate for keeping those NASTY rights and services in place.
Study after study has shown that the “pro”-choice prissmouths have as many (if not more) abortions and, because they don’t use condoms — which CAUSE sex and depravity — spread more std’s than the godless secular t ypes.
(Pandagon’s highlighted several studies that have shown this.)
Small edit: Study after study has shown that the “pro”-choice prissmouths have as many
should be
Study after study has shown that the “pro”-life prissmouths have as many
You know … the very opposite. (I’m only on my third coffee, so forgive me.)
Don’t forget, “I’m no environmentalist, but I think we need to protect the, uhm, environment.”
Most evangelicals have very little idea of what is in the Bible, in fact. For example, perhaps they are unaware that there is not one word about abortion anywhere in the Bible, Old Testament or New, although abortion was widely practiced in the ancient world. In fact, Christians didn’t decide that abortion was immoral until the 19th Century — in response, not to any scientific discoveries, but to the feminist movement.
Fact. You could look it up.
There was a really good article in one of those skeptic/humanist magazines a few months ago. the author’s thesis is that these Christian groups are not truly Christian, because if you look at the New Testament, Jesus’ emphasis was not on this life, but preparing his followers for the next world. Rather, he suggested, with their emphasis on their take on morality, and their desire for political power, they’re some kind of Old Testament cult.
It just seems unfair that in the intervening nearly four years since the last presidential election Amy Sullivan has not completely disappeared from the face of the earth. It’s the exact same drivel! With exactly the same (discredited) explanations! Let’s not have a do-over, let’s just repost the exact same threads that came into being four years ago. Oh please, can’t someone make her stop?
Oh, that’s not real, she says. They all go back to church when they have kids.
Insofar as this is true, it shows how little people actually believe their own bullshit. Church is not about spirituality, but about affordable day care.
Another person who fudged their “pro-choice”-ness although being, by any definition, pro-choice: John Kerry.
Just sayin’.
The problem is these people don’t think abortions should be banned, but they don’t think Democrats have taken enough time shouting from the rafters that abortions are “icky.”
Atrios once made the great point that, if we could make a law that allowed judges to officially judge your abortion “icky” without any other consequence, then most of these not-quite-pro-life people would be happy.
Actually, IMHO, what’s going on here is a common logical fallacy I’ll call “the golden mean fallacy” (does anyone know the real name?):
X and Y are two opposed positions on issue Z
Therefore “the vast majority of people believe” / “the truth lies” / etc.
somewhere in the middle of positions X and Y
Thus, whatever position most people have cannot be exactly X or Y
E.g.
“Pro-life” and “Pro-choice” are two opposed positions on abortion
Therefore, the vast majority of people have beliefs that are between “Pro-life” and “Pro-choice”
Thus, “And that puts me in the vast majority of Americans. But unfortunately, there’s no label for us.”
The idea that maybe position X or position Y might per se be the majority position. Or that position X might be a “moderate” position just escapes some people … the majority, the truth, whatever must lie in the middle of two positions is axiomatic with many folks.
This middle ground abortion stance really irks me. I understand (but disagree vehemently with) the pro-life position: at the moment of conception a human is created and to destroy it at any point is murder. I personally believe that the fetus is effectively an organ of the woman until birth, and she has a human right to remove it if she wishes. The middle ground position is “well, abortion is icky, but I don’t think it should be illegal.” What do you mean by icky? You mean it is messy? All surgery is messy. Or do you believe that abortion is murder? You believe abortion is murder, yet you don’t think it should be illegal? It’s a morally ambiguous stance. (Whether you would have one or not personally is immaterial.)
She doesn’t like the “pro-choice” label? Why, is “useless panderer” better?
This middle ground abortion stance really irks me. I understand (but disagree vehemently with) the pro-life position: at the moment of conception a human is created and to destroy it at any point is murder. I personally believe that the fetus is effectively an organ of the woman until birth, and she has a human right to remove it if she wishes. The middle ground position is “well, abortion is icky, but I don’t think it should be illegal.” What do you mean by icky? You mean it is messy? All surgery is messy. Or do you believe that abortion is murder? You believe abortion is murder, yet you don’t think it should be illegal? It’s a morally ambiguous stance. (Whether you would have one or not personally is immaterial.)
Another person who fudged their “pro-choice”-ness although being, by any definition, pro-choice: John Kerry.
See, I always thought Kerry had the right answer: basically, his position was “I am opposed to abortion personally, but my personal opinion is not a basis for making something illegal.” That is precisely the answer I want from legislators and judges and prosecutors on just about every issue. I don’t CARE what their “personal” convictions are: I want to know what their LEGAL convictions are. I want to know that they are committed to the law so strongly that they will fight for my right to do things they would never personally do.
Unfortunately, these kinds of answers are too “wordy” and “nuanced” and “nerdy” for our sound-bite-driven media.
Actually, IMHO, what’s going on here is a common logical fallacy I’ll call “the golden mean fallacy” (does anyone know the real name?):
I wonder if it’s a specific application of the “either-or” fallacy? The original assumption is (as you said) “X and Y are two opposed positions on issue Z”. In this particular case, at lease, that assumption is incorrect.
The polar opposite position of “women must never have abortions” is more like “women must have at least one abortion”, instead of the pro-choice position of “women may or may not have abortions”. (Someone else can probably phrase that proposition and its negation better than this.)
I think that we on the left have let the right to lifers define the argument for too long. I believe, and think most Americans agree, that abortion is a terrible thing, an incredibly difficult thing for a woman to go through. We should do everything in our power to make sure there are fewer of them. But the way to do that is not to donate to Right to Life, but to donate to Planned Parenthood; to make sure that every young woman understands the birth control options available to her, and the range of options available should birth control fail. We need to point out that there are solutions without trying to tell a person what she can do with her body and that Republicans only care about babies until they are born.
I agree that “safe, legal, and rare” is a politically wise slogan circa 2008. Especially, that is, if you want to keep abortion safe, legal, and rare.
However, I can think of at least one example when “Dems have not said this,” or said anything like it. Here is an example of a Democrat arguing that Abortion is a Good Thing.
This may be a wise way to frame the debate, or not. But the linked article, along with the other posts here so far, show that a solid chunk of democrats don’t care a whiff about the “rare” part of “safe, legal, and rare.”
Church is not about spirituality, but about affordable day care.
You may just be joking here, Amanda, but this is neither true nor fair. I can only speak anecdotally, but I certainly know more than one person who returned to some sort of corporate religious practice after they had kids. And it wasn’t for the babysitters — it was, in part at least, to give their kids moral instruction. I’m not saying this is the best or only way to teach children about morality. I’m just saying there was nothing cynical about it.
I’m no Amy Sullivan fan, and this particular instance of hedging is pretty egregious. But I will just say, as someone who came out of the evangelical tradition, that there are plenty of religious evangelicals who are sincere progressives — my parents being two. They aren’t insecure enough to get bent out of shape about the word “pro-choice” or constantly ask for kid-glove treatment from the Democratic party, like Sullivan does. But they are devout believers and also hard-core liberals.
Amy is still frightened by her childhood brainwashing and very afraid she will go to hell when she dies. Or worse, is even more sure we will. The problem is that she also has some inclination to write about politics and is too unsophisticated to understand that GOP politicians are the biggest cynics of all and generally use her religion as a weapon.
Insofar as this is true, it shows how little people actually believe their own bullshit. Church is not about spirituality, but about affordable day care.
I’d like to dissent from this a little bit. I think it is true that a lot of people (1) grow up being taken to church by their parents, (2) blow it off in their carefree 20s, then (3) return to church when they get married and especially when children arrive. It’s not about cheap babysitting, and it may not even be about spirituality, but rather about wanting practical help and communal support to raise an ethical child.
Church-run day care is good as well as affordable, but you don’t have to join the church in order to take advantage of it, in my wife’s and my experience. Churches do it to serve their communities, and often as a PR and recruitment tool.
Okay now, proceed with the hammering of Miss Sullivan.
Insofar as this is true, it shows how little people actually believe their own bullshit. Church is not about spirituality, but about affordable day care.
I’d like to dissent from this a little bit. I think it is true that a lot of people (1) grow up being taken to church by their parents, (2) blow it off in their carefree 20s, then (3) return to church when they get married and especially when children arrive. It’s not about cheap babysitting, and it may not even be about spirituality, but rather about wanting practical help and communal support to raise an ethical child.
Church-run day care is good as well as affordable, but you don’t have to join the church in order to take advantage of it, in my wife’s and my experience. Churches do it to serve their communities, and often as a PR and recruitment tool.
Okay now, proceed with the hammering of Miss Sullivan.
As an atheist, I can certainly understand a statement like, “this is the bullshit that believing in god leads you to.”
But I cannot understand your claim that most self-identified evangelicals believe primarily in patriarchy with a thin veneer of Christianity on top.
Do you have any actual (statistical) evidence for that? Or is this just your opinion? If it is only your opinion, doesn’t that weaken your argument and your claim to being “reality based?”
How do you get your acute mental powers that allow you to peer inside another person’s head?
“This may be a wise way to frame the debate, or not. But the linked article, along with the other posts here so far, show that a solid chunk of democrats don’t care a whiff about the “rare” part of “safe, legal, and rare.””
Okay, everybody take down the barricades, the debate is over.
A “solid chunk of democrats” don’t just piss all over the idea of abortions being “rare”, they actively promote abortion as an alternative lifestyle. This, of course, leads many people who would otherwise naturally be pro-choice to get upset and become “pro-life”…WTF?
Chris, what the hell are you trying to say? Do you honestly believe there is a group of feminists out there who want women to have abortions just for the shits and giggles?
Do you need some remedial schooling in abortion politics and the various points of view? Or are you concern trolling just to be another in an endless line of anti-abortion nutcases who think we just need to understand the “pro-life” position and then we’d agree with it?…
Don’t like abortion, don’t have one. Otherwise, STFU…
Cervantes, one of the earliest Christian documents, the Didache, which preceded quite a few New Testament books and almost made it into the canon, prohibits abortion very explicitly. Catholicism has always been on record against it.
So it goes back a long way. You are essentially correct that it isn’t mentioned in the Bible. It comes up twice, neither instance providing much comfort to the pro-life crowd: once when the prophet Jeremiah declares that he would have been better off if his mother had aborted him; and once when the law spells out the fine to be paid for beating a pregnant woman if she miscarries as a result. Since murder carries a death penalty in the same code, it’s clear that Yahweh did not regard abortion - even forced abortion - as murder.
Despite these caveats, you are of course also right that abortion didn’t become a big deal issue, especially among Protestants, until women started to get uppity.
Whenever I hear that crap, I think of the Lou Reed song ‘Good Evening Mr. Waldheim’:
“There’s no ground common enough for you and me.”
when most self-identified evangelicals are patriarchy proponents with a thin veneer of Christianity over everything as a moral justification.
…
Church is not about spirituality, but about affordable day care.
It’s hard to understand why some people identify you as a religious bigot. It’s clear to me that’s as unfair as calling Ann Coulter a bigot. You’re just being funny and brutally honest and speaking truth to power. I wish you well in your career and can’t wait to see you on Bill Maher.
“The basic line for how many years has been “Abortion should be legal and rare”?”
I believe it was something like ‘legal, safe and rare’ and it’s been at least since Bill Clinton, possibly in the ‘92 campaign.
Amanda wrote:
Clever, but not true.
I’m a Unitarian who was brought up fundamentalist Baptist, so I’ve been in hyper-nationalist / conservative churches, and very liberal / progressive churches. In both cases, though, I think that people go back to church when they have kids because they want to bring their children up in a community that reflects their values. Having children, for me at least, made me think a lot harder than I had before about what I believed.
There really are religious people who believe in liberal values. Some even go to church. And not all are UU or UCC.
Religious people are no better or more valuable that non-religious people. That’s the attitude that irks me. It seems that some (E.J. Dionne, for example, as much as I admire him) think that religious people are somehow the moral of our country, and that, without them, we’d lose our bearings.
That’s bullshit.
But dismissing and denigrating people’s religious convictions outright is just politically stupid and, frankly, offensive.
See, Democrats never mention reducing the abortion rate by MAKING IT ILLEGAL or by reducing the ability of women to exercise their choice to have one. Democrats never argue that we need to limiting the # of clinics, never try to force allow the fathers to make the decision for the woman, demand waiting periods b/c if a woman has decided to terminate she obviously hasn’t thought about it. And Democrats never try to reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies by insisting on abstinence only sex ed, or slut shaming, or allowing drs. and pharmacists to exercise their “right” to put their religion over their profession.
OK, so that stuff doesn’t actually reduce abortions or unplanned pregnancies in the real world, but by insisting on real world results, Democrats aren’t reaching out to voters who aren’t sure of the facts.
If Democrats would just drop the need for logic and facts, they could appeal to people who don’t like to be called “pro-choice” and don’t think other women should be allowed to use abortions as birth control or to prevent increasing the supply of perfect white babies for adoption, but still think safe and legal abortions should be available if they want or need them.
“It’s hard to understand why some people identify you as a religious bigot. It’s clear to me that’s as unfair as calling Ann Coulter a bigot. You’re just being funny and brutally honest and speaking truth to power.”
Dude, comparing Amanda to Little Annie Coulter is extremely offensive…
My impression is that the muddle middle on this issue is based on the idea that those people just can’t conventionalize somebody NOT wanting to have a child. I think that’s what bothers them. They just can’t wrap their minds around it and it upsets them.
At least from talking to these people (as someone who probably isn’t going to have kids), it always comes down to that. Why wouldn’t you want to have children? I think that’s behind most of it.
Nicteis — In the fourth century, St. Augustine promulgated doctrine permitting abortion up to 80 days; Pope Sixtus got around to forbidding abortion in 1588, but it was not enforced as Catholic doctrine until Pius IX issued a new ban in exchange for France acknowledging papal infallibility. (France had been experiencing a declining population which the Napoleon III did not like.)
I’m sure various theologians had varying opinions on the matter throughout the centuries but that’s the official history.
