The War on Womeningitis

November 15, 2012 § 33 Comments

Unfortunately my writing often strikes folks as rather opaque, which no doubt arises from my own personal limitations as a thinker and a writer. My recent post on the relationship between women’s suffrage and abortion is a case in point, so let me approach the subject from a different angle.

The modern abortion regime is – objectively, even just as a matter of sheer numbers – one of the worst holocausts perpetrated on the innocent in human history. The Nazis have nothing on us in terms of raw body count, and unlike them we’ve managed to arrange things in a way that we can keep our holocaust going indefinitely, hiding it from view under the rock of material prosperity. This is obviously a symptom of a horrible disease in our society.

Two of the main symptoms of meningitis are a stiff neck and a fever. We can find out if the patient has these symptoms by asking him, poking him, and taking his temperature.

It is an obvious fact of human society that personal views and actions are not always coherent. Tobacco vendors, in the days before the link between tobacco use and cancer was understood, no doubt were personally opposed to cancer. But their actions nevertheless enabled the spread of cancer as a matter of fact. So asking a group of people what they personally support and oppose is not an accurate way to determine what they are and are not in fact materially enabling. Looking at a specific individual cell in a man’s body may or may not tell us whether he has meningitis; but taking his temperature and checking for a stiff neck will give us a very good indication.

I propose that taking a group’s temperature on the matter of women’s suffrage, and determining how stiff-necked they are about it, is a good diagnostic test for the social disease that causes the abortion holocaust. A scale of group attitudes something like the following would apply:

High Fever

The very notion of denying women the vote is deeply offensive and misogynistic, you Taliban! You are probably going to Hell and should not call yourself Catholic!

Moderate Fever

Denying women the vote may not be intrinsically immoral, but even talking about this in public is off the table, you crazy loon! Progress has happened and there is no turning back!

Mild Fever

We really don’t see any strong connection between women’s suffrage/feminism and abortion. The enshrinement of freedom and equal rights as the most authoritative political principles in our society – that is, political liberalism – doesn’t have any necessary connection to abortion[1]. [Note: the sign here is failure to see and acknowledge a strong organic connection. Sometimes this is accompanied by an insistence that a strong organic connection requires logical necessity, which in fact it does not. My smart commenters helped me flesh out the difference between a strong organic connection and a logically necessary connection: see the comments. A strong organic connection is not a logically necessary connection. ]

No Fever

I’d give up women’s suffrage in a heartbeat if it would cause us to reverse course on abortion. It is ridiculous to even compare the gravity of an optional structural feature of government to the gravity of the slaughter of millions of innocent children. This of course does not excuse treating women as chattel or ignoring their needs and interests.

A group with a moderate to high fever is – regardless of what their personal views on abortion may be – a material enabler of the abortion holocaust. Groups with a mild fever may think they are helping, but you don’t win a war by being lukewarm and these folks have been losing this war for decades.

[1] Note that this contention appeals to logical necessity where it is inapt, because it isn’t a question of logical necessity. It is not logically necessary for an acorn to grow into an oak tree.

§ 33 Responses to The War on Womeningitis

  • johnmcg says:

    I will just point out that assuming your conclusions, and then assigning your adversaries with some pathology based on that assumption, is not a terribly convincing argument.

  • johnmcg says:

    Indeed, one could categorize it in the “High Fever” category above, if one were inclined to do so.

  • Zippy says:

    It is true that I haven’t – at least yet – shown the nuts and bolts of how the group attitudes I’ve described enable the abortion holocaust in specific. As always though, even if I don’t get around to doing so folks can observe reality and see for themselves if those connections exist. And as always one of the prerequisites for objectively evaluating something is (pretty much by definition) to not take it personally.

  • james R says:

    It’s stupid to think there’s any connection between women’s equality (which is what you were criticizing) and abortion. Rome had abortion, and inequality for women. Your sole attempt at drawing any sort of connection between equality and abortion was googling equality and abortion and seeing how many results there were. Just because pro-choice activists ostensibly believe in women’s equality doesn’t mean anything, just like that misogynists are ostensibly Catholics doesn’t mean that Catholicism is misogynistic.

