The point was specifically being made that if you only allowed women a say on the issue, abortion rights would be guaranteed more strongly than if both men and women had a say. This is true (5% greater support for legal abortion among women than among men) but there are substantial numbers of women who do not support abortion rights at all.
I don't think the assertion that women are a class, in this context, is relevant unless the implication is that their membership in this class would lead them to support abortion rights. Which is already not true.
More broadly I think there is tendency to over-broadly apply the idea of identity groups facing such acute oppression that their political interests are largely identical; this case applies to black Americans up until about 1965 or so but I think it is a strained analogy in most other contexts.
It's conceivable that more women (and men; fwiw) will be pushed into abortion-rights support as the manifest injustice of abortion bans (particularly those without exceptions for rape or health of mother etc) become clearer.
The point is that the material conditions of their actual lives' generate a real solidarity.
Now, for an example you said that Black Americans' interests were largely aligned until 1965. I think this is an oversimplification, but to go along with it, why do you think that would be the case that they were ever aligned? Was it, perhaps, because there was some law or group of laws that identified them and affected them as a group? Could it be they came to realize this, and then sought to advance their interests in solidarity, as a result of experiencing the injustice that affected them specially?
Armed with this knowledge, can you conceive of a present circumstance which may cause inflammation in the solidarity of women? And then can you seriously say that it doesn't matter that women in general have lesser political, economic, and social power?
Yes, the decision not to interfere in and restrict other peoples choices. Should be pretty easy for conservatives if they actually believed their own rhetoric.No argument from me, there. My point is that to stop them and reverse it, you are going to need decisions by people not affected by it.
Doesn't matter. Can still trust a woman better than a man.I mean I literally said exactly this a few posts back, my point is simply that this is a point that should be established by evidence, not taken as an assumption. An empirical prediction entailed in this assertion is that women would tend to take similar positions on political issues especially those directly concerning their welfare and status; if that's true then female solidarity is somewhat difficult to perceive in the fact that over a third of American women oppose abortion rights.
I mean I literally said exactly this a few posts back, my point is simply that this is a point that should be established by evidence, not taken as an assumption. An empirical prediction entailed in this assertion is that women would tend to take similar positions on political issues especially those directly concerning their welfare and status; if that's true then female solidarity is somewhat difficult to perceive in the fact that over a third of American women oppose abortion rights.
Lexicus said:Never once said this.
Class is essentially a human construct superimposed upon the physical world and nature.
Differentiation of terrestrial life forms into biological males and females predated humanity's development of social constructs.
I therefore consider regarding women (or men for that matter) as forming a class akin to other such social construct classes as absurd.
Sure, but I somehow doubt that you think everyones social constructs are equally absurd.
Yeah, and if you were a sentient salamander you might have a different opinion that you're similarly sure of. Which is in some senses not relevant as we are all of the same species, and work within the concepts easily available to that species, and yet you're still confusing (a poorly defined) Male/Female with the social role of Man/Woman.I don't think social constructs are equally absurd.
I simply don't regard male v female as a social construct.
There are some odd contradictions. For instance some scientists say that there are no such thing as races.
In which case on the face of it racial discrimination can not exist. This results in adopting a metaphysical concept
that while races don't exist, people falsely believe they do exist; so they do exist if only as a social construct
and people discriminate on the basis of a mistaken understanding of racial categorisation that does not exist.
And then there is the question of beauty that someone here has already alluded to.