« That'd Get Us In Deepak | Main | Git 'Em »

November 30, 2005

Stupid

Singer's right on this. In a debate on Roe, you'd think Legal Affairs could've rustled up at least one female participant.

November 30, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83462d64c53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Stupid:

Comments

Yeah, if your aren't female, your opinion just doesn't count. Sounds more and more like the KKK telling the darkies that since they aren't white, their voices don't count.

Since when must one be a certain sex to discuss morality?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 30, 2005 3:47:56 PM

Good idea, Fred. We gals ought to let the men figure this out for us. Surely that will help increase female autonomy.

Posted by: Sara | Nov 30, 2005 3:53:13 PM

Well, Sarah,

You didn't address any of my questions...just an insinuation that those bastard men are not qualified. And yet you give no real reason why not.

Perhaps we also should only allow female surgeons to operate on breast cancer patients. Those darn men, how could they even know what it's like?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 30, 2005 3:59:16 PM

Fred your silly analogy would kinda work if it were a meeting to discuss bass playing techniques for James Brown band line-ups preceeding 1969, and only Norwegian cellists specializing in post-Romantic period European orchestral charts were allowed to participate.

Posted by: sprocket | Nov 30, 2005 4:07:02 PM

And again, not one really good reason why men are unqualified....

We are not talking about music here or surgery. We are talking about a morality issue and morality does not depend upon gender......or does it??

Perhaps that is what you are trying to say? Morality depends upon your gender? Willing to stand behind that one, sputnik?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 30, 2005 4:18:09 PM

I wonder how Fred would feel about excluding men from a panel discussing the moral implications of vasectomies, or male circumcision.

Posted by: nolo | Nov 30, 2005 4:27:57 PM

Fred, take a moment to read my previous post and unbundle your undies. A group of men discussing the extent to which women can choose what they do with their bodies (whatever importance you assign a fetus, it's still stuck in a woman's body for quite a while) has a pretty significant problem when it comes to female autonomy: if this male panel gets to set all the rules (or determine what the rules would ideally be), it's still men making rules about women's bodies. These men as a group decide to let women choose or not - how much "choice" do you have when your ability to choose is governed by someone else who may take it away?

Go ahead and assert male interest in the issue of abortion - I'm with you that far - but don't ignore the problems of letting one more powerful group make decisions for one in a position of less power.

Posted by: Sara | Nov 30, 2005 4:32:50 PM

You wish to treat this issue not as a moral question at all. No question at all in your mind, eh? Just get out the hooveer and stick it where the sun don't shine. That about it?

Thank GOD you're not in charge! At least those in power understand that this is, indeed, a moral issue and not one of your inconvenience, and that men have just as much right discussing moral issues as women.

All done

Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 30, 2005 4:42:09 PM

No one is advocating excluding men from these matters, Fred. We're advocating including women. As in, y'know, both halves of the population can talk about it. Which doesn't appear to be the case with the pannel Singer discussed.

Posted by: Julian Elson | Nov 30, 2005 4:48:58 PM

Folks, why do you take the bait? I mean, really. A panel on abortion that includes absolutely no women is self-evidently problematic, and if Fred can't figure out why, he's never going to.

Posted by: Ezra | Nov 30, 2005 5:11:11 PM

I mean, really. A panel on abortion that includes absolutely no women is self-evidently problematic, and if Fred can't figure out why, he's never going to.

Well, isn't *THAT* special!!

Even Ezra can't seem to articulate why gender is an issue. He has spent most of his short adult life telling us all that gender doesn't matter. Now, for some reason, it matters but he is unable to tell anyone why. All he has done is say "Well, you know...everybody knows...Fred should know" etc.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 30, 2005 5:27:13 PM

Actually, I've spent my time telling you health care matters, I hardly write on gender. But in any case, c'mon folks, look at this response. The burden of proof is on those who think gender matters when discussing pregnancy issues?

It doesn't deserve a reply. And don't give it one. Fred makes good points sometimes, and if people would stop swinging at his bad ones, he may go towards an exclusively constructive format.

Posted by: Ezra | Nov 30, 2005 5:32:52 PM

We love you anyway, Ezra, even if you can't step up to this plate.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 30, 2005 5:36:52 PM

Funny how Fred seemed to skip over Julian's response, which rendered his argument moot as far as I can tell, to focus on badgering Ezra instead.

Posted by: smg | Nov 30, 2005 6:04:50 PM

Folks, why do you take the bait?

