In a peripheral swipe at Samuel Alito, the Washington Monthly’s Kevin Drum points to two posts that challenge the idea of “husband” notification with regard to abortion restrictions, before concluding:
As I’ve mentioned before, abortion is just one of a constellation of hot button conservative social issues that have at their core a desire to enforce traditional sex and gender roles, and notification laws are yet another example of that. They aren’t about notification, they’re about control. In the case of parental notification, there’s at least a reasonable argument that this kind of one-sided control is appropriate, but in the case of husbands and wives, there isn’t. Not in the 21st century, anyway.
Of course, just because Kevin has argued this before doesn’t make it so—or even particularly persuasive, for that matter. What it does do, however, is attempt to reduce a complex set of moral, ethical, social, and political beliefs—one that affects people of all political stripes (72% of Americans support some sort of spousal notification, including 66% of Democrats)—into an easy “progressive” populism for which Kevin hopes he’ll be rewarded by the bright lights on the left who actually do believe (at their “core”?) that conservatives are interested in nothing so much as rolling back women’s rights and establishing a firm and legally binding patriarchy. Drum is simply reaffirming a convenient caricature.
But what Kevin fails to take into consideration is the strong thread of egalitarianism that runs through much of today’s “conservative” thinking (perhaps better described as classical liberalism, which has itself become demonized by purveyors of identity politics to the point where nods to “color blindness” or “fairness” or “merit” are attacked and deconstructed by progressive partisans in ways that attempt to show that such concepts are themselves indicative of some calculated mode of control wielded by (mostly white) men).
Here, Kevin’s superficial analysis is long on ascribing motive and short on allowing for good faith—and so represents a method of argumentation that is quickly becoming the standard tactic of many left-leaning political commentators (and some on the right, as well). In this case, the motive, Kevin says, is a desire on the part of…who, exactly?—conservatives? the Pennsylvania legislature? Alito?—for enforcement and “control” over women’s bodies, though notably he doesn’t explain how such an ironfisted rule would precisely work. Notification, after all, is not consent, and so would seem to imply a coequal interest in the fetus (or, for those more comfortable with less freighted language, with the clump of cells, from a property rights standpoint) moreso than a desire by the Pennsylvania legislature (or Alito, or those who defend Alito’s dissent) to control a woman’s body).
(At this point, it is important to remind readers that Judge Alito’s role in all this touches on none of these social issues—no matter how desperately those who oppose his SCOTUS nomination try to switch the grounds of debate to make it so; instead, Alito’s role was to decide whether the Pennsylvania legislature had the Constitutional right to pass such a spousal notification law, and Alito decided that they did, using Justice O’Connor’s “undue burden” standard—and existing analogous legislation—to decide the case. His role was not to decide whether or not the Pennsylvania statute was a bad law. That is is the debate we are having here. Instead, his role was to decide whether the law passed Constitutional muster, and his thinking, from a legal standpoint, is rigorous and well-argued.)
But back on point: Drum argues that the conservative interest in spousal notification (which represents a majoritarian, bi-partisan viewpoint) is about control of the woman’s body and a desire to re-establish a solid patriarchy; my position is that conservative (as well as liberal) support for notification statues—rather than being part of some sinister “constellation of hot button conservative social issues that have at their core a desire to enforce traditional sex and gender roles”—is driven more by a complex calculus that seeks to balance beliefs about abortion with fundamental questions about privacy, autonomy, “ownership” over the fetus (or clump of cells), gender fairness, and legal responsibilities that should proceed from all such considerations. And, whether Kevin (and those who proffer arguments similar to his—arguments that, in my estimation, are fairly obvious attempts to use women’s identity politics to bully the male out of asserting any legal claim over reproductive issues) wishes to admit it or not, the arguments being made by those like the Pennsylvania legislature are more likely good-faith attempts to coordinate a complex set of interests under the law than they are part of some sinister plan to have the Penis lord it over PA like some giant, one eyed oppressor.
