The Green Party is (Not-So) Choice II
Thu, 2006-12-14 14:25
#1
remind
The Green Party is (Not-So) Choice II
Thu, 2006-12-14 14:25
#2
remind
Though not yet closed the original will be soon, and with dial loading the page is taking forever. And would like to link back to Abandoned stuff to make my next point, as it seems somehow, the May Camp and the Greens think this is all about partisian politics.
Which again shows, how seriously NOT progressive and NOT pro-choice either May and/or some of the Green supporters are. To make such accusations and insist upon them in the face of it being a matter of rights is inconceivable. And this after all the discussion here today, where nary such a thing was mentioned, so he came into this discussion with ulterior motives even.
quote:
... I’m just disagreeing with the position of some people who would be happy in stirring up controversy so May and the Greens are tossed aside so the NDP gets more votes.
[url=http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2006/12/13/in-saskatoon-now-back-home-weat... Non-progessive and feminist[/url]
Thu, 2006-12-14 14:31
#3
writer
Honestly, he can suck my dildo.
Thu, 2006-12-14 14:32
#4
writer
But he'd have to wash it very well before returning it! And no scratches!
Thu, 2006-12-14 16:04
#5
![http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/rhainnon/kitten.gif[/img]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/rhainnon/kitten.gif[/img]){kind=link}
Thu, 2006-12-14 16:10
#6
Boom Boom
[img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2006-12-14 18:07
#7
remind
In the other mother thread, lost amidst the anti-feminist rhetoric, was skdadl's response to a May supporter who was posting on a blog. This portion of skadadl's response:
quote:
Most of those discussions leave me feeling very discouraged, and maybe frightened. The presumption of young men in particular disturbs me. They seem so confident in their belief in their own profound goodness ... as they debate the liberty of others
was also linked in the mother thread and quoted in part.
After skdadl responded to the bolded section,
quote:
[b]I guess it sucks that nature sticks roughly half of all people with a uterus. Still, that too can be removed.[/b]Nothing like cutting to the heart of the matter, lrC. And there it is. You pity women. That is an expression of pity at least -- women get "stuck" with a uterus -- with clear undertones of physical disgust and revulsion.
To May supporter's it is a ludicrous notion that we pro-choice woman should just have our uterous removed. BTW he came back with the response; "we pro-choicers" think other surgical proceedures are "trivial" so why not.
The small minded, narrow view point that this May supporter exhibited towards a hysterectomy and what it means physically to a woman and her future was frightening to behold. Seriously, it has been bothering me all afternoon. The implications contained in his words cover many layers of really regressive prospectives, and consequent ugly behaviour. The acceptance of his words without much rebutt is even more disturbing. And could give a bleak picture of just how far there is to go.
However, on a positive side to this, my 26 year old daughter that lives in the Victoria area, who was pretty non-involved in active feminism, has been spurrred to be more involved by what she has been reading here, and elsewhere in this regard. It had been her position that women's self determination was a forgone conclusion for always, and forever.
Naive, I know, but how many other young women out there are just exactly like her? They have been raised in the fruits of other women's struggles for equality, just as we ourselves were, unlike us though, they thought the fight was over and just the final touches needed to be gained. Like her, I guess they think somehow automatically it would come. To say she was shocked to find out otherwise is an understatement. Her reaction has been more along the lines of an epiphany.
Now to get into a small political impact of this faux pas of May's, and some Green supporters, is that my daughter had been a Green supporter in a couple of elections. Once provincially and once federally. Except the last election, she did not want Harper to get in and perceived she should not split her vote off to a party that had no chance to win the riding, and thereby allow the CPC to slip in. I do not know who she voted for, nor whom she will vote for in this springs election, but I sure as hell know it won't be Green, nor CPC.
And no, this is still not a partisian post, it is relaying political fallout and a positive movement towards true progressiveness, because there has been so many fine examples or regressiveness that have been exhibited to Canadian women, and men, throughout the last few days. People who truly believe in equality and who could not before see the boundaries between what is or is not progressive.
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=001134]M... thread[/url]
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=001134]B... A Regressive Forum Containing May Supporters[/url]
[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]
Thu, 2006-12-14 18:32
#8
writer
Give your daughter a hug for me, will you? Let her know I'm happy she's joined the club of Scared Shitless By These Control Freaks.
[url=http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2006/12/14/saskboy-shuts-his-man-trap/]Sas... shuts his man trap…[/url]and whines some more.
Kinda like the guy drinking water while the dummy sings. But on the internet. Or something.
Thu, 2006-12-14 18:44
#9
I just saw the mess that last thread turned into at the end (sorry, was out tonight - school concert for my young'un!), and I am now declaring this a Saskboy-free thread.
Saskboy, you're welcome to post in every other forum of babble except the feminism forum from now on.
Okay, carry on.
Thu, 2006-12-14 19:52
#10
writer
[url=http://aprilreign.breadnroses.ca/blog/wordpress/?p=76]I May have to scream….[/url]
Thu, 2006-12-14 20:20
#11
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
[b][url=http://www.abandonedstuff.com/2006/12/14/saskboy-shuts-his-man-trap/]Sas... shuts his man trap…[/url]and whines some more.