I seriously don’t understand the anger shown in this post and in these comments. Amy Sullivan’s article makes a very simple point - there are many evangelicals and other religious people in this country who would happily join with liberals and progressives in supporting a number of issues but are currently alienated by some of the language used by liberals. If we’re able to be more successful by pursuing the same policies but emphasizing different aspects of them (like values and making abortions safe, legal, and rare), then what’s the problem?
Conservatives were extremely successful over the past few decades using this strategy, as Sullivan notes - they have a base who trusts that they see the world the way they do, which allows them to count moderates. It looks like we have a choice - we can use a similar strategy and gain a broader base of support for progressive policies, or we can sacrifice effectiveness in the name of “ideological purity” … just like conservatives are doing now.
cervantes,
Your history does not appear to be accurate:
http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3361
If there really are a bunch of evangelicals who really want to be Democrats, then why don’t they quit acting like whining babies and be that? I don’t buy it. There’s no reason on earth that they can’t switch over. The candidates all make the requisite noises about faith and explicitly call themselves Christians, so if an evangelical needs to be a religious bigot and vote only for Christians, that base is covered. It’s not like the Democrats are tossing out a bunch of avowed atheists as candidates.
Nadav, calling someone “angry” is not accepted as a legitimate criticism by me. There’s something wrong with people who don’t get angry when something is infuriating. If you call me angry when I am angered by something infuriating, you’re accusing me of sanity.
Karmakin, you’re right–>most people think having a baby is a good thing, b/c most people love their kids and can’t imagine a life without them.
Then again, when real stories of women who chose abortion are told, most people think that they made the right decision. Given reality, most people are pro-choice.
It’s not like anyone who is pro-choice is pro-ABORTION. Nobody wants to have surgery for shits and giggles. No one wants to be in a position to have to make that choice.
It’s this goofy idea that women aren’t thinking about it mixed with the notion of slut-shaming and -punishing that makes people uncomfortable about claiming to be pro-choice.
That is, pro-choice for OTHERS. When it’s their unwanted pregnancy or a friend or family that chooses to abort and they know the details, well, THAT’S different. Like a woman who chooses to abort a Down Syndrome fetus and then claims “but I wanted a baby.”
Well, yeah, but not *that* baby. And that’s fine, you should be allowed to decide whether or not you want to terminate. What’s not fine is deciding that only YOU get to make the decision, and that all other women are cows that must be forced to give birth.
What I found interesting was her mention of “unplanned pregnancies”. If that’s not a Democratic/pro-choice turn-of-phrase, I don’t know what is. The forced-birth crowd doesn’t believe in planning pregnancies–they believe in letting God decide when a woman is ready to have a baby.
If you are buying into the notion of “planned pregnancy” then you are buying into the notion that women have the agency to determine when and if to get pregnant, and that agency, given the education and power, automatically results in lower abortion rates.
Dude, comparing Amanda to Little Annie Coulter is extremely offensive…
Why? One makes outrageous and hyperbolic statements for the right, and one makes outrageous and hyperbolic statements for the left. Both use “othering” tactics to dismiss those they disagree with.
And why? I can see someone saying a comparison is wrong, but offensive? Is there some godwin’s law you can state to help me understand?
Actually, this disconnect between one’s beliefs and how one wants to be labeled cuts in a different direction. I have encountered people who claim to be “pro-choice” while spouting anti-choice talking points, and dyed-in-the-wool rightwingnuts claiming to be “JFK liberals”.
And why? I can see someone saying a comparison is wrong, but offensive? Is there some godwin’s law you can state to help me understand?
Not Godwin’s Law, but Moore’s: all “left-right equivalence” references to Ann Coulter on the internets must liken Coulter to Michael Moore. Breaking this rule is extremely offensive. Just fyi.
Amanda, as everyone knows, is the Eva Peron of liberal fascism.
My all time favorite Amy Sullivan piece was the one where she talked about returning to active Christianity, her search for a church to attend and all the different ones she tried. In the end? OMG - the perfect service for Amy was the one Bill Clinton went to!!! That cracked me up big time.
She has a problem many people who come/return to Christianity as adults have, particularly those who have fantasies of the whole world getting along if only people could just talk to each other. There is a belief that all Christians are brothers and sisters in Christ. If a Christian somewhere is saying bad things about Amy, and how she isn’t a “real” Christian, it must be because they just don’t understand her. Admitting that some Christians won’t see her as a “real” Christian unless she dons the denim jumper, pops out a quiverful of chitlins’, and never, ever, ever questions her husband on anything, means that Amy would have to give up on the whole “Jesus and Pals and their Pretty Ponies” Christianity.
I have a friend who left the rat race to go to a liberal theological seminary. She said there was a real head-in-the-sand attitude about the dark side of modern American Christianity.
Conservatives were extremely successful over the past few decades using this strategy, as Sullivan notes - they have a base who trusts that they see the world the way they do, which allows them to count moderates.
Think very carefully about how America has changed since 2000, what those changes have meant to all Americans, and how the use of language by self-proclaimed conservatives propelled many of those changes. Then come back and read that sentence again and see if the meaning has changed for you.
“One makes outrageous and hyperbolic statements for the right, and one makes outrageous and hyperbolic statements for the left. Both use “othering” tactics to dismiss those they disagree with.”
Ann says whatever will keep the wingnuts buying her books, watching her television appearances, and generally worshiping her as some kind of pinnacle of Reichwing Womanhood. Who knows whether she actually believes anything she says or not. But it seems to me that there must be a dark region of bigotry in her soul for her to be able to continuously go from one bigoted statement to the next.
Amanda, OTOH, actually believes what she says. And she doesn’t say it just to get invited onto a television show or to speak in front of some crowd of drooling worshipers. Amanda is just sharing her (actual) viewpoints, no winking at convention, no dog whistles, no cryptic language to be decoded by the mouth-breathers. What you see is what you get…
Amanda, as everyone knows, is the Eva Peron of liberal fascism.
Ooh, Amanda, you are so busted.
The polar opposite position of “women must never have abortions” is more like “women must have at least one abortion”, instead of the pro-choice position of “women may or may not have abortions”. (Someone else can probably phrase that proposition and its negation better than this.) - Dorothy
Kang: Abortions for all.
[crowd boos]
Very well, no abortions for anyone.
[crowd boos]
Hmm… Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
[crowd cheers and waves miniature flags]
Yep. The problem is that people think pro-choice = the first position whereas they believe in the 3rd position. Meanwhile pro-choice = “abortions and American flags: you can have either, both or neither depending on your preference and personal choice”
There’s a difference between religion and religious beliefs. Atheism is a religious belief just as surely as evangelism is. But it’s not a religion.
Dismissing people’s religious beliefs may be offensive, it’s true; at the least, it accomplishes nothing but to cause insult. Dismissing religion, however, is necessary — insulting or not. Religion is antithetical to the future of our species, for chrissakes. That’s no excoriation of religious beliefs, however; as I pointed out, ever person has “religious beliefs” just as surely as every city has “weather.”
Perhaps, cervantes, I was teaching my grandfather to suck eggs? I appreciate your further comment.
I looked through Chris’s link, intriguing and useful despite its plain intent to support the current Catholic party line. Whether it bolsters or undermines your assertions depends largely on whether one equates “forbidding abortion” with “equating abortion to murder”. The article indicates that the notion of ensoulment at conception - and with it the absolute ban on abortion under all circumstances - was not nailed down as Catholic teaching until the time you suggest. It was still, generally speaking, deeply frowned upon.
