I just read Jes’s amusingly–but completely inaccurate–take on recent posts here at CSPT and how *sob* it’s not going to comment here anymore!
I walked away from Danaâ€™s blog (finally disgusted by Sharonâ€™s open pleasure at the discovery of a village where dozens of Iraqis had been massacred by other Iraqis, which she seemed to think helped her â€œdebunkâ€ the Lancet report) but this was a frequent argument with the misogynist anti-choicers on that site.
This quote pretty much typifies Jes’ argument style: if you can’t win with logic or facts, just attack the person! The truth was that I had no “open pleasure” about pictures of dead Iraqis. I had simply asked Jes to give evidence of mass graves to back up the Lancet study claim of 655K dead. The fact that there are no graves for all those bodies should make one, at the least, skeptical of the numbers. That’s why I posted a link to pics of actual graves, the sort one is likely to find during a war.
What any of that had to do with misogyny is beyond me, but evidently it did for Jes who went on to describe Dana, Eric, and me as “a trio who loathe women having sex for pleasure, who loathe the idea of state health, and who loathe the idea that people should be able to access contraception anywhere for free at any age, and who say so.” None of that is true, of course. What I specifically stated was that adults (that includes women) who decide to have sex should accept the consequences of that behavior (i.e., pregnancy). There’s nothing in that statement that suggests I “loathe women having sex for pleasure.” As for the rest of the statement, there are some very good reasons to oppose socialized medicine, and being opposed to children having abortions without at least parental notification is more along the lines of respecting the fundamental right of parents to raise their children than some misogynistic attempt to keep women barefoot and pregnant. But such is the substance of Jes’ arguments.
Interestingly, this was only the second or third time I’d actually gone to Jes’ site and from there I discovered it isn’t the only one who has a reading comprehension problem. Iowa Liberal actually quotes me, then mischaracterizes the post (I’m seeing a trend here!). The point of the post, of course, is that if you want people to accept your views and philosophies, you persuade them rather than simply use judicial decrees to get your way. But, alas, if your arguments can’t support themselves, I suppose you must mischaracterize your enemy’s.
Dana did an excellent job of spotlighting the cognitive dissonance of Jeromy’s postion: that denying gays the right to marry is “ridiculously disrespectful,” but banning polygamy is acceptable because it is simply barring “a variation.” The problem with Jeromy’s argument is that gay marriage is only “a variation” under that definition (as is heterosexual marriage). This is why polygamists are using similar arguments as the gay rights supporters. Once you start changing the marriage rules, all bets are off.