Asymmetrical Information

i wouldn't write off feminism yet. it still has it's merits. i don't think it's so much that the superrich can't get their daughters into a snob school but the principle of it. sure it's a bit nit picky but i can see their point...

As far as I can tell, the only principle at stake in that instance is the principle that one set of rich snobs should be able to decree for themselves that they're good enough to hang out with another set of rich snobs. We're talking about a private club, for Pete's sake, & a group of women with more than enough money to start their own.

Fair enough.

But how about Kathryn Lopez? Whether you like Burk's piece or not, Lopez deliberately lied about it.

Is that OK or is that wrong?

I don't know if I would call it "lying" and "wrong"; those are pretty harsh words for a pretty common practice. I'd call it selective quoting, and I don't like it on either side of the political spectrum. But it's done all the time, by both sides. Is it lying when a pro-choice journalist tells us that polls show majority support for abortion rights -- without telling us that the majority opposes abortion in all cases except incest, rape, and life/health of the mother? It's certainly equally misleading, if not more so, but I don't think I'd call it morally wrong; just bad journalism.

Hmmm....

Burk wrote a piece of satire. Lopez excerpted it and tried to pretend that she had written it seriously. That's more than just selective quoting or selective use of friendly statistics.

I think you're letting her off too easy, and the "both sides do it" argument isn't very persuasive.

But fair is fair. Liberals, I'm sure, are too easy on fellow liberals who lie, so the next time you run into a nice clear cut case I hope you'll send it my way so that we can see if I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is!

And good luck with the new job. I hope it's something fun.

That is a clear cut case, and it's done all the time. The fact is, surveys show that the American public is not pro choice in the way that liberals define the word, and yet you never see the breakdowns showing it in a newspaper -- only the report that the American public is "strongly in favor of abortion rights". Lying and morally wrong, or no?

"Reproduction is not fair. It is not going to be fair. Nature designed it that way. Writing articles trying to transmute the unique problems of being female onto males is not going to work, because the relationship is asymmetrical. There are no easy metaphors for the extremely complex and emotional issues that surround reproduction, and I wish the feminist movement would stop looking for some."

Don't let any postmodernists hear you say something like that. They'd probably accuse you of a hate crime.

I just did a quick skim through the Odum database, and there's so much data it's hard to summarize accurately.

However, roughly speaking, it appears that about 60% of poll respondants view themselves as pro-choice vs. 40% as pro-life. Also, about 60% approve of Roe v. Wade.

It's also true that about 80% disapprove of third-trimester abortions.

So, it's true that support for abortion is not unqualified. However, I don't think it's true that "the majority opposes abortion in all cases except incest, rape, and life/health of the mother."

Back in the 70's I belonged to a gym. It was "men only". The members went there to work out, and that's what they did. They came in in old clothes, sweated, swore, farted, swore, belched, swore, told filthy jokes, swore, and generally behaved like men do with no women around. The place was a dump, celing tiles missing, water stains on a couple of walls, stained and worn carpet, etc. But the equipment was in good shape. This was a working mans gym. Blue collar guys and a few college students, no rich folks, no movers and shakers, just regular guys.

The gym got sued by a woman who felt that it was discrimination that SHE couldn't participate. The owners caved instantly.

Within a year, the place was closed. The men were no longer comfortable there, they couldn't go in and relax and work out, they were required by thier genes to react to the women. They cleaned up thier language, cleaned up thier outfits, cleaned up their habits and generally stopped acting like "guys". Nobody was having a good time and male membership dropped off radically. Meanwhile, female membership was never all that big, women didn't like the ambience of the place, with the dirty carpets and missing ceiling tiles, etc.

Ballys bought the gym, remodeled, and marketed it to yuppies, business was okay, but nothing special. After a couple of years, they sold out to another chain, who immediately turned the gym into an "Athletic Club For Women".

Yup, you got it, a women ONLY gym. Business is booming, but those blue collar guys who used to hang out there have no place to go now. Hey, it's only fair, right? You just can't exclude women, because they are EQUAL. Men, on the other hand, are not as equal as women. (sigh)

Freedom of association. Lets say I have a BBQ in my back yard every year. I invite my friends to come and partake. As the years go by those who come to my BBQ try to out do one another to prepare the prefect brisket. A friendly wager grows into a sizable pot for the proclaimed winner each year. Folks from all over wait to get an invitation to try their hand at the perfect piece of meat. But I would like to point out that you still need an invitation to get into my BBQ. Its my BBQ and I still have the right to invite or disinvite whom I will. If you don't like my rules start your own BBQ.

Kevin, while some people may "view" themselves as "pro-choice", the reality is that for many of those, their actual position is more "pro-life". Most of the polling done misrepresents the fine gradations of opinion the public actually has, even among women. The Center for Gender Equality paid Princeton Associates to do a poll several years ago that found - to their surprise - found that 53 percent of female respondents believe abortion should be allowed only in cases of rape, incest or to save a woman's life or not at all.

Yes, but Jane, where do you stand on the use of satire in political commentary? That's what this "issue" seems to me to be about ... yes, it's really about Augusta, and abortion, etc ... but on the blogs it's about "was it or wasn't it satire" and "the left gets to satirize certain things the right doesn't or vice-versa". What are your thoughts on that?

It's funny, but In the context I heard Burk's remarks(about reprodction), I didn't find them unreasonable. Anyone who is rigidly pro-life, especially one who makes no exceptions for rape and incest, should be perfectly willing to see draconian restrictions placed on men's freedom to impregnate. This may not be practical now, but it's certainly plausible with some research.
Kathryn Lopez is a fairly rabid pro-lifer, and is quite willing to distort facts to support her position. Just check out her articles on RU-486.
Just before the 2000 election, Christopher Caldwell had a column on the subject of abortion that I found insightful. His thesis was that a majority of the nation is happily hypocritical about it, and any government that gave people what they claimed to want in the way of restrictions on abortion would soon be punished severely by those same people.

Here's the Gallup Poll Special Report on abortion opinion in the US. Pay close attention to the third page -- it shows that about one in seven thinks abortion should be completely banned, two in seven think it should be legal under all circumstances, and the remaining four in seven think it should be available with some controls; over two-thirds of this latter group favor availability in only a few circumstances.

Overall, about 85% of the public supports the availability of abortion under at least some circumstances; I read this as the majority supporting abortion rights, because it's clear that only a small minority would ban it altogether. It is also clear from the study that the plurality of the public supports Roe vs. Wade in all surveys, and a simple majority does in almost all cases (different polls used differing language, which accounts for the variation).

It's also apparent from this study that "pro-life" and "pro-choice" self-labels don't fit the actual views of the public very well, and that resistance to abortion's legality is more strongly correlated with religious belief than anything else.

And finally, the statement that "the majority opposes abortion in all cases except incest, rape, and life/health of the mother" appears not to be complete; the tabulation near the bottom of this page indicates that abortions for mental or physical impairment of the developing fetus also have majority support, averaged across multiple survey organizations since '96.

Martha Burk has never claimed that Augusta's exclusion of women is unconstitutional or illegal. She has not brought any sort of lawsuit. She is simply trying to marshal public opinion to her point of view, in hopes that the power of public shame will induce Augusta to change its policy. She's doing this because it's her job.

The barbecue example works the same way. The owner may have a right to exclude women, but if his event becomes nationally renowned, people may publicly complain and protest his policies.

Jane's contention that a small institution like Augusta is not a worthy target for the feminist movement strikes me as too limited. Presumably, Augusta gets singled out because the protest movement believes that a victory against a highly public target will have a ripple effect upon other, less well-known institutions that practice the same exclusions.

Also, Jane's observation that pro-choice activists demonize their opponents and resort to simple sound-bites may have validity, but her presentation is simply polemical. There are plenty of pro-life activists who reduce their opponents to "juvenile evil enemies," by dividing the two sides in the abortion debate to "Godly" and "Baby Killers." There is plenty of overheated rhetoric on both sides, but it doesn't help the situation to admonish only one side to clean up its act.

>> Jane's contention that a small institution like Augusta is not a worthy target for the feminist movement strikes me as too limited. Presumably, Augusta gets singled out because the protest movement believes that a victory against a highly public target will have a ripple effect upon other, less well-known institutions that practice the same exclusions.

In other words, Burk is arguing that ownership groups should be subject to the same sort of equal opportunity stuff that employment is.

Right now, when people get together to own something, they have unlimited discretion as to who is in the club. In fact, most private biz is owned by single-race and often single-sex groups.

I'm not denying her civil right to protest; I'm saying it's silly, which is my civil right.

Of course there is lousy rhetoric on both sides. In this case, however, I'm writing about Martha Burk's article. Which is flawed even as a "spoof", for the reasons I discussed. When the pro-life folks come up with a line as stupid as "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament," I'll pile on them.

I know this is awfully curmudgeonly of me, but it's been a sticking point for me since my 18th birthday:

How many of these (admittedly pretty hardcore) feminists have signed up with Selective Service, or encouraged other women to do so?

yeah major issue is that hootie johnson could never have argued the opposite and survived, but that burk can write the satire on the policy by virtue of her sex. it's feeding off of a line by glenn reynolds for the past few days of how certain groups have more speech rights in the pc world than others, as evidenced by the ut blackface incident...

If, for example, I hear a male adopt the pro-life side, he'd better be willing to step up and shoulder his responsibilities with a ring.

Ring, schming. Marrying the mother may do something for the child, or it may not -- it's neither here nor there, though, when it comes to a parent's fiduciary duty to a child. What he'd better be willing to do is write those child support checks, whether he loves (or even likes) the mother or not).

A check does not take the place of a father. If you think that she should shoulder her responsibility by bearing the child, you should do at least as much. A check is not enough.

Amen on that. I wonder what percentage of abortions are sought by women who were pressured to terminate by a man not willing to face up to his half of the straw romp?

"yeah major issue is that hootie johnson could never have argued the opposite and survived, but that burk can write the satire on the policy by virtue of her sex. it's feeding off of a line by glenn reynolds for the past few days of how certain groups have more speech rights in the pc world than others, as evidenced by the ut blackface incident..."

Not really, LUA -- Hootie Johnson could have argued the opposite if he wanted to ... there's no law against it, in fact there's a big old law FOR it. What do you mean "survived" anyway? You think he'd lose his job or something? Get drummed out of Augusta? That's up to the members isn't it?

I don't know what the UT blackface incident is ...

Very interesting discussion. I can't really comment on the Burk/Lopez thing as I've not followed it. But I do agree that both sides of the abortion issue tend to have extremists who get into demonization. I also put my nickle in for a couple not marrying just for the sake of the child - the #1 option in my judgment is adoption, so a child can have two parents who love each other as much as they love the child. A couple should marry after conception only if they'd marry anyway.

I also support Jane 100% in the "women can't be a special class and equal too" idea. I don't get why men put up with it. But then I also don't get the white guilt thing.

Not to open a can of worms or cover already-scorched ground, but...
Anyone who is rigidly pro-life, especially one who makes no exceptions for rape and incest, should be perfectly willing to see draconian restrictions placed on men's freedom to impregnate. (Posted by: Rick)

PATENTLY FALSE. Do people really not understand the difference between a [living] thing that *already* exists, and one that *might soon* exist?

It just bugs the hell of me because I've seen so many abortion debates degenerate into smug self-congratulation among the pro-choice folk, usually because someone actually thinks that becoming the thousandth person to make the same "Every Sperm is Sacred" Monty Python reference is original and/or clever.

Matt
a fairly rabid pro-lifer

Jane, you say that the polls show a public which only supports legal abortion in cases of incest, rape and danger to the mother. But at least one poll - conducted by a bipartisan polling agency - found the opposite. They asked, "Which of the following best represents your views about abortion? The choice on abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor. Abortion should be legal only in cases in which pregnancy results from rape or incest or when the life of the woman is at risk. OR, Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances." Only 29% chose the option you think most Americans favor. The majority (57%) thought it should be up to the individual woman and her doctor.

I 'm not saying you're a liar. It's obvious that different polls produce different results, and honest people can disagree on how to interpret the data. (Still, it would be helpful if you'd link to a poll supporting your view - ideally, one that gave the exact wording of the questions).

In contrast, nobody honestly believes Burk favors forced sterilization of men (at one point, illiterates might have believed it, but now the satire has been explained for the moves-lips-while-reading crowd). There are two categories: those who admit that Burk no more favors forced male sterilization than John Swift favored killing and eating children; and those who know Burk doesn't favor forced sterilization, but are attempting to muddy the issue because they have no honor and don't care about truth, only partisan advantage.

I'm certainly not denying that "lefties do it too." But I try hard not to do it; and conservatives I respect try hard not to do it, too. You either try to act honorably or you don't; you're either willing to speak out against obvious lies, like the slander against Burk, or you're not. (And there's a big difference between quoting selectively to pick out genuine weak spots in an opponent's case, and quoting selectively to make it appear your opponent favors something they clearly don't.)

