Roe vs Wade overturned

[El_Machinae]

Would those who flee, turn into stronger advocates for change, than funding local advocacy groups?

It's a heck of a calculation! With your question and American abortion rights, the implicit assumption seems to be 'no' on CFC.

 

[Farm Boy]

With a 10 year old, a 40 year old, or online, it's a pretty short path to an argument if you articulate faith that somebody is powerful enough to enact the meaningful in the world, not because it is easy, but because it is hard.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Mentioning faith is an even shorter path.

 

[Farm Boy]

The word has a fair few different uses.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Truth.

 

[Birdjaguar]

With regards to flight from restrictive regimes, when I looked into this for a while, all of the reputable organizations I could find were organizations that helped queer people flee those environments. I wasn't able to find direct donation to any local (for them) advocacy groups.

I had to move up the income ladder before I could find people I could give money to to help advocate, which was against the spirit, or at least part of the spirit, of the effort.

Deciding whether to fund flight or political change really isn't an easy calculation!

If your goal is broad support for political change, giving to advocacy groups is a path. If your goal were to be to help some individuals, then finding a person in need and helping them directly might work well. there are charities that provide chickens, ducks, cows etc. to specific families to reduce poverty. I wonder if there are groups that provide direct help to support queer people in difficult situations: pay $500 and they will fly Bruce or Sally out of Kabul or Myanmar to a safe place. Is there a way to identify a person in need of help and for you to send them money directly? I think that it is better to spend money that actually solves one person's problem than to spend money to advocate for a general solution that may never happen.

 

[El_Machinae]

If your goal is broad support for political change, giving to advocacy groups is a path. If your goal were to be to help some individuals, then finding a person in need and helping them directly might work well. there are charities that provide chickens, ducks, cows etc. to specific families to reduce poverty. I wonder if there are groups that provide direct help to support queer people in difficult situations: pay $500 and they will fly Bruce or Sally out of Kabul or Myanmar to a safe place. Is there a way to identify a person in need of help and for you to send them money directly? I think that it is better to spend money that actually solves one person's problem than to spend money to advocate for a general solution that may never happen.

If I know or care about the person, there's no question that I prefer to help them directly. When it comes to spending money on personal things, money is spent with the assumption that it's a temporary benefit. But when it comes to investing, I prefer compounding returns. Also, when investing, it's okay to have a spread of risk/reward matrices. My goal is to invest in a region, and I'm seeking maximum benefits or efficiency.

Unless rescuing Bruce can deliver compounding returns to the region, I have trouble seeing it as a good investment for that region. The only long-term acceptable solution is that things improve there, and I'd prefer to chip away at that, all told. All of this is in addition to whatever benefit is created from the stimulus of foreign cash.

But, you'll notice that (in this thread) working towards improving things there (in states where the Roe vs Wade decision mattered) is seen as preferable to rescuing people from those states.

 

[Crezth]

this is a good question. really good. i don't think it would change child support in practicality (though imo that should change for other reasons). i also wonder how fast this becomes viable/practical in the hypothetical, and also whether how quickly it happens should matter if we assume that we could do it safely/easily/cheaply. this is a really interesting thought experiment and i think it would influence my preference on when to assign personhood.

A thought experiment? You have the gall to call it a thought experiment? Well do you have any thoughts to offer on this thought experiment or more idle musings?

Here's a thought experiment: how quickly would the right to abortion be guaranteed if men in aggregate were not permitted a say on it? Perhaps the strategy for women is to seek an option that excludes the position of men a priori on this issue. Actually, I'll go ahead and say that is definitely the strategy.

 

[pob]

Most polling would suggest there isn't that much of a difference in abortion opinions by gender....

 

[Crezth]

Most polling would suggest there isn't that much of a difference in abortion opinions by gender....

Wow.

 

[Farm Boy]

But, you'll notice that (in this thread) working towards improving things there (in states where the Roe vs Wade decision mattered) is seen as preferable to rescuing people from those states.

How much of that is preferring to talk up a theory as opposed to opening our big fat mouth about a personally actionable obligation? We might get cognitive dissonance or something.

 

[Lexicus]

Wow.

Pew has the difference at about five percent (that is, about 63% of women think most or all abortion should be legal while 58% of men believe the same). I don't see the point to a response like this; believing that "women" as a whole will take liberal positions (on any issue, really) just because they are women is peak liberalism and it worked so well that Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election in a massive landslide with 100% of the woman vote.

 

[Samson]

Ipsos has a similar gender gap. It is a little surprising, considering who is paying the price here. The age difference also surprised me.

Spoiler Ipsos survey results :

 

[El_Machinae]

Raging Grannies come to the pro-choice rallies in Force, let me tell you. They knew how to make an identifiable footprint.
This is an arena where I think seeking the pluralist mandate is really essential, since it really gets risky if it's maintained through minority-imposed violence. It's why the 'coup' McConnell performed is so risky, in the longterm sense. Everyone is fighting for stakes way greater than the other side realizes.