It is worth noting that TAPPED’s Garance Franke-Ruta—who has called Samuel Alito the “angry white male favorite,” and, like Drum, suggests of Alito that “he is as committed as they to restoring male power and dominance in social relations”—does, in fact, see a kind of invidious male conspiracy insinuated throughout the Pennsylvania legislature (Casey, by the way, was a Democrat—though, in Franke-Ruta and Drum’s defense, he is a male). To illustrate this, she uses as an analogy a contemporaneous consideration by the legislature that, in her words, “declined to make the conceptually similar demand [to that of spousal notification] that an HIV-infected man inform his wife that he carried a potentially deadly infectious disease that could be sexually transmitted.” Writes Franke-Ruta:
[…] it is worth noting that at the same time the state of Pennsylvania was arguing that the state had a legitimate interest in compelling a woman to inform her husband before she obtained an abortion, the state declined to make the conceptually similar demand that an HIV-infected man inform his wife that he carried a potentially deadly infectious disease that could be sexually transmitted
…before concluding:
The overwhelmingly male legislators of the state of Pennsylvania thought it perfectly appropriate to intervene in a woman’s marriage and deny her the freedom to make reproductive choices without coercion, threats, or worse from her husband. Judge Samuel Alito agreed with those legislators. And yet, should that same husband carry HIV, the state would have left informing his wife of this fact to his discretion, and would require from him no proof or signed affirmation that he had, in fact, informed her.
The only commonality in the state’s approach to these two (admittedly different) scenarios was, in each instance, to effectively diminish the power of the female part of the couple to control her fate and what happens inside her own body.
Well, no. Again, the maneuver here is to impute bad faith to the (overwhelmingly male) Pennsylvania legislature where in fact good-faith—and yet another constellation of complex considerations—is the more likely reason the legislature acted like it did. First, HIV notification—particularly legally mandated notification— in addition to being gender-neutral (a woman is under no obligation to notify her husband, either), has been long contested on civil rights grounds. And as Cathy Young correctly notes:
while a physician is not obligated to inform an HIV-positive patient’s spouse or partner of his (or her) HIV status, and cannot require proof of notification from the patient, the patient does, in a sense, have a legal duty to notify his/her partner. Knowingly transmitting HIV to another person is a felony in every state. It is also a civil tort; indeed, you can sue your spouse or lover for pain and suffering if he or she knowingly exposed you to HIV even if you test negative.
In other words, if we treated abortion notification the way we treat HIV notification, a woman coming in for an abortion could not be required to produce proof that she has notified her husband or partner—but if the husband was not informed and learned about the abortion later, he could not only sue her for damages but file criminal charges.
[emphasis in the original]
In short, the differences between the two cases are important and (analagously) dispositive, and so militate against the claims of bad faith being made by both Franke-Ruta and Drum.
Again, Judge Alito’s dissent in Casey was based on strictly legal considerations. In particular, it was based on a precise reading of contemporaneous law on abortion restrictions. So if we wish to have the debate on the righteousness of notification statutes, we should be doing so outside of the context of Alito’s nomination.
Once there, any serious debate is going to require good faith on both sides. Drum and Franke-Ruta—in assigning to their opponents cartoon motives more properly relegated to the kinds patriarchal boogeymen who haunt the dreams of belligerent, second-wave gender feminists like Amanda Marcotte—miss the opportunity to have a discussion on reproductive issues that proceeds from the neutral ground where men’s interests and concerns are allowed into the equation, not simply dismissed as some fantastical desire to control a woman’s uterus.
Sadly, though, I believe that reducing the debate to cartoon terms is precislely the point. Whether or not spousal notification is a good or practical compromise (and do remember that notification is distinct from consent or permission, words you’ve likely heard many on the left use to frame the issue) in reproductive and “property” rights disputes should be an open question, one that is hashed out inside an informed and honest debate; alas, some folks committed to women’s identity politics would rather just do away with the difficult work of having to weigh competing rights and interests, and instead assert the primacy of their rights by cowing their opponents into retreat by leveling charges of misogyny, or by insisting that the very desire for discourse or legal redress is, in its very nature, part of a conspiracy to subjugate women and re-institutionalize a system of perfidious male domination.
****
(h/t for the Welch piece, John Cole)
to enforce traditional sex and gender roles, and notification laws are yet another example of that.
Nice pigeon-hole job by Drum. It allows him to write off any valid arguments in agreeing with Alito’s position. It’s a cop-out of epic proportions.
Did it ever occur to Mr. Drum that some of us might even actually agree with Mr. Drum’s position on this, but still think the ruling was just? A cursory reading of the dissent (with an open mind about how the law is written) will allow you to see that it’s a logical, well-reasoned opinion.
Writing off Alito’s proponents as Jesus-humping fundies who want to drive women back to the kitchen is convenient, but thin, and does not address the issue (or is the intent of that post to cloud the issue?).
TV (Harry)
tw: hour. It’s time for lunch.
Note also Drum’s passive voice:
As I’ve mentioned before, abortion is just one of a constellation of hot button conservative social issues that have at their core a desire to enforce traditional sex and gender roles, and notification laws are yet another example of that.
At least Franke-Ruta has the metaphorical balls to pin the “blame”, if you will, on an patriarchal conspiracy known as “the overwhelmingly male legislators of the state of Pennsylvania”. Maybe she swiped them from Drum (ouch!).
Keep up the good fight. You must have the patience of a saint. A Joooooish saint, that is.
But it looks good on a protest sign/T-Shirt/Billboard/TV ad etc… For the party of nuance and acedemic intelligencia it’s amazing how many logical leaps of faith are made when it comes to their political opponents. Iraq has to be for oil. Cheney has to be making huge money off Halliburton. Bush must have experienced favoratism in the National Guard. Facts will not get in the way of the vast right wing conspiracy boogy man.
Is there a way one can opt out of the oppressor class and still keep ones’ wallett?
TW “an” an argument equates to oppression
Jeff–
I keep reading from Jonah Goldberg what a smart guy Drum is. Unfortunately, I haven’t seen any evidence of it. Is this guy supposed to be a deep thinker of the left?
Fallacial, motives-based arguments have become standard fare among liberals, insofar as they can’t construct an argument using facts, logic and reason and insofar as they themselves hold their own motives to be pure and therefore, beyond dispute (see also ad hominem circumstantial).
It’s sad, really. This guy couldn’t win a spot on a high school debate team.
Is there a way one can opt out of the oppressor class and still keep ones’ wallett?
Yes, become a Hollywood star, a
race hustlercivil rights leader, a Democratic senator, or a Kennedy. Or gain 371 pounds, get fired from Mother Jones, buy scads of Halliburton stock and make a movie about kite-flying in Iraq. It’s easy if you try.I’ve been thinking a lot about bad-faith assumptions since I started reading the feminist web sites. Marcotte is, to be sure, the most flagrant offender; literally every argument she makes involves some imputation of sinister motive to the other side. But even those members of the sisterhood who don’t have obvious personality disorders are prone to this sort of thing. Read through the comments in this thread and tell me Lauren’s argument doesn’t boil down to, “I don’t care what you say. I just know they’re trying to control women. I just know it.”
Can’t argue with logic like that. Insert obligatory Swift quote here followed by standard Allah harangue about the uselessness of trying to engage the other side, etc etc.
Per my last comment, see this thread too. Especially this comment.
And though neither side is immune, this is terribly unfortunate because it takes all the oxygen out of so many important and interesting discussions that we need to have. Discussions that happen anyway, but become shouting matches where the best and loudest talking point wins the day. Looking back in history gives no solace either: this is nothing new. So it’s innate, I guess, but it’s still very aggravating.
Though on the positive side, as a male I’m secure in my innate ability to impose my God-given patriarchical imperatives on the weaker sex, so at least I’ve got that going for me.
SW: “recently” As in: recently I read something that was meant to be taken as humor.
I’m a little confused. Under current law, the “traditional sex and gender roles” are that women have complete control of reproductive rights, men have only the responsibility of paying for it. How does spousal notification (not consent) negate this arrangement?
I agree with most everything you say, but you vaguely imply (vaguely) that a spousal notification law couldn’t be reasonably interpreted as or situationally, practically used as a lever of control.
I’m not saying that that’s the motive behind the law (I agree with this, your primary point), but concerns about meeting the standard of “undue burden” don’t just spring unbidden from the fantastical imaginations of hardcore feminists, either.
Yes, Drum’s ridiculously implying bad faith and chalking things up to cartoonish ulterior motives … but that doesnt mean practically, a spousal notification about abortion couldnt be a method of control that causes undue burden on a woman, given that the exact type of guy a wife WOULDN’T want to notify might be apt to do something to intimidate or impede her decision.
So apart from lumping their opponents in a cartoonish patriarchal conspiracy, I certainly do think it’s fair for lefties to attack Alito’s legal reasoning or the legislature’s political execution on the issue.
Add me to the list of those who find Kevin Drum less than convincing. An occasional good point, Yes, but rarely if ever does he say something compelling or original. I can’t see any reason for the good rep that he has either.
Good post and I agree with almost everything in it. But Jeff – shorter sentences!! I swear I get breathless just reading you sometimes; and not in a good way.
Dashes and semi-colons are nice, but periods can be effective too. How long is that second sentence in your second paragraph? Or that third paragraph/sentence?
Seriously, not to sound like my old school teachers, but I think you’re losing some effectiveness in your points with the run-on sentences.
Cranky Bill, the law said all they have to do is certify they told the old man before heading off to the Cuisinart. It also makes exception if the woman wants to certify the guy may kick the shit out of her. If she’s really that scared she’ll produce the cert and if she’s really a bitch she’ll lie about telling him. Where’s the burden there?
It’s fair to attack the judge’s reasoning–hell, he lost. There has to be a compelling counter argument–but in order to do so they must be fair to the judge.
Want to tck off your favorite liberal?
Subscribe them to be notified of follow-up comments of any fairly new protein wisdom post!
No I’m not going to tell you how.
Notification equals control? I don’t think so. Most women I know would say, I’m going to get an abortion and you can kiss my ass if you don’t like it.
Drum probably doesn’t deal with many women on an upclose and personal level.
given that the exact type of guy a wife WOULDN’T want to notify might be apt to do something to intimidate or impede her decision.
As far as I know, the Penn law had an exception for fear of abuse, violence, etc.
No.
I bet unmarried college girls and angry old women are 95% against notification in any form.
Liberals: arguments based upon motives; judicial rulings based upon political leanings; moral standing based upon pity.
Conservatives: arguments based upon logic and reasoning; judicial rulings based upon the authority of the legislature; moral standing based upon ethics.
I pity you and your classmates, because your old school teachers were fools. This is a run-on sentence:
Jeff’s post simply uses compound, complex, and compound-complex sentence structures, and there is nothing wrong with this post.
Call your old school teachers and apologize.
that conservatives are interested in nothing so much as rolling back women’s rights and establishing a firm and legally binding patriarchy
Amusingly, Iraq is now the only country in the Mideast where womens’ rights groups can openly associate and protest. I guess that patriarchy bond stops at the border.
Bill from INDC:
But the struck-down law, as I understand it, already addressed the fact that there were situations in which a woman might face actual bodily harm, or maybe even just serious emotional harm, by notifying her husband that she was seeking an abortion, and exempted her from doing so: cases of spousal abuse, for instance, or cases in which the husband was not the father of the child. If it’s just “I don’t feel like having a baby [right now/ever] but my husband probably does, so it’d make me uncomfortable to tell him,” well, tough; even in the age of no-fault divorce, when a marriage is in force I think it still ought to take precedence over a spouse’s existential discomfort.
I s’pose you could argue that the law was therefore unnecessary, since it sought to mandate something that was going to happen anyway in most cases but make exceptions in cases where there was no way in heck it was going to happen, so maybe it was a waste of paper and legislators’ time. But spousal notification before undertaking a life-changing decision a bad idea? Hmm. Personal anecdote: our third child was a total and not exactly welcome surprise. I still remember the sinking feeling I had when I had to tell my husband I was pregnant. I’m pretty strongly anti-abortion, especially in a stable marriage, but even so, I was almost prepared for him to want me to take that step, and wasn’t altogether sure I’d argue too hard. Didn’t happen that way (thank God for sparing me the subsequent guilt, and for this toddler on my lap); and that I’d shared the decision with my husband, even though I was uncertain how he’d respond and how I’d respond to his response, was a source of strength and confidence as the months went on. If we’d disagreed off the bat, it would have been a very difficult row to hoe to reach some agreement, but by bringing him explicitly into the decision, I believe I honored my marriage vows – which did not include obedience, by the way.
Rusty:
Wait a minute, Jeff doesn’t write run-on sentences. Let’s be careful, he certainly knows better than to have more than one independent clause without a properly placed semicolon or conjunction.
He writes what you call long sentences which would be great fun to diagram.
While I am sure a fresh review of Stunk and White would do Jeff some good, I happen to like Jeff’s style.
Very smart, very nice work. And you even worked in a dick joke.
I am officially in awe.
Am I alone in thinking Franke-Ruta’s point is a non sequiteur in discussing Alito, even if one agree’s with its injustice? The law never came before Alito to preside over either way. It would be something akin to my arguing “Well Kevin Drum is a tax-and-spender, since he agreed with Josh Marshall about the need to raise taxes to balance the budget, and then Marshall advocated some big spending programs.”
Uh, John, relax. I wasn’t trying to be insulting, just offering a suggestion. I thought the use of the “smiley’s” would help to make that clear.
Unfortunately, some of my teachers probably were fools, and sometimes I definitely acted the fool, but that was a long time ago. I think both my teachers and I have managed to be at least as well educated, and definitely more polite and open minded, than you appear to be.
Google is a wonderful thing and it took about two seconds to come up with a link that disagrees with yours:
http://www.ehow.com/how_117270_fix-run-sentence.html
But who cares? My small and simple point was clarity. A quick cut and paste into MS Word shows that the two sentences I mentioned each have over 80 words in them. While it is possible to correctly structure a sentence that long, it does make it harder to follow. Jeff makes a lot of good points and I was just trying to suggest that he make them easier to follow.
This exchange is why I seldom comment on blogs though. So many people looking to take offense or challenge the most minor comment or post.
Jeff – I read your site pretty often and meant no offense. I’ll drop this here and now.
John – Fire away. The field is yours and I withdraw.
Bill,
In addition to the points that have been made about the exceptions in the Pennsylvania law, it’s worth noting that the Alito dissent placed a lot of emphasis on defining “undue burden” according to O’Connor’s old opinions. Based on his review, he expressly determined that yes, some for some women the notification requirement might become a de facto consent requirement, but O’Connor’s opinions expressly tolerated such an approach. His point was that the “undue burden” had to be far beyond inconvenience, encroaching into outright ban territory.
Allah,
The uselessness of trying to engage the other side only extends to the other side itself. While Marcotte et al will never be persuaded if they base their conclusions on what the intuitively “know” (and in spite of all evidence to the contrary), the debate is still productive for both the undecided third party.
In addition, when I challenge someone whose opinion I do not expect to change, I know my own views are always more refined for having articulated them.
“Here, Kevin’s superficial analysis is long on ascribing motive and short on allowing for good faith.”
I saw no analysis or attempt at one, superficial or otherwise. I saw only an accusation of desire for male dominance, unsupported by fact or argument.
Apart from the exception the law included for fear of violence, apparently for a woman to be questioned by her husband, argued with, or asked to reconsider, is “abusive” and “intimidation”.
…about the same way that liberals always want to cast any kind of forthright disagreement or passionate (or sober for that matter!) counter-argument by liberatrians or conservatives as “intimidation” bordering on censorship.
Gimme a break.
Rusty —
These things are better taken up in email. I appreciate the comments, but they kind of distract from the points in the post.
Ok, ok, there’s an exception for violent husbands. That casts it in a different light for me, though it’s still possible to argue against it.
Exactly. Which is offensive for many reasons, not the least of which is that the plurality in Casey explicitly endorsed the idea of trying to talk women out of having abortions. Quote:
Maybe Pennsylvania decided that the person best suited to convince a woman not to abort her child is her husband. Or maybe Jill and Marcotte are right and it’s all just a smokescreen for the forthcoming harvesting of the uteruses. What would Chris Clarke say, I wonder. That is, besides “baaaaa.”
Jeff, aside from your criticism of Garance Franke-Ruta’s poor analogy argument, there is also this equivocation: “arguing that the state had a legitimate interest in compelling a woman to inform her husband”
What she is confusing here are the two tests for unconstituionality: 1) if an obstacle is an undue burden, the state must have a “compelling” interest in the issue, 2) if there is no undue burden (which Aito believed there was not) there only need be a “legitimate” state interest.
By the way, here is Alito’s dissent, note his explanation of the rights of the husband so blithley dismissed by Drum, et al, as mere control, but more importantly, check the reference to the majority’s opinion (id. refers to the previous Casey iteration)–wherein the majority of the court considers the rights of the husband as integral–I guess R.B. Ginsburg (who agreed with the majority) didn’t get the “patriarchy” memo
–We are not unaware of the deep and proper concern and interest that a devoted and protective husband has in his wife’s pregnancy and in the growth and development of the fetus she is carrying.” See also id. at 93, 96 S.Ct. at 2852 (White, J., dissenting) (“A father’s interest in having a child–perhaps his only child–may be unmatched by any other interest in his life”). Since a “deep and proper … interest” appears indistinguishable from a “legitimate” interest, it seems clear that a husband has a “legitimate” interest in the fate of the fetus.
Yes, Rusty, and what you have linked to was in fact a run-on sentence.
Jeff, however, did not have any. He had, as I asserted, complex and compound sentences. What you are describing is your preference for Jeff to use a different writing style. You are not, however, ‘helping’ Jeff by pointing out non-existent run-on sentences.
Google is a wonderful tool, yet you can never tell what someone will do with a tool. In your case, you just used the hammer on a screw.
And I am relaxed and I am not ‘offended’- I am just noting that you have made a mistake pointing out Jeff’s writing ‘flaws.’
Bill,
Please do bear in mind that the PA consent law only required the woman to sign a piece of paper stating that she had informed her husband, or that one of the exemptions (her husband might abuse her; the child was a product of an affair; her husband had deserted her) applied to her situation.
So the whole thing was based on the honor system in the first place. Therefore it’s hard to for me to buy that it constituted an “undue burden.”
Of course, I’m a gender traitor.
I just found it interesting that when Franke-Ruta decided to go for an analogy to a fetus, her first or best comparison was to a potentially fatal virus.
Hey, some of us ENJOY 80-word sentences, or at least we enjoy the feeling that our own 40-word sentences with multiple clauses are have been validated by the even more excessive verbosity and sentence structure complexity attempted by the author in question, who also usually manages to string such clauses together in what is generally an aesthetically pleasing manner to those inclined to appreciate such things, insofar as such endeavours can have such a quality to be appreciated, or that this sentence even has a point.
Also, can I be the first to label Drum a “patriarchophobe?”
This is an example of the biggest problem I have with current leftwing thought. As I have alluded to before, they have a whole different set of truths that they hold self-evident. Such as any talk of abortion is actually trying to reassert male dominance in a relationship. This has transcended opinion and is now officially truth in their world, to deny it is to lie. It has made any kind of rational discussion of most subjects impossible.
Indeed, Mr. Drum doesn’t make any attempt to support this claim, it’s simply a given and that’s that. Similarly, judicial decisions are simply statements of personal values, and the only thing that matters in government is the right answer, damn the process.
It’s kinda sad that Drum is such a moron that he can’t find any intellectual enjoyment in the underlying issues that cases like Casey raise for those who live in the real world. But that’s the way it is.
I don’t see why the legislature feels the need to stick its face in people’s private business?
Other than that the law is fine. It codifies what people should do in certain social situations. Or else you will get in trouble with the police or some body.
You know, if there were a few less rapists running loose we might not have so many uber feminists. There is probably a perfectly good reason they don’t like men. So what are the policewasting their time on? Tracking down what actually happened in such cases? Were the forms filled out properly? Were lies told?
Men mistreating women is at the core of the uber feminist movement. It would be good to deal with that (once such memories get implanted they are hard to eradicate) for the sake of the next generation. It only takes a few rotten men to spoil it for the rest of us.
In would be really nice if conservatives had some compassion. I’m personally against the uber feminist program. But I do acknowledge where the impulse rises from.
70% of female heroin users were sexually molested as children.
Heroin
SW – cold: it will be a cold day in hell when conservatives get some real compassion. Or at least learn to do what the Democrats do: fake it.
*
Uh, why couldn’t the woman in question just notify her mate or not as she sees fit?
Oh, the law lets her do that once the paper work is filled out?
Could some one tell me, exactly, what is the point of this exercise? The fear that you will do something significan’t without government involvement?
This has nothing to do with male dominance. It is about government dominance.
That is the rationale maybe, acquiring power is at the core, same as all exclusive movements.
Not quite sure what you are advocating here, but the last thing we need is to give women more power to use false rape accusations as weapons. The burden of proof on rape should be the same as any other crime.
Exactly, Jeff.
If we could just get everyone to stipulate to that, then maybe we could have the debate that would lead us to a time where more people (the majority even!) are actually satisfied with abortion laws. And abortion could stop being the central issue of our Republic.
“Could some one tell me, exactly, what is the point of this exercise? The fear that you will do something significan’t without government involvement?”
The point is that the people of Pennsylvania wished that law enacted in their state. That’s all that is required, really.
Claude,
What I am saying is that the odds are that the men haters were sexually molested.
So do we set the police after the child molesters? No. We set them after abortion providers whose paper work is incomplete.
Jimmie,
Of course the folks wanted a law. We do not have enough laws. Fer instance there is no law on the proper way to wipe yer ass. Perhaps we could get one soon. There is a lot of improper ass wiping going on. American sharia.
Because the people want it.
You know the idea that black men were compulsive rapists has always been a favorite excuse for lynch mobs and white supremists. Those guys weren’t much on paperwork either.
M. Simon:
Again we suffer definitional issues. Your “compassion” is not my “compassion.” I hate always to fall back on parental analogies, but being a mom is what I spend most of my time actively doing and know best, so please don’t read paternalism (maternalism) into this example: My eight-year-old wants to stay up until ten watching TV on a school night. I could be the “fun” mom and let him, but he’d suffer for it the next day (unless I was the even-more-“fun” mom and let him stay home from school or at least go in late, preferably with a collusive note that would keep him from getting in trouble). So I’m “mean” and make him go to bed at his usual time. He perceives my actions as without compassion; I know full well that I have his best interests at heart and that I’m doing my best to nurture him.
Man-hating: As another gender traitor (thanks, Attila Girl, I like the term), I confess a ton of sympathy for anyone who suffers abuse at the hands of someone with power over them, but little empathy for a follow-up impulse to turn one’s anger at that person into generalized anger toward all [fill-in-the-blanks]. Someone very dear to me suffered horrible abuse as a teen. This person still lives with the emotional toll of the abuse, but told me long ago that upon reaching adulthood, it was necessary to decide how to continue to think about the abuse: as a dark period that is now over, or as a continuing subtext to life. My friend chose to make it be over, to the extent possible, and has not allowed anger at the abuser to morph into any kind of hatred for others who share some characteristic of the abuser. Now, my friend is an innately strong person with a mother who always emphasized personal responsibility, both advantages that many abuse victims don’t have. But I don’t think it’s a sign of compassion to view every irrational emotion or action from any victim as “acceptable” – some things just aren’t. Hating all men because one man harmed you is not rational, fair, or right, and society ought not to become complicit in such an effort.
I think it’s important to remember here that men are not interested in children. Ever.
Are they reluctant to use condoms? Yes.
Are they disdainful that they might have to pay child support? Yes.
Do they desire to control women and their bodies? Yes.
But they are not intereted in their sons or daughters. Ever. Once you understand this, everything else makes sense. Though it helps if you also regard them as pigs.
Atilla Girl, I really have to disagree with you here.
There are some men that care deeply about their daughters.
A little too much, if you know what I mean. They are the men that are molesting them, making them pregnant, and then beating them when the poor girl tries to get an abortion. It’s why we simply canNOT have parental notification.
Got it.
But, actually, I’m not in favor of parental notification:
http://littlemissattila.mu.nu/archives/131270.php