Roe vs Wade overturned

I think the age thing makes sense. "Raging grannies" today were in their teens & twenties 50 years ago when RvW happened. They know what life was like before it.
 
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.
People who remember what it was like, and people who don't.

EDIT: Dang. Ninja'd.
 
I think the age thing makes sense. "Raging grannies" today were in their teens & twenties 50 years ago when RvW happened. They know what life was like before it.

Tentatively, this makes sense, but I do want to note that post- Roe will be far worse in most respects than pre- Roe, largely due to medical advances giving us a much sharper picture of what is occurring in early pregnancy.
 

@ Samson

Thank you for posting the chart.

It is difficult to comment on the age factor without knowing the balance of source countries for those surveyed.
 
@ Samson

Thank you for posting the chart.

It is difficult to comment on the age factor without knowing the balance of source countries for those surveyed.
This is the by country chart. I did wonder if it was countries will longer life expectancies were more liberal, but Japan is pretty low.

Spoiler Support for abortion by country :
ATif3yJ.png
 
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.
Sorry, but I think the problem with this is basically just intersectionality. A woman being rich doesn't mean she isn't marginalised for being a woman, and this directly translates into "class" given (mostly Western) cultural history / norms.

Like, even put the word "class" aside (because I'm not good with the theory), I think I understand what @Crezth is saying. There being rich and poor African Americans doesn't negate the context there, etc.
 
Sorry, but I think the problem with this is basically just intersectionality. A woman being rich doesn't mean she isn't marginalised for being a woman, and this directly translates into "class" given (mostly Western) cultural history / norms.

Like, even put the word "class" aside (because I'm not good with the theory), I think I understand what @Crezth is saying. There being rich and poor African Americans doesn't negate the context there, etc.

Right, but I agree that women can be conceived of as a class, I'm just saying in the context of pro-abortion-rights political activity I think it is a mistake to treat them as a class, at least insofar as the idea that they are a class implies that they will necessarily take certain political actions.
 
'Cohort'?

I'm less concerned about the term and more concerned about the assertion that their status as women will necessarily lead them to certain political actions. I think that's demonstrably untrue already, and I think you and Samson pointing out that there is a larger age than gender effect on support for abortion rights provides further evidence that it isn't true.
 
For the record, I'm entirely fine with penises only suppressing penises in this discussion and letting it entirely be decided by uteruses. If it turns out that they hold a difference in consensus than I do, then I still have no say. Practically, this is hard to do. Every party to that sequestered discussion has the incentive to cheat by using me as an ally, and the Game Theory means that eventually everyone piles in.
 
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.
Look, it's both. Good intentions or hypothetical isolations don't remove the existence of violence in itself. You might as well say it's dehumanizing to suggest any group that has been identified for persecution will eventually come to resent that persecution.

I understand you're counting demographic beans and looking at the electorate and deciding on that basis my proposal is unsound. Let me make this point clear: it is not so much that women need more power within the current system, as we need a system where women's independence can never be deprived. That means women acting for women's sake. If men want to help, fine, but you obviously cannot count on them.
 
For the record, I'm entirely fine with penises only suppressing penises in this discussion and letting it entirely be decided by uteruses. If it turns out that they hold a difference in consensus than I do, then I still have no say. Practically, this is hard to do. Every party to that sequestered discussion has the incentive to cheat by using me as an ally, and the Game Theory means that eventually everyone piles in.

unhinged comment
 
There is nothing that I said that implies cis men controlling other people, only that control being suppressed. You read that in.
If you want to expand the grid to include both the presence of a uterus AND gender, then I'm not convinced (but honestly, I get that I'm just not convinced rather than disagreeing). But, for the record, I think that in my set-up there is more being gained than lost by just shutting up all the penises, even with such broad strokes.

Edited out my request for clarity, didn't see the second post.
 
Last edited:
What part?
Because this isn't about penises and vaginas, it is about men and women and their social relationships and legal protections.

Let's say anyone is concerned about being an ally and feels that, as a man or a cis-person or a straight person, they are not wanted. The issue is not want but trust. When the chips are down, who will you trust to stand for you? We all must earn that trust, precisely because some women will stand for venal selfishness and corruption even in the most enlightened of times. And we must be humble, and accept that we can learn from and should sometimes follow the lead of others.
 
You have a way of talking about these topics which is immediately alienating and dehumanizing to the people you ostensibly support. Even when your position is one I agree with, it often feels like you aren't actually conceptualizing us as people.

If you think conversations around abortion and bodily autonomy should happen away from and outside the influence of cis men, then I absolutely agree with that sentiment but:

For the record, I'm entirely fine with penises only suppressing penises in this discussion and letting it entirely be decided by uteruses.

is a bizarre, off-putting way to express that.
 
There is nothing that I said that implies cis men controlling other people, only that control being suppressed. You read that in.
If you want to expand the grid to include both the presence of a uterus AND gender, then I'm not convinced (but honestly, I get that I'm just not convinced rather than disagreeing). But, for the record, I think that in my set-up there is more being gained than lost by just shutting up all the penises, even with such broad strokes.

Edited out my request for clarity, didn't see the second post.

"penises supressing penises"
 
I think I can clarify. To be clear, I was lampshading the lack of inclusion in the conversation so far, not elegantly, I'll grant.
I was speaking in somewhat practical terms. I was thinking you shutting up is a fair trade for me shutting up (as in, it would be efficacious, not 'fair'). I mean, not one-on-one obviously. But cohort to cohort. Obviously, you're a woman and it makes very little sense for a woman to shut up.

Actually, I've erased a couple sentences here. I can't see any way in which I wasn't weirdly too specific. Transmen get a say, because they have uteruses. Transwomen get a say because they're women. As to which of the two trans cohorts should get more a say, should they diverge, I get no opinion.


Thanks, all.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom