Mr Man wrote:"Let me be direct. When you say you are against abortion because it's sinful, it's not your morality talking, it's your misogyny.
In other words, you're not driven by compassion, but by a hate for women who you think stray from the "good girl" norms."
manas wrote:Hi Mr Man,you're not driven by compassion, but by a hate for women
that's a bit of an over-generalization, isn't it?
and is that the only reason people are against abortion?
perkele wrote:and is that the only reason people are against abortion?
the expectable reaction to that is also an over-generalization.
Stereotyping sterotypes, dangerous terrain, causing wars around the world, in the big scope and the small.
I expect not much good coming from this topic. Let's be careful.
Cittasanto wrote:what expected reaction?
Cittasanto wrote:and what about women who do not support abortion in all cases?
perkele wrote:Cittasanto wrote:what expected reaction?
One expectable reaction better, which I thought you were rightly cautioning against, namely that people will first start to only argue for and against that same stance: "People are against abortion only out of misogyny."
You provided a first possible alternative:Cittasanto wrote:and what about women who do not support abortion in all cases?
And step by step one can argue back and forth about more diversified and refined over-generalizations as well, taking into account many points of view to argue back and forth from there, and that's how it usually goes, without most people realizing that they have personally little to do with that subject, even though they engaged in that discussion with good intentions first to stop the over-generalizations. That's all I meant to say in a less overt way. I thought that's how it usually easily goes, and I wanted to caution against that. Sorry if I was not very clear.
Cittasanto wrote:Actually those two separate questions correlate to the two separate lines in the OP.
perkele wrote:Cittasanto wrote:Actually those two separate questions correlate to the two separate lines in the OP.
Ah, I see.
I think it's getting ever more unlikely that other people are able to follow our communication anymore. I am quite challenged here myself at least. And it's quite irrelevant anyway. I beg you pardon.
So let's better leave it at that.
Cittasanto wrote:I didn't realise there was a specific communication, or that others were following.
SDC wrote:What are you two talking about?
manas wrote:Before your particular confusion gets resolved, SDC, I will quickly explain that, I did not notice the quotation marks around the original post (possibly due to my significantly challenged eyesight), but that I now know that it was just a quote from the article, and not Mr Man's opinion as such...
There's one thing resolved, anyway
Mr Man wrote:Slightly related - just came accross this "Australia PM Julia Gillard prompts 'misogyny' definition update" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19973687
Users browsing this forum: chownah, Google [Bot] and 12 guests