“I believe women should have equal rights, but I’m no feminist.” “I’m not a liberal or anything, but I think we should have universal health care.” So now pro-choice joins the list of labels to disavow while adhering to the concepts? Bah. I am so irked by the right-wingers who’ve painted these words as slurs rather than descriptors that middle-of-the-roaders can be proud to apply to themselves.
“Pro-choice” has a narrow definition tied to a specific issue with a simple (near)binary condition - abortion, legal or not?
“Liberal” and “feminist”, in practice, have a range of definitions over a variety of issues ranging from the intrinsically sensible to the outright loony. And everytime this gets mentioned, everybody tries to define their own theoretical definition of “liberal” or “feminist” wile ignoring the facts that (i) other liberals or feminists may not buy into it and (ii) people tend to take their impressions from what the loudest self-proclaimed liberals or feminists are saying and doing in public rather than theory.
Hey Amanda- OT but Thom Hartmann has a great “interview” with this joker named Mike Adams about his book “Feminists Say the Darndest Things”. Hilarity ensures.
Of course at the end he implies that people who are concerned with the state of women in the US aren’t doing enough to help women around the world and of course he is doing the most since he adopted a “little girl from SE asia”. *shudder*
That poor child.
It’s in hour 2 right at the beginning of today’s show (2/26/2008)
I have several friends in their 20s and 30s, including one of my very closest friends, who identify as evangelicals, believe the bible to be the literal word of god, and attend evangelical churches. All of them think the evangelical movement’s focus on homosexuality is absurd, and none of them have a problem with me or my same-sex marriage (and not in a “love the sinner, hate the sin” way either. I’ve had evangelical friends ask me for relationship advice and tell me that we are the kind of couple that they emulate.)
The majority describe themselves as feminist and pro-choice, and one friend who thought abortion should be illegal is reconsidering his position after discussions with me and several other people (Christian and non-Christian.) I’ve been to a number of anti-poverty protests where the majority of protesters were religious (Quakers, Catholics, mainline Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, and yes, some evangelicals.)
Needless to say, they struggle with the fact that so many people who share their religious beliefs have politics that are repugnant to them and justify their positions and tactics with religion. It may be true that evangelical leaders and many evangelicals are anti-feminist, but evangelical isn’t necessarily synonymous with conservative.
Amanda, as everyone knows, is the Eva Peron of liberal fascism.
Well, the cat’s out of the bag. I say we all chip in and get her a nice Christian Dior frock for her next balcony appearance.
Godmonkey, you may be making a technical distinction without a substantive difference. I’d wager that the vast majority of people in our culture do not have and do not wish a grasp of language subtle and nuanced enough to distinguish between “religious belief” and “having a belief in religion”.
Not Godwin’s Law, but Moore’s: all “left-right equivalence” references to Ann Coulter on the internets must liken Coulter to Michael Moore. Breaking this rule is extremely offensive. Just fyi.
Ann Coulter is still thin.
You know, technically, “contraceptive” means “preventing conception”. So you’re kind of pushing it to put abortion in the same category. Plus, I don’t know any women who’ve had a horrible emotional experience using contraception.
Unless you meant something different by that.
Anyway, you’re dead on about Amy “Ain’t it Special that I’m Religious Like You” Sullivan. Man, she drives me batty.
As an old bumper sticker said, “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!”
Do think! And I am pro-choice, but try on this logic–it’s just as cute and just as embarrassingly silly:
If you don’t like murder don’t do it!
If you don’t like pollution don’t do it!
If you don’t like dogs don’t have one!
Well, the cat’s out of the bag. I say we all chip in and get her a nice Christian Dior frock for her next balcony appearance.
SHOES! THERE MUST BE SHOES!
But dismissing and denigrating people’s religious convictions outright is just politically stupid and, frankly, offensive.
Religion is SPECIAL! *stomp stomp*
wheeeeee…moderation with no links. THAT’S some blasphemin!
Carmicus: First you say:
And then you say:
You are still letting the anti-choicers (not “right-to-lifers,” which is yet another frame of theirs) define the argument. FSM dammit, abortion is not a terrible thing. It is an absolute necessity, and there are women who have had abortions who did not find them terrible or traumatizing, but a relief. See I’m Not Sorry for dozens of their stories.
Chris H.: Sorry, but policy shouldn’t focus on “reducing” or “increasing” the number of abortions. That should be left, you know, up to individual women? You know, the insignificant blob of tissue surrounding the uterus, in your worldview?
Finally, “wtf,” I somehow doubt you’d have any issue with a man who ascribed motives to other people. And, yes, I am “reading your mind.” Because trolls on feminist blogs are pretty predictable.
“Liberal” and “feminist”, in practice, have a range of definitions over a variety of issues ranging from the intrinsically sensible to the outright loony. And everytime this gets mentioned, everybody tries to define their own theoretical definition of “liberal” or “feminist” wile ignoring the facts that (i) other liberals or feminists may not buy into it and (ii) people tend to take their impressions from what the loudest self-proclaimed liberals or feminists are saying and doing in public rather than theory.
It doesn’t help that our modern feminists, like Amanda, call out anyone that disagrees with them as anti-feminists, misogynistic, or even “Uncle Toms”
It doesn’t help that instead of responding to the statements other people make, Amanda, and people in this thread, categorically dismiss the actual statements, and go directly to projecting their own thoughts and motives into the argument. Straw evangelicals. Straw anti-choicers.
There are plenty of women, and men, that our modern feminists have cast out for not being pure enough, or for asking questions, or for actually disagreeing.
At times when it is convenient, our modern feminists like Amanda will say, “There are many disparate views in feminism, and I do not agree with that one.” At other times, they just come out and state, “so and so is a misogynistic anti-feminist.”
Marcia Pappas is just a feminist we disagree with.
Christina Hoff Sommers, regardless of her entire career’s work, is an anti-feminist. Cathy Young is an anti-feminist. Daphne Patai is an anti-feminist. Wendy Kaminer is an anti-feminist. Regardless of their career arcs. Because we disagree with them.
Note to MikeEss: what proof do you have that:
a) Ann Coulter does not believe what she says?
b) Amanda Marcotte does believe what she says?
The troll quality is slipping. Time to fling bunnies at wtf. The perfect screen name, btw.
Abortion is terrible and necessary, in real practical health terms, just as any other minor surgery is.
That is, it is good that it is available. It would be better not to risk pain and health on a procedure or chemical for something that may have been avoided if proper preventative care were available.
“Note to MikeEss: what proof do you have that:
a) Ann Coulter does not believe what she says?”
As I said “Who knows whether she actually believes anything she says or not.” I truly don’t know if she does or not. But if she does - she is one fucked up person…
Limbaugh is another Reichwing hack who’s allegiance to what he spouts is very unclear.
“b) Amanda Marcotte does believe what she says?”
Because she has kept the same consistent message, through thick and thin, for the 5 to 6-years I’ve been reading her. And her stands on a lot of topics have lead to a great deal of personal trauma, not “success”, certainly not the kind of success a Coulter or Malkin have achieved. Not yet…
She is a talented writer who could have easily sold out years ago in order to further her career - but she hasn’t.
Sticking to your beliefs in the face of adversity directly related to those beliefs? That’s proof enough for me…
Nobody: In many cases, abortion is not an absolute necessity. Plan B accomplishes the same thing, by taking a pill. I’m not saying anyone should be sorry or that abortion is terrible on any moral grounds. I’m saying it’s better if no one has to go through a humiliating surgical procedure. I’m sure there are dozens don’t find it humiliating. Most do. If you, or anyone else, finds it necessary or more convienient, or whatever, I have no problem with that. I don’t have a uterus at all, so I’m not about to tell you what to do with yours. I’ll stand beside you and fight for your right. I’m framing the argument in my terms, which differ from yours. That’s cool. My point is that we should be working on eliminating unwanted pregnancies without which there would be no abortions.
I do think Marcotte believes what she writes and says, but I see no evidence to think that Coulter does not. She started her career as a right wing lawyer trying to take down Clinton, she seems to have progressed along that arc.
As I said earlier, both women make outrageous statements, offensive statements even, and both have made that their career focus. Both dismiss any critique of them. Both use othering tactics to separate and shun critics and enforce the groupthink. (Yes, it is time to throw bunnies at me.)
And to various degrees, it has worked out well for both of them.
True enough, seeker. However, as evidenced by the multitudes who self-identify as “spiritual but not religious,” it is not entirely binary. Religions are at heart political/corporate entities with interest in establishing and maintaining power. One doesn’t have to be a thoroughgoing atheist to see that.
“And to various degrees, it has worked out well for both of them.”
wtf, I’ll tell you what.
When Amanda Marcotte is invited to college campuses and paid tens-of-thousands to whip up a bunch of horny undergrad punkasses, we can talk.
When Amanda Marcotte sells thousands of copies of her latest diatribe to adoring fans who dutifully place their unopened copies on their shelves to prove their bona fides as a political partisans, we can talk.
When Amanda Marcotte is booked for regular appearances on “news” shows as an object of worship who spouts talking points while wearing revealing clothing, we can talk.
…which brings us back to the point I made to begin with: Comparing Amanda Marcotte to Ann Coulter is offensive…
Whoa there, MikeEss. You forgot “when Amanda Marcotte jokes about murdering a Supreme Court justice and giggles about how her only regret is that Timothy McVeigh didn’t target the New York Times building, we can talk.” Until then, Ann Coulter must be likened to Michael Moore, who has said very similar things.
And is fat.
“Plan B accomplishes the same thing, by taking a pill.”
For the last time, all together now: Plan B is not the same as RU-486. It is not an abortion. It prevents ovulation. It’s a large dose of the same hormones found in the pill. It does not interfere with an established pregnancy. It’s doubtful that it significantly influences the uterine lining or implantation.
MJ_: I know the difference between Plan B and RU-486. That is the point, there are many ways to accomplish the same thing: dealing with an unwanted pregnany, before or after the fact. I appreciate the condescension, though. It really helps to make your point.
I’m not saying anyone should be sorry or that abortion is terrible on any moral grounds
You have to realize how morally bankrupt that is. You may feel as a woman that for whatever reason that you must have an abortion, but to say that you shouldn’t be sorry or that it’s not a terrible thing is insane. There are many things in this life that have to be done, abortion may or may not be one of them, and while they may not be wrong you should feel a sense of loss, and sorry.
This is not the removal of a hangnail, but the death of a potential human, or human depending on your views, and should carry that weight. Statements like these are exactly why this woman is so reluctant to call herself pro-choice and throw her lot in with people who can make them.
I’m sorry Professor Berube, you must have a straw-wtf in your mind. I haven’t made any comments whatsoever about any of Marcotte’s attributes other than what she writes and says. Perhaps this is your own fatism, or lookism, or sexism, projecting through onto me. Let’s stick to what I actually say, mkay Professor?
However, considering her bigoted comments about whites and men in her infamous Duke Airport post, I wouldn’t say she is that far from Coulter in terms of writing amazingly bigoted and stupid things.
Amanda has had a pretty good past year, she’s coming up a year now on her Duke Airport post, and look at all the things she has accomplished since then.
MikeEss, it’s not everyone that can get columns in Salon, ask to write for the Guardian, ask to be a webmaster for a Presidential Candidate, or get a book deal.
Yes, Coulter has gotten further, but she started earlier, and from a higher pedestal, being well, a lawyer, whereas I believe all Amanda has is her bachelor’s degree.
I think the comparison of methods, responsibility for those methods, and career arc still stands, and quite well.
Anyway Professor Berube (I will do the accent grave if you can tell me an easy way to get that out of my keyboard, otherwise, I ask your respectful understanding of why I do not), I would be happy to discuss these and many other issues with you, but can you distinguish me from stereotypes that you like to do battle with?
When Amanda Marcotte says of 9-11 widows that she’s never seen a group of women so happy to have their husbands dead … then, too, we can talk.
When Michael Moore wears revealing clothing — ugh. Never mind.
Carmicus:
Excuse me? And who are you to decide whether it’s an “absolute necessity” or not?
And how do you know it’s “humiliating”? Especially since you’re a guy and have never had an abortion? I’ve never had one, either, but I’ve known other women who have and who didn’t think it was “humiliating.” It probably depends a great deal on the medical staff in attendance, as well as whether the woman herself has been brainwashed by pro-liar memes.
Between your insistence on wringing your hands over all those awful abortions, your ignorance about Plan B, and your getting defensive over what you term MJ_’s “condescension”…well, I’m not ready to call “concern troll” quite yet, but I will say that this is the same mealy-mouthed rhetoric that hasn’t done a damn thing in the last 20 years to preserve reproductive choice.
Sorry, Carmicus, for the snark. I have taken your words out of context.
I tend to think of Plan B as a contraceptive, and not something used to ‘deal with’ an unplanned pregnancy. Phrase things however you want (not that you need anyones permission), but I find it’s kind of mentally jarring to hear ‘deal with’ in terms of something that doesn’t exist, rather than, for example, ‘prevention’.
Godmonkey, that statement of Coulter’s seems to be on a par with this statement of Marcotte’s. Amanda’s statement was made AFTER charges had been dropped. Notice the bigotry and stereotyping Amanda makes:
Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?
And just yesterday, Amanda was using a racial and ethnic slur used towards African Americans as a slur towards women that she disagrees with.
The only difference I perceive between the two women, is that Amanda claims to be a progressive. But in examining her actual statements and behavior, I have my doubts.
Nobody: Thank god you are not ready to call me a concern troll yet. I don’t know if I’d be able to live with the shame. Let me say it again: I support your right to have as many abortions as you like. I am simply asserting that most women (and their male partners) would like to avoid being put in the position where an abortion is necessary. In saying that many abortions are not absolutely necessay, I am asserting that access to Plan B post-coitus or effective birth control pre-coitus render the abortions unnessecary. As to the humiliation part, ok, I’m making a point that I can’t prove. You’ve known women who have had abortions and haven’t found it humiliating. I’m glad. I’ve known women who have found it humiliating. So what? I would rather not have the women I love have to make that choice. I more or less share your position, and still you’ve managed to piss me off and insult me. Making convincing arguments is the way to keep something legal in a democracy, and attitudes like yours damage OUR cause.
