The more a dude fails to understand, refuses to cite specific instances of, and caricatures his lady opponents' positions on abortion the less seriously he deserve to be taken with respect to the topic of abortion.
I mean, seriously. If the phrases "abortion lust" and "if [Todd Akin] were a Leftist Democrat, he'd get a pass" are in one's argumentative repetoire, dude is basically just dropping ping pong balls into the Making Shit Up Bucket of Bozo the Clown's Grand Prize Game.
It's weird to have to, like, spell that out, but what another rich irony about reproductive rights conversations. Although, let's be real here, this man's blog isn't so much a "conversation," but a one-way monologue in which he supports legislating away women's rights, but can't even bother to actually learn about, let alone fairly summarize or actually cite actual women's positions on the issue. Pro-choice women's views on abortion just aren't germane enough to his Absolute Moral Trooths to bother to learn.
What he doesn't seem to understand is that one can't even accurately summarize the opponent's positions, one is extremely unlikely to be able to "demolish" those positions.
But, sure. Perhaps he supposes that, hey, he's a man talking, so why shouldn't everyone just take his ignorant rantings about strumpets with "abortion lust" at face value? I mean, thank gawd above that we have a man to tell us all exactly what Todd Akin did and didn't say, complete with highlighted and underlined "Nos" just so it's extra-super-diddly-duper clear to all of us barely-literate abortion lustists, so he can then suggest we're making such a big deal out of nothing, geeeeez. After all, according to him, the big problem with Akin's statement is that it "wasn't good from a public relations standpoint."
Case Closed!
Apparently.
Seriously though, I continue to be amazed at the unwarranted sense of self-confidence some Christian male bloggers have, as well as by their obvious hatred of their political opponents. Notice his characterizations and cheap-shot ridicule of "the feministas," none of whose arguments, articles, or blogposts he actually specifically cites or references, of course. Like, he wouldn't want to humanize them in any way or bring nuance into his black-and-white cartoon worldview.
I would suspect that for some of these Christian men who oppose abortion rights (and lots of other rights for groups they aren't a part of), their illusory intellectual superiority and misogyny can be traced back to the gendering of god/Jesus as male, and the resulting implied inferiority of women that results.
For, "if god is male, then male is god."
As a related side note, I know his post is pretty, um... all over the place, but I'm creeped out by his graphic, made-up scenarios about what he reckons does and doesn't count as Real Rape. Mostly because that shit reads like bad rape fantasies to me. Like, he's taken the time to actually think about how men can violate women's boundaries and stated expressions of "no" while having that still not count as rape, and he seems super pissed that "the feministas" have had some success in educating larger society about the fact that people other than virgins walking in dark alleys can be raped.
Like, he seems really upset? entitled? angry? that he doesn't get to define what women's sexual boundaries are. I mean, gawd, can't men even rape women anymore without it being called rape? So unfair!
Which is strange, because earlier in the post, he seemed to understand the concept of "No," since he, you know, bolded the word and underlined it multiple times. I guess it counts when some people (hint: men) say no, but not others?
To end, I adore that he put a "warning" at the top of his post for unspecified "triggers" and "explicit language." Yes, because "explicit language" is definitely the most awful thing about his piece.
It's like when virulent opponent of LGBT equality Peter LaBarbera will write articles saying the most horrible, mean-spirited things about LGBT people while including a "warning" at the top that his article contains a "graphic" picture of.... dun dun dun.... gay people kissing.
*Faint*
No comments:
Post a Comment