Kinda like the guy drinking water while the dummy sings. But on the internet. Or something.[/b]
Sounds like you miss the guy already!
[img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]
Don't worry, I'm not going to post any opinions about abortion.. just here to listen, you'll be relieved to know...
[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]
Thu, 2006-12-14 20:41
#12
writer
[Edited to delete something that is elsewhere and doesn't need to be here, too.]
[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]
Thu, 2006-12-14 21:18
#13
remind
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
[b]Give your daughter a hug for me, will you? Let her know I'm happy she's joined the club of Scared Shitless By These Control Freaks.
[/b]
Ok, will give her a verbal hug from ya tomorrow morning, as we do not live close to each other at the moment.
Actually, I was disparing that she would actually get it for some time, And the last few days have done teaching to her, than anything she was raised with apparently. Coming from a progressive home with a feminist father softened the world too much for her, I think, and she never saw the real regressive control freakishness some men have, in such an unfettered way before.
And thank you for the the link to "I may have to Scream". It is an incredible piece of writing that should become a Canadian feminist classic!
Thu, 2006-12-14 22:11
#14
writer
You are most welcome. For those who wish to speak directly to Greens, on the Party's turf, Tehanu of EM suggests a way:
[url=http://blog.greenparty.ca/en/node/406#comment]Elizabeth May on Abortion[/url] - Green Party of Canada blog.
Edited to add: Scott Piatkowski had linked to this page in our previous thread.
[ 14 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]
Thu, 2006-12-14 22:20
#15
Catchfire
I just wanted to say that I think that writer, remind, Scout, Stargazer, (skdadl,) clersal, (Debra,) and everyone else who hasn't given up on this issue is amazing. I wasn't going to post anything because there's obviously no need, because you have all been kicking ass and taking names like mad, but I felt I should just say you are all awesome.
If these "Green" lads don't know when they're beat, they should.
I don't believe for one minute that any of you are "scared shitless." I don't believe any of you will ever let it come to that.
Thu, 2006-12-14 22:34
#16
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]I just wanted to say that I think that writer, remind, Scout, Stargazer, (skdadl,) clersal, (Debra,) and everyone else who hasn't given up on this issue is amazing. I wasn't going to post anything because there's obviously no need, because you have all been kicking ass and taking names like mad, but I felt I should just say you are all awesome.[/b]
My thoughts exactly. Bravo.
Thu, 2006-12-14 22:42
#17
remind
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
[b]You are most welcome. For those who wish to speak directly to Greens, on the Party's turf, Tehanu of EM suggests a way: [/b]
Hmph, went to read got teed that a man posted there, from the Green Party, a Mr Fletcher, presuming to speak for most Canadians. So, I posted do not know if will appear.
No, I have to join to post and will not do so.
Here is my response anyway.
quote:
Respectfully Mr Fletcher, your comment stating Canadians are largely in sympathy with Ms May's comments, is at best wholly presumptive, at worst deeply misogynistic, or both.In fact, at the end of your commentary, you discredit your own first premise of a majority of Canadians which are in sympathy with May's position by saying:
"This is a deeply emotional issue, and divides society very deeply."
Divides society deeply does not = largely in sympathy.
Nor is there any statistical proof that you provide that supports your erroneous premise.
In future, please try not to speak for everyone in Canada unless you have spoken to everyone of us and gained our written consent.
Thank you.
Thu, 2006-12-14 22:51
#18
Hi ... just wanted to say, remind, that you don't have to join to post on their site, just provide an email address. I've got a generic yahoo one that I use for such occasions.
And yeah, that guy's post was bizarre. Can't quite get where he was coming from about the caesarians comment, but using terms like "killing babies" and "late-term abortions" make it pretty clear he's anti-choice.
I am holding out a faint hope that actually posting on the Green site itself might encourage some clarification on their part. One way or the other.
Thu, 2006-12-14 23:28
#19
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Tehanu:
[b]Hi ... just wanted to say, remind, that you don't have to join to post on their site, just provide an email address. I've got a generic yahoo one that I use for such occasions.And yeah, that guy's post was bizarre...I am holding out a faint hope that actually posting on the Green site itself might encourage some clarification on their part. One way or the other.[/b]
Thanks Tehanu, I tried again, after trying twice before and was rejected, this time I got a censorship message. so we will see if they actually allow it. Seems the Green Party and some of the supporters that are bloggers can't handle being called on their words and actions. Progressive my ass!
quote:
Your comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval.
BTW, loved your post!
Fri, 2006-12-15 03:06
#20
quote:
Originally posted by Tehanu:
[b]Hi ... just wanted to say, remind, that you don't have to join to post on their site, just provide an email address. I've got a generic yahoo one that I use for such occasions.And yeah, that guy's post was bizarre. Can't quite get where he was coming from about the caesarians comment, but using terms like "killing babies" and "late-term abortions" make it pretty clear he's anti-choice.
