I've been thinking about this post ever since watching Emma Watson address the UN. She was right. You can't engage with anti-feminists' broken ideas. Many are too stubborn even to allow this, and simply shut you down with asinine slogans or religious rhetoric without even bothering to change their beliefs. The only way you can educate them is to tell them to just stop being willfully ignorant. They know what they're doing. They know why they're wrong. They're just too childish to stop unless you specifically call them out on it. Just ******* stop it. Grow the **** up and stop believing stupid ******* things like "feminists bash men" or "feminists are sexist" and accept that feminism and women's rights are here to stay whether you like it or not.
I realized that the same can be said of anti-choicers, who are generally part of the same crowd. They know they're in the wrong. They know exactly how stupid and dictatorial they sound to demand that a woman become a mother. They know how evil it is to forbid her to abort her pregnancy even if she's raped or it's going to kill her. They know they're basically just tightening the chains of patriarchy around the neck of every woman in this country for their own ******* beliefs. They're imposing their beliefs. That's all it's about. And when you try to argue with them about it they try to make it about the fetus rather than the actual human being breaking down in tears in front of them because they told her they want to make her carry and raise her rapist's fetus. They call her a murderer for ending the pregnancy inflicted on her.
You just can't argue with that level of stubborn ignorance either. You can't ignore it. You can't treat it as an okay belief. You can't just believe that most of the population support murder and think you can get away with that - that it's a-okay. The only way to educate them is the same as the way Emma Watson discovered to educate anti-feminists: call out their invalid opinions for what they are. Remind them that their fake beliefs simply aren't tolerated in twenty first century, educated, secular humanist Western society. They have no control over any woman or her body. They can't use or control her. They have no right to even hold another opinion.
Dear TSJohnson
The only way I've gotten people who TRULY BELIEVE that abortion is not a choice
to BACK OFF from this idea of mandating that by law
is to AGREE they have the right to their beliefs, but by the Constitution that defends their beliefs,
these must be proven and not based on faith, or it's unlawful to impose that by law through govt.
It cannot be proven that the soul or "will of that person" enters the body at birth.
It could happen BEFORE birth, AFTER birth, etc.
Some women claim they PREVENTED the soul of the child from entering the body
so when they terminated the body it was a miscarriage but didn't kill the soul that never entered.
This is all spiritual, cannot be proven to someone except by faith,
so the law has no business dictating what someone has to believe or do by their spiritual process
UNLESS WE ALL AGREE.
We AGREE that murder is wrong. So we AGREE to have laws against that.
I also point out that if society doesn't go after the MEN who made half the decision
to have sex that led to the pregnancy, then the law targets WOMEN unfairly.
Laws regulating abortion "after the fact" are ALWAYS going to be discriminatory
because they affect WOMEN more than MEN who are either equally responsible
if not MORE responsible for the pregnancy in cases of rape, coercion or other relationship abuse or fraud.
So that's not where to regulate the problem.
The place to focus where partners can be equal is before conception.
So that is before the law and govt can step in and intervene.
Prevention must be through education and free choice
because at the level men and women are equally responsible,
that is a personal and/or spiritual level and cannot be regulated by govt.
Conservatives understand this if you explain in terms of the Constitution,
but only if you ACKNOWLEDGE they have full right to their beliefs
not to be abridged, denied or discriminated against either! Then you
can equally argue that prochoice beliefs are equally protected by the same laws.
You cannot make this argument with the same integrity
if you are too busy imposing or denying the opposition beliefs.
How DO you expect them to respect yours if you don't follow the same law.
Guiliani and Hutchison were two Republicans I can name who
explained prochoice defenses to fellow conservatives using Constitutional
language and respect for limited govt and not empowering govt to intrude into personal beliefs and matters.
When it is explained properly, using their own beliefs, yes,
even the most adamant prolife advocates will respect those beliefs insofar as you respect theirs.
But they are not going to put your beliefs above their own and let the law favor yours over them.
It must be equal to be in the spirit of Constitutional law and equal protection of interests
without discrimination on the basis of creed, ie putting personal belief or party agenda of one over the other by law.
If you come at it with the approach of equal inclusion you can establish equal respect.
If you come at it already rejecting and denying the religiously held beliefs
of someone they cannot even change, of course you are going to incite equal and opposite rejection.
They cannot help being prolife any more than you or I can help being prochoice.
These are our inherent personal, spiritual or political beliefs
and we have equal right to exercise and defend them.
So we need to start crafting laws to protect our beliefs equally
and quit this business of bullying over the next person by creed or religion.
That is unconstitutional, and we've been doing it for years
because that's how it's always been done. Always bullied by
larger force or numbers to outshout the other person, exclude and coerce them.
And then we wonder why we have this 'rape' and 'bullying' culture going on.
Because that's what we teach by example. But it's not Constitutional to
abuse govt to bully and exclude by religious or political beliefs.
When we change how we approach each other, we don't change our views
or the other person's beliefs per se, but we change how we work together
and focus on solutions and laws that don't put one over the other but
include, protect, represent and respect them EQUALLY. That is what it
means to govern by consent of the governed and enforce equal justice and protections by law.
We need to live up to our own standards.
If we are prochoice we need to respect the choices of others and not force ours by law.
If we are prolife and have sacred beliefs we need to respect the beliefs of others and not force ours by law.
We can be respected equally, and it starts by respecting each other as equal
people with equal beliefs, especially where we do not agree and cannot help or change our views.
Neither can the other side help or change what they believe. We need to respect that, and ask them to reciprocate.
That is the only approach I have ever found that worked.
And I credit the prolife movement for proving that prochoice can still wipe out abortion.
All the members in their entire movement have done everything they can to prevent abortion,
and it's all by choice. They did not have the law to tell them it was illegal. They didn't need it.
They CHOOSE every day to do what they know is right to prevent abortion.
So it can be wiped out by free choice, just like they do without it being illegal.
They are proof it can work. So we should be THANKING them that they
are taking responsibility for having a free choice. We should be working together
to prevent anything that leads to abortion, in order to earn and deserve that free choice
by working as hard as the prolife advocates on prevention on all levels.
We should be allies not enemies, and we can get more done with the same resources
instead of wasting them fighting each other, by investing directly into solutions we agree on.
Thank you!