 

[Crezth]

Pew has the difference at about five percent (that is, about 63% of women think most or all abortion should be legal while 58% of men believe the same). I don't see the point to a response like this; believing that "women" as a whole will take liberal positions (on any issue, really) just because they are women is peak liberalism and it worked so well that Hillary Clinton won the 2016 election in a massive landslide with 100% of the woman vote.

It's not peak liberalism at all. Women have been such a consistently deprived class materially and socially that any amount of political or social power transition in the direction of women is a political or social power transition in the direction of justice. A 5% point difference on this issue may seem trivial to you, but it's actually quite important when you're talking about a country where a 1% point difference on an issue can mean a complete shift in power one direction. This is in addition to the fact that women will no longer need to feel beholden to the positions of men, as I can assure you many of them quietly submit to the loud and violent provocations of their husbands, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, and neighbors.

 

[Lexicus]

Women are not a class. There are rich women and poor women, white women and women of color. A 5% difference on the issue is not trivial but I don't think it's quite enough to carry the point it seemed like you were trying to make above.

This is in addition to the fact that women will no longer need to feel beholden to the positions of men, as I can assure you many of them quietly submit to the loud and violent provocations of their husbands, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, and neighbors.

Of course this phenomenon exists to a certain degree (having done political canvasses where I've seen firsthand the difference between what a woman says when her husband isn't there and what she says when he is there) but I think it's best to avoid blanket dehumanization of women by implying they are not responsible for what they tell a pollster.

Women have been such a consistently deprived class materially and socially that any amount of political or social power transition in the direction of women is a political or social power transition in the direction of justice.

Did you prefer Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election? just curious, you can also say neither I guess

 

[Crezth]

Women are not a class. There are rich women and poor women, white women and women of color. A 5% difference on the issue is not trivial but I don't think it's quite enough to carry the point it seemed like you were trying to make above.



Of course this phenomenon exists to a certain degree (having done political canvasses where I've seen firsthand the difference between what a woman says when her husband isn't there and what she says when he is there) but I think it's best to avoid blanket dehumanization of women by implying they are not responsible for what they tell a pollster.

It is as absurd to say "Vietnam was not colonized" or "the civil rights movement had nothing to do with class relationships." It is always about such class relationships. The deprivation of women is material and political and has involved the creation of a woman class which has historically been treated as property by men everywhere. There are "rich women," sure - there are also rich Indians. Neither changes the context they exist in.

I'm not dehumanizing anyone to group them into groups of human people and judge their collective human behavior. Or, if you think that's dehumanization because we are somehow all islands, perfectly formed independent minds that are wholly separate from one another, then I really struggle to imagine what you would consider "society" other than a little thing tacked onto our individuality. I tend to think it's much more than that.

Did you prefer Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders in the 2016 election? just curious, you can also say neither I guess

Screw you, too.

 

[Samson]

Raging Grannies come to the pro-choice rallies in Force, let me tell you. They knew how to make an identifiable footprint.

Did you notice the age gap in the survey above? Over 50's 74% for abortion, under 50's 69%. Greater difference than gender in that survey.

 

[Lexicus]

Screw you, too.

No idea where this hostility is coming from, I asked a simple question that will help me understand where we're at. If you're anti-electoral and don't like any of the candidates ever, just say so. I won't be offended.

It is as absurd to say "Vietnam was not colonized" or "the civil rights movement was not about class." It is always about class. The deprivation of women is material and political. There are rich women, sure - there are also rich Indians. I'm not dehumanizing anyone to group them into groups of human people and judge their collective human behavior. Or, if you think that's dehumanization because we are somehow all islands, perfectly formed independent minds that are wholly separate from one another, then I really struggle to imagine what you would consider "society" other than a little thing tacked onto our individuality. I tend to think it's much more than that.

Okay, I think I messed up by taking this to the realm of abstractions. The question isn't whether women can be conceived of as a class, the question is whether women comprise enough of "a class" under the material conditions that pertain in the United States today that they can be counted on to engage in broadly similar political action by virtue of their position as women, and I think this is demonstrably untrue. There are plenty of right-wing women out there, which includes women with right-wing social views on issues like abortion, and I do think it is dehumanizing to a degree to suggest that these positions and political actions are taken only under threat of violence from men rather than women deciding these things for themselves.

That is of course without getting at the differences in political activity between, say, white women and women of color, or between rich and poor women.

 

[El_Machinae]

Did you notice the age gap in the survey above? Over 50's 74% for abortion, under 50's 69%. Greater difference than gender in that survey.

Yeah, there's definitely something interesting there.