    If your argument made any sense at all, you might not be a misogynist. But you haven’t made any sort of good faith attempt to draw any sort of relationship between political equality for women and abortion. Unless googling and counting is a way to make an argument.

    If you don’t want people to call you misogynist, maybe you could draw some necessary, sufficient, or even probabilistic connection between equality for women and abortion, and between disenfranchisement and not having abortion. You’re just making a lazy argument, that relies on just asserting that suffrage leads to equality which leads to abortion.

  • Zippy says:

    James R:
    I’ve never much cared what people call me, but your concerns are noted.

  • Proph says:

    I understand his argument as saying that attitudes re: “women’s rights” are a pretty solid predictor of attitudes re: abortion in the modern age, such that, if you are morally horrified by the idea of women being denied suffrage (as opposed to thinking it’s merely a prudentially bad idea, or something about which reasonable people can disagree on in good faith), you’re probably pro-abortion.

    That’s probably not universally true, but as ZC seems to be making a correlational rather than a causal statement, I don’t see that objection as even, like, a little bit fatal. That r does not equal 1 doesn’t mean r equals 0. There’s an infinite range of values between 0 and 1, after all.

  • Robert King says:

    The main problem with the “No Fever” category is the “if it would cause us to reverse course on abortion.” That’s one big honkin’ if.

    Perhaps you have an argument for a causal relationship between women’s suffrage and abortion; but you have below admitted that there is nothing inherently wrong with women’s suffrage, merely that it supported a cultural and historical movement which led to legalizing abortion.

    Moreover, even if there were a causal relationship between women’s suffrage and legalizing abortion, removing women’s suffrage might not in fact have a causal relationship to reversing course on abortion. Again, you admit that restricting the franchise to women might be more effective than restricting it to men.

    (Indeed, a fun thought experiment might be: only women can vote in elections, but only men can be elected; I wonder how that might play out?)

    So my question is, why this proposal? Why now? It doesn’t seem practical; it seems obvious that it will raise ire; so I am presuming that you are deliberately stirring up controversy. But I don’t see the larger point you are trying to make with your stirring.

    Is it merely that government by popular suffrage can lead to moral evil?

  • Zippy says:

    Proph:
    … if you are morally horrified by the idea of women being denied suffrage (as opposed to thinking it’s merely a prudentially bad idea, or something about which reasonable people can disagree on in good faith), you’re probably pro-abortion.

    That’s great as far as it goes, and I’m gratified that I’m not the only person who understands what I am saying. It isn’t just or even mainly about correlation between attitude and belief in individuals though. It is about correlation between a group’s social attitudes and the likelihood of that group – as a group, not as individuals – materially supporting (or failing to adequately oppose, depending on the group’s “temperature”) the abortion holocaust.

    Robert:
    My purpose is the same as it always is: to explore myself – and encourage in the very small number of people who care what I think enough to take the questions seriously, if not necessarily my answers – what the right way is to think about various subjects.

  • jamie says:

    Right – agree with above: what I thought was a rather friendly intervention in a pleasant discussion has now been described as a moral disease. This is not the way to carry on an adult conversation, Zippy.

    Zippy, as a doctorate in history who has spent his entire career studying the historical course of societies, I find the argument that you are making to be entirely illogical. It rests upon the syllogism below:

    a) A society which does X will inevitably do Z
    b) our society did X and then Z
    c) a society which does not do X will be less likely to do Z
    d) if we dislike and wish to stop Z we should dislike and wish to stop X

    (a) The first premise you have not even attempted to prove. The connection between X and Z is loose, at best – both rest upon a misconception of the nature of justice. One might as well say that a society which does not punish criminals adequately enough will eventually have legal abortion. Sure, there’s a connection, but it hardly rises to the level of inevitability. You have denied ever suggesting a logical connection, but then you proceed to use an organic metaphor: the acorn and an oak tree. An acorn may not logically become an oak tree, but there is a substantial identity between the two, such that, if left to itself without external disruption, the one will become the other. An acorn can never become anything else than an oak tree: the only other option is for it to remain an acorn, or die. Are you suggesting that a society with universal suffrage can never be anything else (given time) than an abortion society? This kind of deterministic, materialistic view of history went out with Marx, Zippy. Societies, being made up of free human persons, don’t work that way.

    (c) Premise c also does not hold logically. There may be other routes to Z other than X, some more likely than X; it is possible that suppressing X may make Z more likely than X would make it.

    (d) I suppose that premise (d) does follow from the other premises, but there’s equivocation here. If X is meant ‘the understanding that universal suffrage is a basic human right’, then it is an error, and all error shoudl be disliked and opposed. But if X is made ‘the understanding that universal suffrage, even if not a basic human right, is still conducive to the common good in this particular society at this particular time’, I see no reason why one should be morally bound to oppose it. A capitalistic economy and an indirect democracy are not basic human rights, but, if citizens feel that they assist the common good, there is no reason to oppose them. I think the whole thread here is suffering from this equivocation, although it may be your commenters and not yourself to blame. Your original post was entitled ‘why universal suffrage means abortion’, implying that the mere extension of suffrage to women had a connection with abortion. Your argument, however, is more careful, suggesting that only the belief that women had an inherent right to suffrage had a connection with abortion.

    Zippy, I was with you on the NFP thing a couple years back, I’ve been with you on the torture thing, and I’ve been with you on the voting thing. That was because I thought you were logically careful. I don’t think you’re being logically careful here, and a careful reformulation of the argument would be helpful, and would avoid the completely needless offense that your postings have caused here.

  • buckyinky says:

    Thought-provoking post, and Proph’s comment helped me understand it better.

    I suggest that there may still be a touch of fever in your “No fever” category, the symptom being the thought pattern that sees the need to add the phrase “This of course does not excuse treating women as chattel or ignoring their needs and interests.” Such thinking doesn’t necessarily conclude that abortion is acceptable, and might even go along with an abhorrence of abortion, but still keeps a little toe in the door of the evil by the slight suggestion that women have it particularly bad among humanity, perhaps deserving of special reparations and advantages to even things out.

    Otherwise, why the need even to apologize for what could happen? Sure, women can be and have been mistreated in these ways, but particularly so? And what does this have to do with abortion anyways? It opens up the door, perhaps only slightly, to the idea that access to abortion has some recourse to justice, that there is something intrinsic to women that they should be particularly mistreated among humanity, and in need of a perpetual redressing of wrongs against them.

  • Zippy says:

    Jamie:
    It rests upon the syllogism below:

    No it doesn’t.

    You have denied ever suggesting a logical connection, but then you proceed to use an organic metaphor: the acorn and an oak tree. An acorn may not logically become an oak tree, but there is a substantial identity between the two, such that, if left to itself without external disruption, the one will become the other. An acorn can never become anything else than an oak tree: the only other option is for it to remain an acorn, or die.

    It seems to me that your understanding of organic connection is different from mine. Or perhaps it is just that your interpretation as applied to the present question doesn’t locate “lack of female suffrage is considered to be a fundamental violation of justice” and “asserts a right to abortion” where I locate them in the organism. I’ve already said that there isn’t a necessary logical entailment, so the fact that you still interpret it as a necessary logical entailment means I haven’t gotten my point across.

    Suppose we consider the height of an oak tree. Suppose I say that the acorn leads to a tree taller than 15 feet. It is in that sense that I propose that viewing female disenfranchisement as a fundamental violation of justice (the acorn, or perhaps some part of the genetics of the acorn) leads to a society which asserts a right to abortion (a tree taller than 15 feet).

  • jamie says:

    You’re still making abortion the symptom and universal suffrage the disease, or at least part of the disease. There is a direct causal connection between a disease and a symptom, and between the genetics of an acorn and the size of the tree. Whereas there is a mere correlative connection between the size of the tree and, say, its productivity – meaning that the two are related but not necessarily causally: the size may or may not cause the greater productivity: it is equally plausible that both size and productivity are caused by some third factor, e.g. the genetics of the acorn. If you had merely suggested a correlative relation between universal suffrage and abortion, I would not have responded. But you insist on a causal one, and causal connections are the hardest of all connections to prove. If there is a causal connection, in the tree example, then reducing the size of the tree will necessarily reduce its productivity. But if the relationship is correlative, trimming the tree might have no result on its productivity at all. I would prefer to see deeper, philosophical concepts of modernity (such as the relation between freedom and the good, between the individual and society) as the cause of both universal suffrage and abortion, which is rather easy to demonstrate, than to suppose a causal connection between them, which is nearly impossible to demonstrate. If I have misunderstood you, and you are merely making an observation regarding their correlative connection, forgive me. That’s rather obvious. But if it is correlative, then the best way to stop both is to strike at the cause: treating symptoms is often (though not always) a waste of time.

  • Zippy says:

    Jamie:
    You’re still making abortion the symptom and universal suffrage the disease, or at least part of the disease.

    Not quite. Both certain attitudes about female suffrage (not female suffrage per se) and assertion of abortion rights are symptoms.

    But if it is correlative, then the best way to stop both is to strike at the cause: treating symptoms is often (though not always) a waste of time.

    Oh, I certainly agree with that. However, coming up with useful diagnostics is not a completely empty exercise; and it isn’t as if I haven’t spent lots of energy over the years discussing the disease. If you can’t get the ill to even concede the nature of the illness it is difficult to take any further steps.

    As I mentioned somewhere in these threads, I’m not proposing remedies or courses of action here: I am proposing ways of coming to grips with the factual situation.

  • jamie says:

    If you are agreeing that the relation between the two is correlative, which no philosopher would call a ‘strong, necessary’ connection, then perhaps you should stop diagnosing as morally sick those who do not see a ‘strong, necessary’ connection between them, as you do in your post. If being willing to chuck universal suffrage as a means of ending abortion is a sign of no fever, then consider me feverless. But you seem to think that this conviction requires me to see a ‘strong, necessary’ connection between the two, which I do not. The ‘Mild Fever’ category is epistemic (i.e., is determined by intellectual convictions) and the ‘No Fever’ category is voluntary (i.e., is determined by one’s willingness to take this or that course of action). That’s a mix of categories and is unhelpful.

    And as for proposing remedies or courses of action, you may not be doing so explicitly, but you are proposing that morally healthy people are people, by definition, who are willing to take a particular, specific course of political action. This is not to remain at the level of the purely theoretical, and you can forgive people for (wrongly) concluding that you are, in fact, proposing a certain remedy.

  • Zippy says:

    Jamie:
    If you are agreeing that the relation between the two is correlative …

    It isn’t merely correlative; it is organic. A fever does not merely correlate to a stiff neck does not merely correlate to meningitis. We are zooming in on the kind of connection I’ve proposed, but we aren’t quite there yet.

    then perhaps you should stop diagnosing as morally sick those who do not see a ‘strong, necessary’ connection between them, as you do in your post.

    My focus here is on groups not individuals. All the discussions we’ve had on voting, Arrow’s theorem, game theory, etc show that emergent properties of groups are not the same as individual attitudes, choices, or intentions.

    Some individuals in a group may be simply reluctant to admit to politically incorrect beliefs publicly. Others may not have thought about the particular question at all, but simply respond as part of the group consensus. All sorts of models are possible. But this is not intended to present a diagnosis of individual morality or rationality or whatever. That’s why Proph’s paraphrase wasn’t quite right.

    But you seem to think that this conviction requires me to see a ‘strong, necessary’ connection between the two, which I do not.

    It is a fair point that the “mild fever” category may need some work, though I’m not sure it is all epistemology and no attitude and I’m not sure that matters. Perhaps it is a different kind of symptom, or perhaps I’ve overstated it. I’ll make a note of it if I rework that part.

  • johnmcg says:

    It seems to me that this is the flip side of this type of argument. Because the abortion rate declined in Massachusetts along with the establishment of government-guaranteed health care, then it is therefore the truly “pro-life” policy. Those who continue to oppose Obamacare in the face of these statistics have demonstrated either an unwillingness to confront reality or that they are not truly pro-life, and not really interested in saving unborn lives. How many babies are they willing to sacrifice on the altar of limited government?

