RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
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.
People who remember what it was like, and people who don't.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.
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.
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.@ 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.
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.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.
'Cohort'?
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.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.
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.
Because this isn't about penises and vaginas, it is about men and women and their social relationships and legal protections.What part?
For the record, I'm entirely fine with penises only suppressing penises in this discussion and letting it entirely be decided by uteruses.
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.