By the way, for a genuine example of lefty dishonesty on the abortion issue, look at pro-choicers who claim "Roe vs. Wade today hangs by one vote in the Supreme Court." The SCOTUS currently has only three votes for overturning Roe outright. But admitting that Roe isn't that endangered would hurt fundraising, so groups like Planned Parenthood routinely lie about it.

Finally, here's some relatively honest sites for abortion poll information. (Any site on this subject that doesn't admit there's ambiguity in the poll results - whether the site is pro-choice or pro-life - isn't honest.)
Religioustolorance.org | Polling Report | Public Agenda

With regards to "men's freedom to impregnate", as someone said, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, that's dumb. If you're going to restrict only one sex, it makes MUCH more sense (logically) that it be women. No, I'm not sexist! The reason is very simple:

If you restrict men, one man who gets off the stuff could impregnate many women. If you restrict women and one woman gets off the stuff, she is the only one who could get pregnant. If the objective is to limit unwanted pregnancy, LOGICALLY, restricting women is easier and more effective.

Personally, if restrictions were to be put in place, I see no reason why you wouldn't just do both sexes - it's easier to just do everybody, more fair, and much more effective.

Of course, this whole debate is theoretical, since the US will never impose something like that.

Regarding the whole "it's only satire" thing. I haven't read the Lopez peice, so I can't comment on that, but I definitely fall on the side that it's very biased for some people to defend her - if someone had satirized like that on the other side of the aisle, the demonization that would follow would make Satan jealous. No, they wouldn't be killed, but yes, depending on their profession, they could lose their job, and they would certainly be dragged through the mud.

All forms of argument are either valid or not - they should not be valid for some and not for others.

Gary - I sympathize, man.

I think everyone might benefit from a change in term. Equivalent value, not equality. Equality means something is the same - peoople are not the same.

I'm an adult adoptee who recently (slightly over a month and a half ago) met his birth mother and her family, and I have to weigh in with those who point out that marriage isn't necessarily the right reaction to an unplanned pregnancy. My birth father (for reasons unknown) elected not to marry my birth mother, and while there's no way of knowing what the consequences of such a thing taking place would have been, I do know that I have two wonderful half-sisters and my birth mother has had a terrific husband for the past 25 years. Meanwhile, I grew up in precisely the kind of family that my birth mother wanted for me. Sometimes things work out for the best along different dimensions than you expect.

Deoxy, I have no objection to Burk being criticized strongly. If y'all want to call for her to be fired from Ms Magazine, or call her a baby-killer (not saying you in particular would call her that, but some righties would), etc., that's fair. Well, maybe not fair - but it's not dishonest, either.

But for your "double standards" argument to hold water, you'd have to show me an example of leftists deliberately choosing to misread an obvious piece of right-wing satire, in order to criticize the person for saying something they clearly did not say. In other words, you'd need to have someone who attacks Jane for arguing that we should "segregate the children of the rich in private schools with the children of the poor and middle class funneled into the less prestigious, because less exclusive, state system."

I've seen a lot of hypothetical examples ("you folks would do the same if the position were reversed), and I think it's mostly a load of fairy tales. Put up or shut up, folks - let's see an actual, documented example of leftists deliberately reading a "modest proposal" type piece as if it were serious.

Nice post Jane.

I want to know why nobody has come with a good reason for integrating Agusta National. Everybody makes the statement is should be. Or they say the reasons are obvious. Okay, so I'm thick what are these obvious reasons?

You point out that "Many conservatives who would tolerate people advocating Norplant for welfare mothers are mocking up some outrage about this [a "Norplant" forced on men]."

However, the article was about forced use, not about handing out cash (welfare) in exchange for use.

As it happens, I don't have a problem with the article anyway, or indeed, with the original, and far more shocking, "Modest Proposal."

Lets see.... NOW wants asks the surpreme court to use RICO laws against anti abortion activists who are counselling women not to deprive their unborn child of air and life sustaining nutriants.
The basis: THey are depriving our abortion clinics of revenue that NOW needs to further line their coffers???? Now terms saving a life extortion.

WHat do we call the activities against Agusta? The same movement backed by NOW is attempting to extort Agusta Nationl of their Masters tournament and threatening members who feel compelled to cow tow to this politically correct special interest group. Now is approaching sponcers who air during the Masters. Now is harrassing Tiger Woods.

This is extortion!

Mabye these RICO laws can be used against NOW and the imfamus Rainbow coalition.

Both Politically correct extortionist>>

Comments are Closed.