“The only difference I perceive between the two women, is that Amanda claims to be a progressive. But in examining her actual statements and behavior, I have my doubts.”
Let me guess: Because No True Progressive would…what?
wtf: WTF are you on (or conversely, which medications are you not taking)?
I ask this with half-seriousness.
We’re cool MJ_. Sorry about the short fuse
The problem is where the line between “Pro-life” and “Pro-Choice” is on the following spectrum:
—–
1) Abortion is murder, and should be illegal, full stop. (Very Radical Fundies.)
2) Abortion is essentially murder, and should be illegal, except rape/incest/health/whatever because those things are reasonable affirmative defenses for an abortion. (Standard Conservative.)
3) Abortion should be legal until quickening/3rd trimester/2nd trimester/viability/whatever point in the pregnancy ‘personhood’ is gained, but illegal (except…) afterwards. (A common ‘moderate’ position.)
4) Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, but it is perfectly reasonable to shun, disparage, and otherwise stigmatise the people who do it. (Think the ‘center-right’ position on gays - we shouldn’t jail them, but we needn’t accept them.) (Not an insignificant number of centrists and center-rightists.)
5) Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, and is possibly questionable morally, but ultimately the woman’s decision to make. (B. Clinton)
6) Abortion should be safe and legal, and has little more moral content than an appendectomy or the pill.(Occasionally, this blog and other feminists who aren’t one category down.)
7) Abortion should be common or even encouraged, there are too many people. (Occasionally, this blog and other feminists who aren’t one category up.)
8) Abortion should be mandated, if someone dares get pregnant repeatedly. (Peoples Republic of China)
———
Clearly, 1-2 are ‘pro life’, and 5,6,7 are ‘pro-choice’. 7 and 8 are ‘pro abortion’. But where to put 3 and 4? To some extent they overlap, and include people saying ‘we are willing to let people have a choice, but they shouldn’t use it except in extremis, so we can’t self-identify as PRO choice, just begrudgingly accepting of it.’ ‘Pro-choice, anti abortion’? Or conditionally pro-choice?
Can someone be ‘pro-choice’ if they believe children should get parental permission for all non-emergency medical procedures, and that abortion is included in that list? (As in, “A kid shouldn’t be given antibiotics or a tonsilectomy without parental notification and consent, leave alone an abortion.”)
Politics is rarely as simple as saying ‘yes, I am a…’
Huh. I just stumbled across all this fury.
Both seem self-righteous and unwilling to self-doubt, extremely aggressive and dismissive of the other side, and to provoke outrage with minimal effort. In other words, they both are sadly comfortable in the fuck-you, know-it-all milieu of the internet.
MikeEss seems to think that success of said tactics should factor in, but I wouldn’t agree. Coulter is certainly far better remunerated at this than Marcotte. I think Berube’s point is spot-on though, from what I’ve read, Coulter takes her game to the next level by throwing off casual references to murder, invasion, bombings, etc. Saying Yahweh is [insert blasphemous graphic imagery] is much different than “the NYT should be bombed.” Those are flesh and blood people she’s gliby talking about being murdered. That’s sick, I think. It’s also why her payday is bigger.
I think I understand Marcotte’s angry self-righteousness, in part. I bet I share a fair amount of her worldview. But the tone is, ah, unhelpful. She knows this and pays the price.
My own experience with the disorder I call akia (angry know it all) has been that I’m actually pretty fallible and it’s a pain in the ass because it makes it pretty tough to admit you’ve made a mistake. I read Balloon Juice, I like John Cole but you should see the corners of the place…
wtf you made some pretty good points, against Berube, who is a sharp guy, his old blog was great fun. (God I hate Horowitz, still.)
But that’s not the point.
Plan B is a contraceptive. It doesn’t cause an abortion, which is a termination of a pregnancy. It’s not foolproof either.
Should the condom break, even if you have Plan B in the house and take it right away, you STILL might get pregnant b/c you may have already ovulated.
Necessitating an abortion, or termination of the pregnancy.
As I said before, no one wants to have an invasive surgical procedure for shits and giggles, but having an abortion is not and should not by it’s very nature be humiliating.
Maybe you really didn’t mean to confuse the two, but that’s how I read that first post, too: that were conflating contraception and termination. There’s just way too much confusion out there about what Plan B is and what it does and does not do.
I’m sorry Professor Berube, you must have a straw-wtf in your mind. I haven’t made any comments whatsoever about any of Marcotte’s attributes other than what she writes and says. Perhaps this is your own fatism, or lookism, or sexism, projecting through onto me. Let’s stick to what I actually say, mkay Professor?
Mkay! Let’s stick to what we’ve actually said. Now, where precisely did I suggest that you’d made any comments about any of Amanda’s attributes other than what she writes and says?
Don’t worry about les accents aigus. I don’t care if anyone else uses ‘em.
*facepalm*
Maybe if you hadn’t kept missing the point I’ve been trying to make, this wouldn’t have happened.
Making convincing arguments is the way to keep something legal in a democracy, and attitudes like yours damage OUR cause.
AGAIN, by buying into right-wing frames, you are damaging “our” cause. We’ve tried to “make convincing arguments” — i.e., cater to the wingnuts’ feelings of “ickiness” around abortion by agreeing that yes, abortion is bad, yes, it should be “rare,” etc. — for decades now.
And where has it gotten us? We’ve got a presidential candidate talking about giving personhood to fertilized eggs.
I wondered why this thread blew up, and realized we picked up wtf from LGM. Sorry, y’all. There’s nothing worse than a humorless anti-feminist asswipe. I don’t know why anti-feminists have such terrible senses of humor and have to be so touchy all the time.
Amanda,
I think misogyny is a deep strain in religious doctrine and much of the motivation behind it. But the demography of spiritual communities is too full of messy and diverse detail to accommodate the sweeping, unsupported generalizations you make here. Could you provide any statistical evidence that most evangelicals do not care passionately about their religious views and only adhere to those views to seek justification or disguise for misogyny? It’s one thing to say that many religious doctrines create and worsen inequality and that they tend to encourage misogyny. I would support you on that. But I cannot agree with what you actually wrote, which obscures the likelihood that many people believe in anti-feminist religions because they find other ideas and narratives in their faith resonant with their experience and that the anti-feminist implications are both incidental to their beliefs and more ambiguously anti-feminist as interpreted in their lives than your reading allows. I think this reductive tendency interferes with your ability to communicate with readers who have emotional and ideological ties both to traditional forms of patriarchal spirituality and to feminist themes, whether they think in self-consciously feminist terms or not.
It doesn’t help that our modern feminists, like Amanda, call out anyone that disagrees with them as anti-feminists, misogynistic, or even “Uncle Toms”
Disagreeing with the statement “Women are fully human and deserve full human rights” does kind of put you in the misogynist asshole category. Sometimes in life you have to own what you are. If you don’t like being a misogynist asshole, it’s not on me to pretend you’re not, it’s on you to change.