    One may claim that the relationship between this skewed view of equality and abortion is stronger than the relationship between health care and abortion, but I suspect those who would make these types of arguments would claim that failing to guarantee health care reveals a lack of commitment to aiding the most vulnerable in our society, which also manifests itself as failure to protect the unborn on a large scale and to support women with unwanted pregnancies in the small scale.

    Others could play this game with any other issue or societal trend they want to attack. That it can be done with women’s suffrage is not all that illuminating.

  • Zippy says:

    John:
    I’m not really getting much from your most recent comment other than that correlation by itself doesn’t prove much. That’s true.

  • jamie says:

    “A fever does not merely correlate to a stiff neck does not merely correlate to meningitis.” I’m not really sure what meningitis is, but if I understand it as the disease that causes a fever and a stiff neck, then it is strictly true that fevers and stiff necks are correlative. Fevers do not cause stiff necks. Stiff necks do not cause fevers. Meningitis and fevers, and meningitis and stiff necks, are strictly causal relationships. A misunderstanding of suffrage and a misunderstanding of the rights of the unborn are both caused by a misunderstanding of the nature of justice. If you want to fix the understanding of the rights of the unborn, you to go the misunderstanding of the nature of justice, which is its cause.

  • Zippy says:

    Jamie:
    If you want to fix the understanding of the rights of the unborn, you to go the misunderstanding of the nature of justice, which is its cause.

    I’m seriously trying to figure out how that addresses, contravenes, redirects, or adds to anything I’ve said.

    I’ve already argued in many places over many years that the (or a) underlying pathology of modernity is political liberalism, which I’ve also described in many places over many years. I’ve already argued in many places over many years that in order to address the problems of modernity (like abortion), people have to come to an understanding that liberalism’s conception of justice is false, to understand how and why it is false, etc.

    That in no way invalidates the discussion I am having right now, about the organic connection between liberalism, attitudes about womens’ suffrage, and abortion rights.

    It is as if when dealing with an organic relation (meningitis-fever-stiff neck) you would advise doctors, when making a diagnosis (I’m not actually recommending a treatment plan here), that they should pay attention only to the underlying pathological organism and pay no attention whatsoever to stiff necks and fevers or their lack, as if symptoms were utterly distinct from disease and related to disease in no important way other than as abstract correlations.

    It makes no sense. That isn’t a practical way – it isn’t a true way – of understanding or dealing with the (real, organic) world.

  • Zippy says:

    It isn’t true, by the way, that in all disease and all social problems there is a one-way cause and effect chain with no feedback. The real world doesn’t work that way. The stock market moves because of the anticipations of traders; traders alter their anticipations based on how the stock market moves.

    The concept of an “underlying cause” is similarly entangled here. Liberalism leads people to think of universal suffrage as a basic matter of justice. Universal suffrage as practice reinforces liberalism and causes people to develop stronger liberal commitments. Liberal attitudes developed and reinforced under universal suffrage lead people to think of abortion as a “special” area where women are discriminated against legally. (Similarly marriage and homosexuals, etc). Legal abortion over a period of decades makes the idea of restricted suffrage unspeakable and unthinkable. Pervasive liberalism throughout all of these social institutions gives rise to a politically correct regime in which illiberal speech is ruthlessly suppressed and punished (see Akin, Todd).

    In short: lex orandi, lex credendi.

  • Proph says:

    ZC, your medical analogy re: symptoms and underlying conditions is doubly apt when you consider that, often times, the symptoms are capable of killing you. Think of fevers that cook your brain to death, swelling that cuts off airways, etc.

  • johnmcg says:

    I suppose my point is that these type of comparisons strike me as a bit of a Rorsarch test — more revealing of the observer’s priorities than about what is observed.

    Yes, you are dwelling on the facts, the truth. But you are choosing what parts of the truth you focus on. Minion chooses to focus on the abortion rate in Massachusetts. You focus on society’s attitude toward women’s suffrage. Another may focus on women in the workplace. Someone else may focus on the growing gap between the rich and poor. Others on pervasive mass media.

