There's an article in the New York Times today about the rise of the pro-life women, and lamenting the fact that the traditional reluctance of such women to enter politics allows the left to portray pro-choisism as being critical to feminism. There are, actually, a lot of more minor logical errors in the piece that I would mention were I to debate its author, Ramesh Ponnuru, but I won't bother with them here. The main premise is that because women are just as likely to be pro-life as men are, in other words about 50% odds, pro-lifeness must be at least a plausibly feminist position. To illustrate why this logic does not hold (not necessarily showing per se that he's wrong substantively in this case, though I think he is), I saw a stat in Harper's Index recently that suggested that two-thirds of Egyptian women, women, were in favor of allowing wife-beating under certain circumstances. Would anyone like to defend the claim that wife-beating is a feminist policy? Keep in mind that feminism is "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." I don't think that getting women beaten up counts as feminist. I don't think that allowing men to beat women up counts as feminist. And the fact that a supermajority of Egyptian women are in favor of it doesn't change that. The point is, I guess, that policies are policies, and wikiality doesn't really work. If 90% of Americans believed that exploding a nuclear bomb in the middle of Manhattan on a busy weekday would kill no one, they would be wrong.
This has something to do, I think, with my response to a little throw-away line from Maureen Dowd's column about Obama's relationship with the press. She comments that he, like most/all Democrats, expects the press to be on his side. I don't think that's because the press has a liberal bias, or because Democrats expect the press to have a liberal bias. It's because Democrats expect the press to have a bias in favor of the facts, in favor of reality, and Democrats also tend to believe that reality and the facts are on their side, in a way that I don't think Republicans really do as much. It wasn't a Democratic President whose aide said the thing about the reality-based community. I think this is a similar thing, about wanting issues to be evaluated on their merits and not on the basis of what the two parties have to say about them (or something like that).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment