Tuesday, February 7, 2012

IOZ response log

To recent brouhaha at IOZ.

montag: no, a person oughtn't have dominion over their own mind and body.  All of the world's problems that most of us IOZ readers agree upon stem from this insidious concept of ownership, which persists, unchallenged even to so many radicals, in the idea that we control "our" own bodies and minds.  Ownership is the attempted control of the fearful mind.

Saurs: what you expressed at 12:24 was as sexist as anything Grandpa ever said about dames belonging in the kitchen.  And, to say "barest of feminist theory" is as worthwhile as saying "barest notions of history" or "barest notions of common sense" or "go read the Bible"--it attempts to condense a vast network of conflicting ideas into a single dismissive statement.

Saurs speaks: "[T]heir infantile armchair hypotheticals..."

How kind.  For comparison, try, "We had those slow-minded dames in the right place for centuries, but then they got uppity 'cause they wanted to go to the office..."

Saurs, you seem to have a problem with the idea of "men" that makes you froth at the mouth, type rude generalizations, and then treat "abortion" as a trigger issue to characterize anyone who disagrees with you as sexist.  Which is ironic, hypocritical, and more importantly, wrong.  This one seems to agree with you on abortion policy, but you're making your arguments in conjunction with such poor and incorrect treatment of others that you are exemplifying why conservatives are able to accurately critique the bad behavior and motivations of many abortion-defenders.

AMAnonymous seems similarly guilty of coming up with strawman dialogues.  There's an opening there to say, "Here's a question for the rest of the girls who..."  But that would be as inappropriate as Saurs' earlier demand of men.  Rather, for Saurs and AMAnonymous, the question is, "Why do you want to so viciously insult and draw poor assumptions about those who disagree with you, rather than engaging their ideas directly?"

The answer is that you're spoiling for a fight.  You feel mistreated by society at large, and so threatened by corporate media's anti-abortion talking points that, when someone even gives a whisper about "personal responsibility," you're unable to address personal responsibility as a separate topic--instead, you counterattack those same phantoms who've been troubling you previously.

What has happened, there, is that you've allowed the teevee to define for you what personal responsibility is.  Why not listen to demize's view, instead?  And address THAT view, rather than the teevee conservative view?  You might learn; you might grow; you might prove demize wrong and teach him something, rather than exemplifying a talking-points teevee hyperfeminist who can't better explain why abortion is necessary.


  1. What about when a woman is impregnated due to rape? Does "personal responsibility" play a part then?

    1. The "personal responsibility" angle that played out at IOZ didn't come from this one, but there is at least an element of personal responsibility in consensual sex and/or the decision to abort a pregnancy. Were you referring to something this one said, or assuming this one allied with those at IOZ who went foaming at the mouth about "personal responsibility"?

    2. I was being rhetorical and thought they were talking about personal responsibility in terms of abortion no matter what the situation. My mind went to the old "women dressed in slutty clothes deserve rape" bit. And how would you define personal responsibility in regards to getting an abortion? Is it in a "you should feel guilty about murdering a child" or something else? Because to me it always sounds like you're leaning towards the former whenever you talk about "pro-choice"

    3. There is also your choice of words:
      "A problem with many "pro-choice" perspectives is that, instead of being honest about why they should be allowed to take the budding human's life, they pretend that it somehow isn't a life. This builds a lot of easily-exposed hypocrisies into their argument, which the "pro-life" people can then exploit, and sets up an endless cycle of back and forth."
      "Budding human"? This seems a lot like begging the question to me.
      "no, a person oughtn't have dominion over their own mind and body. All of the world's problems that most of us IOZ readers agree upon stem from this insidious concept of ownership, which persists, unchallenged even to so many radicals, in the idea that we control "our" own bodies and minds. Ownership is the attempted control of the fearful mind."
      You've advocated open relationships/open minds in that gay marriage post and now you post this? What the fuck?

    4. Change "budding human" to "potential human" in the same way that you might consider a flowerbud a potential flower. Does that work?

      One doesn't need to feel "guilty" about the choice, anymore than telling the docs it's okay to cut off Great Aunt Hortense's life support after she's been vegetative for 5 years is cause for pejorative guilt. The rape example is one of the traditional "extreme" ones used in the abortion discussion, but rape only becomes a useful detail when the discussion turns about the wrongness of sex, which it does not here. Rape doesn't change the equation as to the baby/non-baby, which doesn't/can't know whether its existence/non-existence is morally wrong/right.

      As to ownership, both concepts sync. Will do more on this later, but for now, consider that this one's suggestion that "ownership over a body by a person is wrong" does not mean "the state should own a body/mind" or "a democratically elected council should own a body/mind" replaces it.

  2. i like the "what about..." (q.e.d.)

    how does the rape scenario answer the problem of the non-rape scenario(s)?