It's perverse, but I've been enjoying abortion flamewars tremendously lately. Of course, they often fizzle out when someone insists on being obtuse (which is where Fred began), but I find it refreshing that people are actually using the word "abortion" again in public discourse.

Posted by: Sara | Nov 30, 2005 7:56:49 PM

This is a debate for Legal Affairs. I don't see a problem with just men being involved, because it's going to be a discussion about the law, and the law isn't silly stuff like "who controls my uterus," it's constiutional questions that either gender is equally qualified to field (although it is shifted in the men's favor by the fact that most eminent scholars are male, due to women being shut out of law and the upper levels of law academia until recently). I don't see swapping in an equally-qualified woman for either participant changing the debate in any way whatsoever.

Posted by: Fnor | Nov 30, 2005 8:26:33 PM

Erza, this is a debate between two people not a panel discussion among many. So I don't see it as a big deal that both are men.

Posted by: James B. Shearer | Nov 30, 2005 9:16:46 PM

This is a debate for Legal Affairs. I don't see a problem with just men being involved, because it's going to be a discussion about the law, and the law isn't silly stuff like "who controls my uterus," it's constiutional questions that either gender is equally qualified to field...

Thank you, Fnor, for your reasonable input. That is exactly what I have been saying. The idiocy of those who think it's a 'wimmens issue' is beyond comprehension.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Nov 30, 2005 10:32:36 PM

That said, Fred, were this a debate about morality/psychology of abortion, I think it would be a good idea to have at least one woman involved, as in that respect they have a different perspective. Or if, as James said, it were a panel, there should definitely be women involved.

But the legal aspect of it is pretty gender-neutral.

Posted by: Fnor | Dec 1, 2005 12:11:13 AM

That said, Fred, were this a debate about morality/psychology of abortion, I think it would be a good idea to have at least one woman involved, as in that respect they have a different perspective. Or if, as James said, it were a panel, there should definitely be women involved.

But the legal aspect of it is pretty gender-neutral.

Posted by: Fnor | Nov 30, 2005 9:11:13 PM

Thank you for bringing actual facts to the table rather than ranting like Fred, but I have to disagree with you on this. The legal aspect is "pretty" gender-neutral, sure, but it's not 100% gender-neutral because the legal aspect is not 100% objective. Law gets interpreted, standards change, general consensus and common law evolve without ever codifying the changes. I'm pretty sure, for example, that the bar defining "cruel and unusual punishment" in the 18th century was a lot higher than the one used today.

In this case, that's relevant because the right to privacy - Fred might have a rant about why no such thing should exist, but it does at the moment - depends on the person. A child has different rights to privacy than an adult, a Muslim woman wants greater rights to privacy than a non-Muslim, and so on. And, people with different biological makeups might have different ideas on how far the right to privacy extends and should extend in situations where it effects those biological makeups.

Posted by: Cyrus | Dec 1, 2005 10:39:54 AM

... a Muslim woman wants greater rights to privacy than a non-Muslim, and so on. And, people with different biological makeups might have different ideas on how far the right to privacy extends and should extend in situations where it effects those biological makeups.

What a pantsload. What ever happened to the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the law???

Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 1, 2005 3:41:52 PM

Legal interpretation - could it have been that!?

Fred, have you ever ventured to utter any sentence to make people understand that you know the one person among those who consciously experience pain and distress that suffers most morally and psychologically in a case of abortion is the not-to-become mother? Try to imply this every now and then in your statements and you'll wonder how much boldlier you are allowed to talk and reason on these matters by the other sex and their liberal proponents.

Posted by: Martin Bauer | Dec 1, 2005 4:41:09 PM

... the one person among those who consciously experience pain and distress that suffers most morally and psychologically in a case of abortion is the not-to-become mother?

Hey, Martin...Krout-Boy.....go fuck yourself. And then come back and discuss facts. This ain't the Jerry Springer show.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 1, 2005 7:34:05 PM

Wow, what a reaction. You know, abortion is the one topic of politics with a deeply moral background where I do not really know what to make of from the Christian standpoint. So I really made some experiment by posting these lines, not without feeling considerable qualms. Your reaction, however, has shown me cristall-clear that I cannot be all too wrong in any case.

If only I could convey to you these lines are meant seriously and deserve your contemplation.

Posted by: Martin Bauer | Dec 1, 2005 8:05:50 PM

Yeah, it's all about 'feelings', ain't it?

I thought we were discussing Legal Affairs choice of panelists?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Dec 2, 2005 4:14:47 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.