I am holding out a faint hope that actually posting on the Green site itself might encourage some clarification on their part. One way or the other.[/b]
Yes, I enjoyed your post, too. It was thoughtful and eloquently stated. Somebody posted a reply to that effect. I wish more of the dialogue surrounding the issue carried that sort of tone.
[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]
Fri, 2006-12-15 03:32
#21
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]In future, please try not to speak for everyone in Canada unless you have spoken to everyone of us and gained our written consent.[/b]
Remind... first of all, I am not going to engage directly in any further discussion about abortion - it is a deeply divisive issue, and not worth the result it produces. (I think the other "Green men" would agree, since they have mostly vanished).
However I have a question... You often bring up the issue of how men should not speak on behalf of women. Do you think the same applies for speaking about the disabled, about aboriginals, about immigrants, or about minorities? What about when these issues come up in politics? Isn't that what politicians do, try to speak on behalf of Canadians? I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything here. I am trying to get a sense of where you draw your boundaries of what is appropriate and legitimate discussion. There seems to be a number of unspoken rules that I and others are unaware of until we have crossed them.
Also, keep in mind that I and others are more open than you may assume to concerns you raise. What I find more difficult is the tone in which they are delivered, which often obscures the message you most want to convey. I try to relate to all segments of society, and the various types of human beings, to understand how they think, and to find some common ground if possible. I know it's been a challenge at times on this board.
Fri, 2006-12-15 03:43
#22
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Thanks Tehanu, I tried again, after trying twice before and was rejected, this time I got a censorship message. so we will see if they actually allow it. Seems the Green Party and some of the supporters that are bloggers can't handle being called on their words and actions. Progressive my ass!
[/b]
Well, it isn't Babble, and I doubt they would want it to be.
Fri, 2006-12-15 03:59
#23
Maysie
quote:
However I have a question... You often bring up the issue of how men should not speak on behalf of women. Do you think the same applies for speaking about the disabled, about aboriginals, about immigrants, or about minorities? What about when these issues come up in politics? Isn't that what politicians do, try to speak on behalf of Canadians?
Hi Forest Green, and everyone here. I've not posted on this topic and its many threads.
Even though the above question was not asked of me, my response is: YES!
As for the topic at hand, I may start a new thread on the issue of reproductive rights, rather than only abortion. Maybe I'll see some of you there?
Keep up the fight, feminists! [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2006-12-15 04:04
#24
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
[b][url=http://blog.greenparty.ca/en/node/406#comment]Elizabeth May on Abortion[/url] - Green Party of Canada blog. [/b]
Good for Tehanu! Especially since she's going to be subjected to gross, armchair psychologizing comments like this at the beginning of the reply to her post:
quote:
Tehanu, you speak eloquently and with obvious sincerity and conviction. You do leave something out of the equation however.I do not deny what you say:
"My moral imperative is that no woman should ever be forced to be pregnant, and that my choices about my reproduction should not include someone standing over me judging me for it."
The first leg of your imperative is 100% right on! It is the second leg that betrays your anger and lingering uneasiness. Almost a sense of guilt, but I hasten to emphasize "almost". I do not believe you feel guilty in holding the view you do.
Well, isn't that cute and weaselly. I almost sense some guilt. But I don't think you feel guilty! I just brought it up to stick a label on you while denying I'm doing so because that's just good debating!
And wow, he figured out that women get pissed off when our rights are debated by political party leaders? Imagine that. And her "uneasiness" has been "betrayed" by her comment? He takes a completely straightforward statement by a feminist saying she won't stand for people controlling her reproduction or judging her for the choices she makes, and he claims that somehow this "betrays" feelings of guilt and uneasiness about abortion on her part?
Keep digging, little Green men. Keep digging.
Fri, 2006-12-15 05:40
#25
writer
[url=http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=5545cfbe-648... May on abortion[/url] Colby Cosh, National Post
Edited to add: Thanks Catchfire, Unionist, BCG!
Edited to update link
[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: writer ]
Fri, 2006-12-15 07:43
#26
remind
quote:
Originally posted by ForestGreen:
[b]However I have a question... You often bring up the issue of how men should not speak on behalf of women. .[/b]
I often do that, do I? Just where do I often do that, except perhaps in the feminist forum? My taking exception to Mr Fletcher's comments were that he was speaking, not just for women, but for all Canadians! Ass that he is that he thinks he can make a statement for all Canadians, and not even just women!
quote:
[b]Do you think the same applies for speaking about the disabled, about aboriginals, about immigrants, or about minorities?[/b]
Yes!
quote:
[b] What about when these issues come up in politics? [/b]
My reproductive rights, and right to self determination should not even becoming up in the political realm these days, it was settled long ago!
quote:
[b]Isn't that what politicians do, try to speak on behalf of Canadians?.[/b]
Perhaps some, but as we all know they are for the most part pretty much there for themselves, except perhaps the NDP.