Your sexist, whiny, humorless, condescending, hyperbolic attitudes about feminism, along with your inherent inability to tell the truth just adds to my assessment.
Oh I know this game, you are putting words into my head and mouth again.
Women are fully human and deserve full human rights”
Where did I ever disagree with that statement? Please provide some evidence that I have ever disagreed in any manner whatsoever with that statement.
I agree 100%, 1000% with that statement.
Also, I am curious where you think I have been lying. Please be specific.
Humorless? Is that where you refuse to own your own statements with the claim that you are making a joke?
Professor Berube,
You’ve written twice now, if I understand your arguments, to say that I am wrong to compare Amanda with Anne and sort of implied the godwinning: Amanda can’t be Anne Coulter, she must be Eva Peron! Anne Coulter is as vicious as Michael Moore (who is fat).
So far what you apparently have failed to do is address any of the issues I raised. The types of arguments that Amanda makes. How she fails to take responsibility for her statements. The othering. The claims that we don’t understand her sense of humor and that we can’t take a joke.
Perhaps I projected into your statement “who is fat” that you were falling back on the stereotype of “People that dislike Amanda Marcotte must be misogynists, misogynists dislike fat women, therefore straw-wtf probably will say something ugly about Amanda.” I apologize to you if I made that or any similar mistake.
“So far what you apparently have failed to do is address any of the issues I raised.”
The esteemed Mr. Bérubé, Professor Emeritus of Dangeral Studies, has not answered any of the “issues” you’ve raised because neither he, nor any of the rest of us, can take them seriously.
You certainly didn’t get the joking reference to Evita, and you apparently didn’t understand the point he was making by bringing up the ludicrous comparison of Ann Coulter to Michael Moore, which is, unfortunately more frequent than common sense would admit.
Michael Bérubé outclasses you, wtf, by an order of magnitude. Give it up…
WTF, I actually quit reading your comments when you said that a woman of reproductive age living in a state that will ban abortion if Roe is overturned should butt out and was irrelevant to the conversation. Until then, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but as soon as it became clear that you felt women’s rights weren’t even part of the discussion, well, I figured your misogyny was pretty far gone and talking to you was pointless. I don’t think all anti-choicers are misogynists. Some are just misguided. But that you literally thought that it was narcissism to defend my rights, well. High grade misogyny.
But I’m glad you got attention! I see that it’s important to you. Which doesn’t of course make you a narcissist. Only women can be that.
I agree BTW that Amy’s suggestion that there isn’t a label that describes her view of abortion policy is clearly inaccurate; perhaps she means to suggest she would prefer a more specific label than “pro-choice” that doesn’t contradict it, such as “concerned-about-abortion pro-choicer”. (Personally I tend to prefer “pro-abortion rights” to “pro-choice” to describe my views.)
I have mixed feelings about her thesis and I need to read more of her book before forming a fuller judgment. At this point, I tend to think her view is somewhat condescending toward religious people, who it is suggested will vote for Democrats in greater numbers if they are talked with more respectfully. (As a liberal, I knew perfectly well that I needed to vote for John Kerry, even though I felt somewhat disrespected by his particular political shtick.) On the other hand, there is not enough respectful engagement of issues in politics (although there is too much respectful evasiveness on the order of “Dems say 2+2=4, GOP says 2+2=3–who knows, but thanks both for sharing your views”), so maybe she’s on to something. Certainly she approaches the topic from an unusual angle of analysis that deserves a hearing.
What I’ve said several times, and you know it, was that it is narcissistic and arrogant of you to pay no attention at all to what these women are saying, and to insert your own projection of them.
According to you, they are nothing to you but “Uncle Toms”. They only care about sustaining the patriarchy. They are not really Christians but only put a thin veneer of Christianity over their patriarchal beliefs.
That you do this seems to me, arrogant, and narcissistic. You cannot believe they think differently than you, and so to other them, you in fact, defeminize them, and then you dehumanize them.
I have not once said you should not speak up for abortion rights. I have in fact said several times that you should.
There is someone here that demeans women. But it is not me.
It is funny how I post anonymously and you have a very famous named blog and you write for Salon and the Guardian when you can, and you have blogrolls, and all sorts of stuff, but… But I am the person that seeks attention.
MikeEss, of course Professor Berube outclasses me 10:1. Why 100:1!
But since I never compared Moore to Coulter, and since I gave specific reasons for comparing Amanda to Coulter, well you’re right, most of his argument went obliquely, over my head. But if he was arguing about Moore and Coulter and so are you, I’d suggest you both pay better attention and argue with wtf, not your own straw-wtf, because I haven’t done that, and nor would I. I would think that Berube, who I believe writes about criticism, would understand why that often times it is considered important to write about what the person actually said, and not just substitute in what you wanted the person to have said.
It’s amazing to me how people crowd around and act to defend bigotry, intellectual dishonesty, lies, and shoddy logic. It’s appalling that many of these people consider themselves progressive.
WTF, I realize you believe you have the last word, but in order for that to be true, people have to give a shit enough to read your ranting.
That you do this seems to me, arrogant, and narcissistic.
Which is nothing like you, wtf, right?
It is funny how I post anonymously and you have a very famous named blog and you write for Salon and the Guardian when you can, and you have blogrolls, and all sorts of stuff, but… But I am the person that seeks attention
You’re right, we should all just express our opinions only by going on blogs using pseudo-edgy screennames and insulting the operator of the blog first comment out. I think that would be a perfectly humble thing to do!
“Church is not about spirituality, but about affordable day care.”
Well, that’s further than I’d go, but in comments over at maha’s, apocalipstick says that “A lot of two-income families (like my brother-in-law) love their churches because of the highly-programmed, 24/7 youth ministries that provide activities for their daughters while demanding minimal involvement from the parents. When the parents do volunteer, they simply have to follow a schedule rather than plan and be responsible for the whole outing.” (along with other reasons for megachurch success.) In this case, it’s not necessarily affordable care that’s the issue, but e-z care.
And how come Amanda get all the trolly quasi-stalkers?
“and you have a very famous named blog and you write for Salon and the Guardian when you can, and you have blogrolls, and all sorts of stuff . . .
Blogrolls? That’s a really odd thing to list as the height of media saturation and fame.
I want a famous unnamed blog. People would be like - ‘hey, did you read [silent pause] today? It was so cool!’
Hey, wtf, no problem — I really was saying that Michael Moore was fat, and not implying anything about anything you might think or say about Amanda. “Michael Moore is fat” is a common blog trope, that’s all, as is the Moore = Coulter equation. Which, in turn, was a gentle way of saying that the Amanda = Coulter analogy is kinda ridiculous.
Because as you well know, wtf, you yourself have posted here dozens of times over the past couple of years under a variety of names — sometimes, oddly enough, to complain about Amanda’s intolerance of commenters who disagree with her. Amanda does have arguments with other women, Amy Sullivan included, and sometimes she lets fly with ghastly, intemperate language like “bite me,” which gives me the vapors, personally. But then again, she and Pam have let a whole mess of angry dissenters and dogged detractors use up a whole mess of their bloggy bandwidth to vent at them repeatedly. In this respect as in so much else, Amanda Marcotte is nothing like Ann Coulter.
