with awareness of the mod request not to derail the thread, I can't resist a reply. Kinda gone on despite my briefly absent reply anyway, it seems. I am game for a thread spin off. It'll likely be me VS all, sporting, but I've nothing of any real consequence that I'm willing to do for now.
I don't want to get into a religious derail either, but my view is that people use that to justify racism too. A lot of people use things to justify various bad things, which doesn't necessarily / always reflect fault on the thing they're using
Ultimately, whether the behavior is justified is determined by social consensus. The pro choice consensus here is weak, relative to elsewhere, obviously. It can and has been effectively challenged by its opponents.
This assumption that "traditionalists" see sexist outcomes as negative is false.
That's true, and someone could reasonably figure that if it's true of the traditionalist position on most issues, it's probably true here.
But I can't square it. Although some take glee at damaging the other side on this issue, it's not the primary motivator. Religious thinking pours through at greater volume here specifically. It draws in a mass of supporters who happily support equal pay, equal rights, but oppose abortion in particular. Some delight at harm, yeah. To most though, I think it's secondary to what they believe is a sacred protection of human life.
A prominent recent example of "traditionalists" openly embracing and calling for sexist outcomes was Harrison Butker's commencement speech where he stated that the true calling of women is to become homemakers. This and other similar statements he made were widely defended by other conservatives.
I've heard of his speech. Haven't listened to it. Probably won't. I don't like videos.
I think we may agree that there are two different conflicting value systems in America drifting further apart. It seems the disagreement to me is primarily over to what extent longing to damage is a motivator on abortion specifically.
Personally when a man comes to loom over my table to tell me I ought to be correctively raped so I’ll learn my place, stop being a lesbian, and marry a man, it doesn’t much matter to me whether he’s telling me this because of a sincerely held secular belief that women “evolved” to be subservient to men or a sincerely held religious belief that god created us to do so.
I extend my heartfelt sympathies if this isn't a rhetorical situation. I'm responding as if it is, but it's not wholly clear to me.
I think you mischaracterize the observable behavior of most religiously inspired abortion opponents. To advocate for protection of a sacred life under threat, is different than issuing a condemnation of someone's orientation.
The former contains more moral force than the latter if youre sympathetic to the notion that the unborn are sacred fully human lives entitled to rights. I can see that, even if I don't find anti-abortion arguments compelling.
To clarify my personal position on abortion, which I've yet to actually do, I don't recall any memories of my time in the womb. If I think, therefore I am, and I can't recall any memories of that time, I don't think I was, so to speak. I don't think the capacity to be is there for anyone, either. To my knowledge, we cannot past the mirror test until some months after our departures from the womb.
Why would they think that about this sin, but not all the other legal ones? This is what makes it dangerous, if they are willing to make religious laws for this what else will they?
To the first question, a sacred life under threat is of more urgency, because it would be a sin that causes the direct end of an innocent child of God. The stakes are higher. Pulls more in, generates more interest.
To the second, they will be willing to make laws that enshrine their values anywhere the social consensus does not sufficiently oppose their power grab. Naturally, they don't see their values as dangerous, but positive, and wholesome.
But the right in politics isn't concerned with fairness
There isn't a universal conception of fairness.
One of the keys to the "sexism is not sexist" thing that @Lexicus mentioned is a fixation on motive. That's how people who want to be sexist (or racist or homophobic, or whatever) feel they can get themselves off the hook and not be held responsible for their behavior. If a behavior has a sexist outcome, it's sexist.
If we are calling anything with a sexist outcome sexist, it will lead to interesting situations.
I know a meek, timid young woman who adores babies absolutely and believes they're a gift from God. Supports banning abortion. If I tell her that as she supports a position with a sexist outcome, she is a sexist motivated by hatred of women, I'm going to received baffled stares and look crazy. It isn't that women can't be misogynist. They can. I'm gonna look nuts claiming a woman almost pathologically incapable of schadenfreude is motivated by hate, rather than genuine heartfelt conviction.
I am also aware, admittedly second hand, of a study that claims married men are happier than unmarried men, but unmarried women are happier than married women. Let us presume the study accurately reflects reality, for the sake of argument. Should I believe, given the disproportionate outcome, that those who seek marriage are sexist, and hook them to this behavior?
I'm wracking my brain trying to think of something in sports that's only a foul if it was deliberate
Intentional grounding
Why do these traditions provide those who uphold the traditions with comfort? Do they find sexism comfortable?
Some do. Others find refuge from the storm of life in the trusted religion they believe informs them of life's purposes.