quote:
[b] I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything here. I am trying to get a sense of where you draw your boundaries of what is appropriate and legitimate discussion..[/b]
Forestgreen, I think we have all been pretty clear on where we draw the boundaries, our self determination rights are NOT up for discussion at all. None of it is appropriate or legitimate!
quote:
[b] There seems to be a number of unspoken rules that I and others are unaware of until we have crossed them.[/b]
No, there have been NO unspoken rules only someone completely mired in their own self opinion would think so.
quote:
[b]Also, keep in mind that I and others are more open than you may assume to concerns you raise..[/b]
I don't believe this for a minute, or you would not be carrying on still about what is legitimate or appropriate when discussing my, and other women's, rights to self determine.
quote:
[b] What I find more difficult is the tone in which they are delivered, .[/b]
That's nice, we have the same problem then, as I can't abid your condensative nature/tone.
quote:
[b]which often obscures the message you most want to convey. .[/b]
It seems to only obscure them for you and other men in the Green Party. Stop trying to blame me for your lack of understanding. Typical just typical!
quote:
[b]I try to relate to all segments of society, and the various types of human beings, to understand how they think, and to find some common ground if possible..[/b]
No, I don't think you do at all, you give token words and then proceed to do the opposite, and then completely ignore what has been said! Moreover, I think you are trying to imply that we feminists are NOT trying to understand, or find common ground, as there is a subtle accusation in your words, that says; "I am trying, but you are not". Your wrong, it's quite the opposite, it is you who is not trying and it is you who thinks there is common ground in regards to woman's self determination. There isn't. My body, my rights to it solely!
quote:
[b] I know it's been a challenge at times on this board.[/b]
Thats because men, like you, insist you should be defining the tone, parameters and boundaries of how we conduct ourselves and what we say!
[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]
Fri, 2006-12-15 07:54
#27
remind
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
[b]Elizabeth May on abortion[/URL] Colby Cosh, National Post DigitalEdited to add: Thanks Catchfire, Unionist, BCG!
[/b]
writer, I can't find it, and have to register anyway, what was the gist of it?
Yes, and my thanks to catchfire, Unionist and BCG, sometimes one needs affirmation in the face of dogged determination to not hear!
Fri, 2006-12-15 08:33
#28
writer
quote:
writer, I can't find it, and have to register anyway, what was the gist of it?
I found it confusing, too, and actually didn't know it was a full columns, which I suspect is in today's paper.
See if you can get it [url=http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=5545cfbe-648a-42d0-8c52-4....
I'll also PM you with it.
Fri, 2006-12-15 08:40
#29
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[b]Originally posted by ForestGreen:
However I have a question... You often bring up the issue of how men should not speak on behalf of women. .I often do that do I? Just where do I often do that, except perhaps in the feminist forum? My taking exception to Mr Fletcher's comments were that he was speaking, not just for women, but for all Canadians! Ass that he is that he thinks he can make a statement for all Canadians, and not even just women!
[/b]
I'm not accusing you of anything here... just stating a fact that it has been mentioned many times. If not by you than other members. I wasn't referring to the specific comment about Mr. Fletcher.
quote:
[b]
quote [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] o you think the same applies for speaking about the disabled, about aboriginals, about immigrants, or about minorities?.Yes!
[/b]
Thank you... I hadn't heard that articulated from anyone.
quote:
[b]
quote: What about when these issues come up in politics? .My reproductive rights, and right to self determination should not even becoming up in the political realm these days, it was settled long ago!
[/b]
I wasn't referring to abortion in particular here. But no, I don't want to see what was settled come up for debate either.
quote:
[b]
quote: Isn't that what politicians do, try to speak on behalf of Canadians?.Perhaps some, but as we all know they are for the most part pretty much there for themselves, except perhaps the NDP.
[/b]
Well, I'm not going to get into any partisan debate here. There's something about politics that makes it more like sports sometimes, where people cheer on their team, and are less interested in issues. And don't take this as a reference about you. I'm talking about Canadians in general.
quote:
[b] quote: I'm not trying to be sarcastic or anything here. I am trying to get a sense of where you draw your boundaries of what is appropriate and legitimate discussion..Forestgreen, I think we have all been pretty damn clear on where we draw the boundaries, our self determination rights are NOT up for discussion at all. None of it is appropriate or legitimate!
[/b]
I have no interest in discussing your reproductive rights. My interest is in what kind of things men [i] can [/i] say on here. Keep in mind that some of us haven't spent much time around feminists. I wasn't clear all along on just what your beliefs were.
quote:
[b]
quote: There seems to be a number of unspoken rules that I and others are unaware of until we have crossed them..No, there have been NO unspoken rules only someone completely mired in their own self opinion would think so.
[/b]
Why are you so eager to use insults, anyway? I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm trying to find if something is reasonable. I don't know why you take it as trying to impose my opinion.
quote:
[b]
quote:Also, keep in mind that I and others are more open than you may assume to concerns you raise..I don't believe this for a minute, or you would not be carrying on still about what is legitimate or appropriate whenn discussing my, and other women's rights to self determine.
[/b]
Am I really still discussing your right to self determine? Show me where.