In this respect as in so much else, Amanda Marcotte is nothing like Ann Coulter.
Except in that they both depend on traffic and controversy to make their monthly nut. Ann Coulter courts controversy so that ratings are high when she appears on Hannity and Colmes and on Mathews, and Amanda courts page hits so as to boost her value to advertisers. And in that case a flame war in her comments suits her needs just fine.
Does Ann Coulter like bad publicity? She loves bad publicity. It makes her money. So too a flame war in the comments.
But you’re moving the goalpost aren’t you (again)? First you linked some sort of phony Michael Moore comparison to me, and now you are claiming I am appalled with her intemperate language.
Have I said one word about anyone’s intemperate language?
Seems to me my point has not been about intemperate, ghastly language like “bite me”, but about racist, bigoted language like “Uncle Toms” and “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it?” And the whole god’s white sticky semen.
And it seems to me my point has not been about her intemperate language, but about her casual dismissing of the statements of so many people that she claims to know better than they do themselves.
I think, Professor, as a cultural critic, you know what I am talking about and the difference between what I am saying in my argument about Amanda and a complaint about intemperate language.
If you think the Coulter / Marcotte analogy is ridiculous, I will defer to your cultural criticism knowledge.
You would do me an enormous favor, and I mean that sincerely, to explain to me why Amanda’s statements about the white boys, and about the Uncle Toms are not racist and bigoted. And explain how it strengthens her argument to dismiss so many women as Uncle Toms and tell us what they are really thinking and what they are really all about while simultaneously she refuses to grant any degree of meaning to their actual statements. And finally, if you can explain to me how she can do that while not being considered condescending, or patronizing, or misogynistic.
Because frankly, if I believe her that I can ignore what these thousands or millions of women are saying and put my own ideas or her own ideas into their heads? Well, maybe these women aren’t the full fledged humans I thought they were. Maybe they do need protection from men, and need to be protected by men.
You’ve got me on point that I will concede. Usually by now she will have banned or altered or bunnied or whatever the hell you want to call it someone that disagrees with her to this degree. I honestly don’t know why she hasn’t, but I suspect it has to do with how this particular little discussion started at LGM.
He doesn’t get the Michael Moore bit. Astounding. Dude, you are the same wtf that said, at roy edroso’s place the other day, that “we liberals” have given up the whole first ammendment fight to the GOP and meant it, right? Does that have anything to do with anything beyond Amanda Marcotte being a big ol’ meany?
Amanda, I wasn’t using “angry” as a criticism; I was simply saying that I don’t understand where it’s coming from. In other words, I disagree with the basic premise you assume that what Sullivan said was particularly “infuriating.” Do I agree that she was using weasel-language to say she’s something without using the proper label for it? Sure! But I disagree that it’s something worth raising a fuss over. Her larger point — that liberals can be more effective simply by using language that’s less antagonistic to evangelicals — in my opinion, is far more important than whether she uses the proper terms for her political views.
I guess I’m trying to ask a question of tactics - would you rather argue about the proper language that best reflects liberal ideology, or would you prefer to make some allowances in language if it allows us to actually push forward some good policies?
And GuyFromOhio, you completely missed the point of what I was trying to say. Did conservatives, with the support of their base, use language effectively to pass evil policies over the past eight years? Yes! But the operative word there is “effectively.” It’s possible to use some of the same tactics used by conservatives to pass good policies. Just because they’ve used good means to achieve evil ends, it doesn’t mean that it’s not possible to use good means to achieve good ends.
Tell ya what Matt, since you’re so much smarter than I. Why don’t you explain the Michael Moore bit, and discuss it’s relevance to anything I have posted here.
What I get: I compared Amanda’s techniques and incentives to Ann Coulter, therefore a Professor believes that’s equivalent to anyone comparing Ann Coulter to Michael Moore.
One problem: no one has taken any of the issues I pointed out and shown why that is not a valid comparison.
We’ve seen both MikeEss and Amanda claim that the comparisons are just too offensive to speak of, and so ridiculous as not to be serious. We’ve seen Professor Berube go immediately to ridicule and then try to shift the goal posts and then make a point that doesn’t seem terribly valid.
So why don’t you tell me why Michael Moore is relevant here.
What does the first amendment mean to me? Especially with regards to feminism?
Check out Wendy Kaminer, Nadine Strossen, Jeralyn Merritt, Daphne Patai.
Check out thefire.org, and then google it’s reception up on Kos. Learn why the people at Kos cannot support thefire.org: hint, it’s not because of what they do, it’s because of a couple of the people that give them money.
Ask Professor Berube, who if I understand his story, is that he became well known for first telling people there was no such thing as political correctness, but one day conceded that there was such a thing in some small amounts after all, and it was in his department. (I almost assuredly have that 99.999% wrong.)
But I am curious about academics that claim there is no such thing as political correctness. Why then do they demand tenure?
But yeah Matt, if you had read what I wrote at Roy’s you would have realized that free speech and the first amendment goes directly to support for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who is shunned by much of the so called left because she got a job at the AEI.
So what do we see? We see the left ceding issues of free speech to the AEI and to whatever fucktards gave money to thefire.org.
Actually, Professor Berube I am very curious as to what you think of thefire.org…. I think they’re a terrific organization and i hope they are still around when my kids are in school. It’s sad how the forces of political correctness (often times coming from modern feminists) forced them into existence.
Here’s another point for you to examine Matt. Look at Amanda’s responses to me in this thread. Are they on point, or are they just additional gag lines, much as Ann Coulter uses to dismiss criticism?
So, this evening I had dinner with the co-founder of Common Good Strategies, a Democratic consulting group which focuses largely on gaining the support of religious voters, and his recommendations weren’t so different from Sullivan’s.
He said that they found - especially in Ohio, where they were working with Ted Strickland - that if you simply redefine the terms of the debate “how can we reduce abortions?” then people will gravitate towards the party with solutions.
Like it or not, the term “pro-choice” is pretty loaded these days, to the point where there are plenty of “pro-choice” voters who simply won’t identify themselves as such (the statistic he cited, was that 80% of self-identified pro-life voters in Ohio did not want the criminalization of abortion). I think that bloggers like Amanda and activists should work towards changing discourse and making “pro-choice” acceptable again. In the mean time however, and to secure reproductive rights, changing the discussion is probably the best solution.
Seriously, wtf, (what a beginning), calling anti-feminist women “Uncle Toms” is a comparison of BEHAVIOR. It isn’t a reference to race in that context, it is about an oppressed person siding with their oppressor against other victims in hope of being favored.
Likewise, a snarky remark indicating that historically, white-on-black violence has been overlooked to the point where it is part of systematic racism (as in Jena), is a remark meant to fight racism, not encourage it.
No one is taking your complaints very seriously because you seem very foolish in your interpretations.
What I get: I compared Amanda’s techniques and incentives to Ann Coulter, therefore a Professor believes that’s equivalent to anyone comparing Ann Coulter to Michael Moore.
As I explained upthread, it was a gentle way of suggesting that your comparison of Amanda and Ann Coulter was absurd.
Ask Professor Berube, who if I understand his story, is that he became well known for first telling people there was no such thing as political correctness,