One member did a good job of articulating her (I presume) position on the green forum. I appreciated that. Michelle also presented an interesting analogy. The fact that the tone here has been less than respectful has not been lost on anyone. I'm more likely to hear you when you keep the personal attacks and generalizations to a minimum.
quote:
[b]That's nice we have the same problem then, as I can't abid your condensative nature/tone....
It seems to only obscure them for you and other men in the Green Party. Stop trying to blame me for your lack of understanding. Typical just ftypical!...
I don't think you do at alll, you give token words and then proceed to do the opposite, and then completely ignore what has been said!...
That's because men, like you, insist you should be defining the tone, parameters and boundaries of how we conduct ourselves and what we say!
[/b]
Condensative? I'm going to have to look that word up. I find the rest hard to respond to so I won't. It's not exactly inviting for a reply.
[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]
[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]
Fri, 2006-12-15 08:46
#30
remind
quote:
Originally posted by writer:
[b]I found it confusing, too, and actually didn't know it was a full columns, which I suspect is in today's paper. [/b]
Thanks writer, it is a confusing aerticle for the most part. This was interesting though, and a very good analogy.
quote:
what politician is ever judged solely by what they say they intend to do about abortion? Stephen Harper has issued disavowals almost exactly like Ms. May's, and has made explicit promises to abide by the status quo. But women's groups have remained stubbornly unassuaged, and some voters still fear the consequences for reproductive freedom of a Conservative victory. Yet the Prime Minister has never questioned the sanity of those who think abortion is sometimes the right thing to do, nor has he accused abortion patients of being "frivolous." If he ever did, effigies would be blazing across the land the next day. Does Ms. May deserve a break just because she is a pixieish little relic of the Cold War left?
Fri, 2006-12-15 08:53
#31
You know what ForestGreen, many guys on babble have no problem contributing to this forum.
Fri, 2006-12-15 09:04
#32
remind
quote:
Originally posted by ForestGreen:
[b]I'm not accusing you of anything here... just stating a fact that it has been mentioned many times. If not by you than other members.][/b]
Backtracking? you specifically said me.
quote:
[b]I wasn't referring to abortion in particular here. But no, I don't want to see what was settled come up for debate either. [/b]
Apparently you do as you are, and what else would we be speaking of except abortions, or are you just trying to deflect away from May's words, start another thread if you're speaking of something else.
quote:
[b]I have no interest in discussing your reproductive rights. My interest is in what kind of things men can say on here.][/b]
Yes, you do, or you would not be in this thread, nor asking what kinds of things men can say!
quote:
[b] Keep in mind that some of us haven't spent much time around feminists. I wasn't clear all along of just what your beliefs were.][/b]
Why do I have to keep that in mind, it is not my fault you have not been interested in progressive thinking. And I have been pretty clear on my beliefs i think! But please after this stop making this about me, and deflecting away from May's words and actions, its not fooling me!
quote:
[b]Why are you so eager to use insults, anyway?][/b]
Why are you so eager to use passive aggressive control techniques and to deflect the thread topic away from May?
quote:
[b]I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm trying to find if something is reasonable.[/b]
What are you trying to find out if it is reasonable or not, and why?
quote:
[b] I don't know why you take it as trying to impose my opinion. ][/b]
Because you are! In almost every word you have written. In particular, your words below are a good example.
quote:
[b]One member did a good job of articulating her (I presume) position on the green forum. I appreciated that. Michelle also presented an interesting analogy. The fact that the tone here has been less than respectful has not been lost on anyone. I'm more likely to hear you when you keep the personal attacks and generalizations to a minimum.][/b]
Why does our "tone" have to be respectful? Some people sure as hell are not being respectful of our rights and care not they intrude into the feminist forum demanding that we be a certain way and to discuss off topic positions. And again you Green guys are good at the passive aggressive threats of the mysterious "others" and their opinions.
quote:
[b] I find the rest hard to respond to so I won't. It's not exactly inviting for a reply.[/b]
Neither have been any of you posting, but I managed to anyway, no matter how distasteful, but please note, I will not be in the future engaging in any of your off topic dialogue and you questioning of ME!
Again good try to deflect away from May, but I insist that you stop, both it and personal remarks to me, or I will ask Michelle to step in.
Fri, 2006-12-15 09:10
#33
ForestGreen, give it a rest. We've explained ad nauseum that this forum is not for men to tell us how to conduct ourselves as feminists and that includes you. Stop derailing feminist forum threads with whining about how your voice is so marginalized and oppressed here.
Thanks.
Fri, 2006-12-15 09:11
#34
^ Good, then. We'll consider it finished. We can agree on that.
[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: ForestGreen ]
Fri, 2006-12-15 09:38
#35
writer
Comment from [url=http://politicsblog.ctv.ca/blog/_archives/2006/12/11/2566201.html]David Akin's blog[/url]:
quote:
May's comments are puzzling to me. I have worked in the sexual health field in Canada for ten years. I don't understand why Elizabeth May, in her role as leader of a political party, would want to discuss the "moral issue" of abortion and enter into a "dialogue".I know how difficult it is for women in Canada to obtain abortions. Only 17.8% of Canadian hospitals even provide abortions. If a political party which calls itself "pro-choice" (which the Green Party apparently does in its policy on abortion) were to have a dialogue about abortion, I would think it would be about the following questions: How can we improve access to abortion in Canada? How can we pressure the current federal govenment to make New Brunswick obey the Canada Health Act and pay for abortions performed in clinics like other provinces do? How can we start getting abortions provided somewhere on Prince Edward Island? How can we shorten the time women must wait to have an abortion and the distance they must travel to find a provider in so many regions of Canada?
To me, these are the issues regarding abortion in Canada that a "pro-choice party" should be discussing and encouraging public discussion about, not talking about when Augustine thought fetuses received souls. (He believed it was at forty days after concepton for boys and eighty days for girls, by the way).
Fri, 2006-12-15 10:03
#36
Scott Piatkowski
quote:
To me, these are the issues regarding abortion in Canada that a "pro-choice party" should be discussing and encouraging public discussion about, not talking about when Augustine thought fetuses received souls. (He believed it was at forty days after concepton for boys and eighty days for girls, by the way).
First, I thought it was actually Thomas Aquinas (rather than Augustine) that May was using as her moral compass. But, more to the point, the profound sexism of the double standard for "ensouled fetuses" seems like a strange thing for May to referencing in explaining her 21st century views on the rights of women, n'est-ce pas?
Fri, 2006-12-15 10:08
#37
writer
She referenced both. And yes, I do agree.
Fri, 2006-12-15 10:18
#38
And where, exactly, is the outrage on the lost sperm! Do they not contribute to 'baby making'?
[img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2006-12-15 10:48
#39
i think it has become pretty clear that the posters defending May, who may or may not be Green Party members, have totally missed the catagory these threads are in and were moved to and why. Hint, all of you, this is the feminism forum.
just as it would be assumed in a politics forum titled "Green Party forum" or "NDP forum" that the discussion would ensue from a pro-Green or pro-NDP position and we would not have to discuss platforms, philosphy or origins, as that would be, once again, assumed as a common starting point or context.
i stated in a previous thread that i was happy this had been moved to the feminist forum, as i was interested in seeing May's words discussed/debated in a non-political-partisan forum, where Green/NDP sniping or partisanship would not cloud the issue. I am wholeheartedly a declared NDP paritsan. I am also a man. This makes me inherently biased on a number of issues and i recognise that. Apparently some are having difficulty with self-identifying in these threads.
Moving this discussion into the feminist forum to me is a good one, as i would like to see May's words and opinions discussed by other women from a pro/anti choice perspective, not a Green/NDP/Liberal/Conservative/Rhinocerous Party perspective, as it is ultimately women who are the ones who will/are affected by those opinions. That is what the political forums are for. If you want to discuss partisan tactics and motives, great, lets start a thread on how the NDP is using Elizbeth May's own comments on abortion access as some sort of smear campaign or to score partisan political points. But the feminist forum is not the place as far as i know. just one guy's opinion and some friendly advice for the other guys who haven't clued in.
edited to add: and in case it also isn't clear, and in reference to the thread title seeming partisan in itself, regardless of the dissembling anyone of any affiliation wants to engage in, the leader of a party is exactly that. they were elected to represent that party and it's platform to the electorate, in parliament, and in the media. No amount of doubletalk can change this, nothing in your party platform will persuade the public otherwise. The leader speaks for the party, period. If they say something in public that is contrary to party policy, they should rightly be debated, questioned thoughroughly, and subject to censure by their own party if it is inconsistant with thier platform or message. We can see this regularly with my party leader, and if May wants to be taken seriously as a party leader, she will be subjected to the same scrutiny and debate, and will welcome it, not try to dismiss it as a smear by another party. After all, it is her own words we are discussing, no one else's.
[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: farnival ]
Fri, 2006-12-15 11:17
#40
writer
Point of clarification: this thread is a continuation of a previous thread (which is why it has the II in it). The previous thread, which I started, began with the Green Party's August resolution on abortion.
The original thread examined how the the leader's personal views are in fact [i]mirrored[/i] in the garbled and dangerous official stance of "Canada's pro-choice party".
Fri, 2006-12-15 12:10
#41
ah yes, thank you writer, it appears i left out the part of what i meant to say, namely:
...If they say something in public that is contrary to party policy, they should rightly be debated, questioned thoughroughly, and subject to censure by their own party if it is inconsistant with thier platform or message. We can see this regularly with my party leader, and if May, who in this case seems to be [b]confirming[/b] party policy, wants to be taken seriously...
thanks for drawing attention to my unintended ommision, as it does change the context somewhat considerably! [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
edited for seeming technical glitch!
[ 15 December 2006: Message edited by: farnival ]
Fri, 2006-12-15 21:15
#42
laine lowe
I've been following the various threads on May's so-called position on pro-choice and I have to give you kudos for calling her on her bullshit in such an intelligent and factual manner. I thought I was alone in reading her words as derogatory to any woman who values her right to her body including reproductive control. I am definitely opposed to the Green Partly platform on this issue as it stands. Any policy that seeks to reduce the number of abortions performed in this country is definitely anti-choice. As other have said, the only abortion related issue that remains to be discussed is universal access which is something that has yet to be achieved. All other issues that question a woman's right to CHOOSE are off the table and anti-choice.
Fri, 2006-12-15 21:39
#43
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]And where, exactly, is the outrage on the lost sperm! Do they not contribute to 'baby making'?[img]frown.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
Not any more... [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img] [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img] [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
Fri, 2006-12-15 23:36
#44
Well, I've emailed this around to everyone I know (thanks to writer), and with only one exception, someone who knows May personally, everyone, myself included, has been quite horrified by it.
There is no middle ground on choice.
Thanks also for all the eloquent responses here and elsewhere.
Sat, 2006-12-16 03:48
#45
remind
quote:
Originally posted by rasmus raven:
[b]Well, I've emailed this around to everyone I know (thanks to writer), and with only one exception, someone who knows May personally, everyone, myself included, has been quite horrified by it.There is no middle ground on choice.
Thanks also for all the eloquent responses here and elsewhere.[/b]
Thank you Rasmus, for your words, and for affirming what I , and others, have found when speaking with people about it. Without fail all were quite horrified by May's words and the ensuing abuse we have received here, because of our immovable stance, by her regressive faithful.
And yes, there is NO middleground.
Sat, 2006-12-16 08:05
#46
Regarding the story linked to above from Friday in the National Post on this... (See[url=http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=5545cf... canada.com [/url])
...From the end of the article:
quote:
The argument that criminalizing abortion creates danger to women from amateur, underground abortionists, after all, is a strange one coming from a Christian. Perhaps, though, it is more important to ask why this logic is regarded as decisive only when it comes to reproductive freedom.The full-scale "butchery" Ms. May envisions women being subjected to would not come back even if abortion were outlawed tomorrow. The number of reported abortion-related deaths in the entire United States for 1972, the year before Roe vs. Wade, was 39. By contrast, the number of drug users who die of overdoses because they cannot buy a pure, consistent product from a reputable dealer is vastly greater -- probably close to a thousand every year in Canada alone. Their position is completely analogous to that of the women who died of hemorrhage or infection from inept abortions in the past. No religion considers their sin any worse, and no respectable ethical philosophy discounts their right to life. So why does our War on Drugs grow ever more intense 20 years after our surrender in the War on Abortion?
I don't know if I understand what the author was trying to say with the war on drugs. I found it to be a strange comparison. As someone who spent 10 years of my youth in active addiction, and with just over 6 years clean & sober, I have to say that comparing the two is like comparing apples and Jupiter. I think I'm missing something.
[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: Cameron W ]
Sat, 2006-12-16 08:36
#47
Catchfire
From the article, emphasis mine:
quote:
Ms. May's policy position, as far as it goes, is the one that the broad Canadian middle supports, and I regard it as the right one. But what politician is ever judged solely by what they say they intend to do about abortion? Stephen Harper has issued disavowals almost exactly like Ms. May's, and has made explicit promises to abide by the status quo. But women's groups have remained stubbornly unassuaged, and some voters still fear the consequences for reproductive freedom of a Conservative victory. [b]Yet the Prime Minister has never questioned the sanity of those who think abortion is sometimes the right thing to do, nor has he accused abortion patients of being "frivolous." If he ever did, effigies would be blazing across the land the next day.[/b] Does Ms. May deserve a break just because she is a pixieish little relic of the Cold War left?
Well, it is the NP, so we'll have to just roll our eyes at quotes like "Women's groups have remained stubbornly unassuaged," but as scary as Harper's views on abortion are, he would never say what May said. Whether this is just more experienced politicking or greater respect for women is questionable, but it should paint in massive, broad strokes why May's comments are so abhorrent. [i]Even Harper recognizes that he could never make these comments.[/i]
I also question the curious drug use analogy. I don't even really understand it. Is this article really just an argument for more safe-use clinics in Vancouver? An advocation for drug legalization? Or is it truly the far scarier argument that "it wouldn't be so bad for women if we went back to criminalizing abortions. Only 39 chicks would die, after all." If this sort of rhetoric doesn't demonstrate that we have to fight [i]any[/i] threat on the universal access to abortion rights tooth and nail, well, I don't know what does.
(And we "surrendered the War on Abortion"? WTF?)
Sat, 2006-12-16 10:04
#48
remind
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]...we'll have to just roll our eyes at quotes like "Women's groups have remained stubbornly unassuaged," but as scary as Harper's views on abortion are, he would never say what May said. Whether this is just more experienced politicking or greater respect for women is questionable, but it should paint in massive, broad strokes why May's comments are so abhorrent. [i]Even Harper recognizes that he could never make these comments.[/i][/b]
Yes, I read that article yesterday,or the day before somewhere, which in part lead to my little educational treatise on Condescending Parternalistic Chastisement, may it come from a woman, or a man, comments like those Elizabeth mayd are abusive and abhorrant. That Harper recognizes this type of commentary is unacceptable only means that his, and others like him, defamation of women, who are self-determining, is more covert and incideous.
quote:
[b]I also question the curious drug use analogy. I don't even really understand it. Is this article really just an argument for more safe-use clinics in Vancouver? An advocation for drug legalization?[/b]
I did as well, but had never thought of it as advocating anything other than what you suggsted with:
quote:
[b] Or is it truly the far scarier argument that "it wouldn't be so bad for women if we went back to criminalizing abortions. Only 39 chicks would die, after all." [/b]or it meant that "afterall we have not given up the war on drugs so why give up the war on abortions?" What brought this to my mind was his statement about "right to life" of a drug addict. I had thought perhaps he was likening a drug addict to a fetus who is aborted in the by alluding that somehow, they "both" have no choice in what happens, and there was a war against both.
But now after multiple readings perhaps he was advocating the legalization of drugs. Either way the juxposition that pro-choice=drug addiction is questionable though.
[QUOTE][b] If this sort of rhetoric doesn't demonstrate that we have to fight [i]any[/i] threat on the universal access to abortion rights tooth and nail, well, I don't know what does.(And we "surrendered the War on Abortion"? WTF?)[/b]
I know, just where some people get their ideas from I have no idea. Not only has there never been a "war against abortion" there has never been a "war on drugs" in Canada either. This type of continued mixing us up with the USA almost pisses me off as much as the abortion rhetoric of May et als.
On a further note, regarding comments uttered this week like: "the mushy middle" or "the majority of Canadians" support May's commentary, "as that is the way the largest portion" feels, I came across an article out of Austrailia yesterday. This article contained data on current sociological studies that shows quite the opposite, across the world. And it said in fact, that the study also shows that 53% of self identifying Christians believe in unfettered access to abortions.
Will try to have a look for it today again and link it.
quote:
Sociologist Katharine Betts has tracked opinion polls between the mid-1970s and 1990s, which show support for unqualified access to abortion has risen from 30 to 50 per cent.A survey of social attitudes last year found that 53 per cent of evangelical Christians - defined as Baptists, Lutherans and Pentecostals - agreed with the statement "a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she has an abortion".
[url=http://tinyurl.com/yxquml]http://tinyurl.com/yxquml[/url]
Edited to add link, and change the % amounts. Of note, I used the word Christian, when the article uses Evangelical Chrisitian, as I do not feel Lutherans are evangelical, nor are all Baptist Churches.
[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]
Sat, 2006-12-16 10:25
#49
writer
This being the feminism forum, I'm compelled to say that I linked to the NP column yesterday.
Rasmus Raven, thanks for the post.
Sat, 2006-12-16 11:21
#50
remind
This morning I have been reading May's campaign trail blog and came across this curious comment of hers:
quote:
The real motive seemed to be a grudge against every minority group[b] (although women are not much of a minority!)that benefited from those programs. [/b]
She was discussing the program cuts by the CPC which included the Status of Women offices. Now that's quite the comment geared to chastize Harper for acting on a grudge, eh?! [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Nor is it really supportive of the need for more actions to ensure women's prgression towards true equality. Personally, I take it as a slam against women's programs, and in essence says there is no need for them, because we are not "much of a minority".
What is even more mind boggling she does nothing more than mention the grudge against minorities, she does not say it is unacceptable and in fact she trivializes harper's petty grudges with her comment about women not being much of a minority.
At the end of that inane diatribe, there is an even more curious commentary:
quote:
In other anti-gay/lesbian/women's rights news, Environment minister Rona Ambrose just chose Darrel Ried of "Focus on the Family" as her new chief of staff.
And she just leaves it at that, a flip meaningless comment. No calling them to account, or making an actual statement against it. The only thing she goes on to say is:
quote:
This is a short blog (like normal people apparently write) to urge you to go to the GP Squared document on this webiste, read it and talk it up. We need Canadians to really understand the threat if the Harper-Ambrose Green Plan pretends to deal with smog and ignores the climate crisis.
Which has nothing to do with the grudges, bigotry and program cuts that she had just been talking about. It seems even, that she does not want her supporters talking of them, as she quite clearly tells them what to talk about.
[url=http://www.greenparty.ca/page269.html[/qb]]http://www.greenparty.ca/page...
[ 16 December 2006: Message edited by: remind ]
Sat, 2006-12-16 14:07
#51
ElizaQ
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
[QB]This morning I have been reading May's campaign trail blog and came across this curious comment of hers:Which has nothing to do with the grudges, bigotry and program cuts that she had just been talking about. It seems even, that she does not want her supporters talking of them, as she quite clearly tells them what to talk about.
I'm thinking that you can read that quote "not much of minority" differently. At least I did. Though it's really and awkward way of saying that woman aren't really a minority demographically thus for Harper ton have a 'grudge' against them is even worse.
I don't think she necessarily meant it in the way you are reading it. I don't want to get into an heated arguement though just that it's not clear one way or another.