    These, along with our society’s legal and practical embrace of abortion are all symptoms. What these arguments assert is that they are symptoms of the same disease. In a Catholic website, where abhorrence at abortion is assumed, then the argument transfers that abhorrence to the symptom, and declares that those who refuse to do so aren’t serious about abortion.

    So, which ones are right? All of them and none of them, in my opinion.

    But we are all correct that the patient is sick, and needs to get better.

  • Zippy says:

    FWIW John, and I know you know this, in my view classical liberalism is just an earlier stage of the same disease. Present day “conservatives” look at an (somewhat) earlier era and see that (in many respects) things were better, and want to get back to that era because things were better (in those respects). I agree with Jamie (inter alia) that just resetting the attitudinal clock to 1900 or so won’t cure the disease.

    But again, I’m really not even attempting to suggest that a cure is even possible, let alone what one might look like. I’m just trying to objectively assess and describe where we actually are.

  • Kristen inDallas says:

    It seems to me there is a logical position between your description of no fever and moderate fever, or rather slightly off the linear of your scale altogether. That revoking women’s suffrage would/could actually have a negative impact on the pro-life cause, as it involves us ceding some ground in the idea of ALL people being created equal. Back when non-whites and women weren’t considered full people (maybe 3/5 a person if they were lucky), an unborn child’s only hope of being seen as a full person with rights were conditional on that child being male and white. As far as I’m concerned the closer we get to acknowledging the rights of all people (even if it’s one disenfranchised group at a time) the closer we get to a real pro-life movement. That’s not feverish, that’s just a different opinion about what you are suggesting *working.* You’ve left no place for a person to say, “well sure IF giving up my right to vote would save babies I’d do it, but the IF is ridiculously unsound, so I won’t.” And reduced everyone who might disagree with your logic as being at least a little “feverish.” Not very charitable, my friend. I reject the premise, and I reject your thermometer. But IF I bought an ounce of it (which I don’t) I’d hand in my voter registration card tomorrow.

    The nice thing about having suffrage, is that we get counted even when we decide no politician is worth voting for. To be honest, even though Obama had a slightly better pull with women than he did with me, it was still slight. He could have been reelected by men (assuming you’re still allowing minority men to vote). And imagine all the clamoring that would have been done by the pro-abortion crowd about how much support he “would have had” from females. I like the fact that even after all that pandering, the numbers still show that a large majority of women either voted for someone else or didn’t bother to vote at all.

  • johnmcg says:

    I think zippy’s level of fevers was meant to describe cultures rather than individuals, though I must admit I made the same mistake, since it paraphrases positions from the other thread.

  • johnmcg says:

    kristen does raise an interesting point.

    If the franchise were restricted to some subset that did not include women, it seems there would be enormous pressure on the voting men to account for “women’s interests” in their voting. An example of how this might play out was the “Where are the women?” discussion after the HHS mandate, and subsequent martyrdom of Sandra Fluke.

    Of course, this counterfactual assumes that this change would be made without other changes to the culture, when I think the point is that universal suffrage is one symptom of a deeper cultural movement that would need to be uprooted. Assuming that the same societal pressures would remain in place probably isn’t valid.

  • Zippy says:

    Kristen in Dallas:
    In addition to what John said, I’ll reiterate that my purpose here is diagnostic not prescriptive. I make no recommendations as to how the patient can be treated. I’m frankly not sure that it is possible to cure the patient.

    You and I aren’t going to agree about politics based on equal rights, I’m afraid, because I think the concept is fundamentally incoherent. (Either that or it reduces to a token which means simply “justice” to the person using it; I’ve argued that while that usage does refer to a genuine moral truth it is an unstable usage which will take on the actively incoherent meaning over time). A recent post of mine on equality is here.

  • tz says:

    The problem is not so much that Women can vote, it is that everyone and anyone can vote. The 17th Amendment should be repealed first, then Senators would not be elected. The greek philosophers realized “democracy’ was just above tyranny. It is merely where everyone is a tyrant. Originally only property owners were enfranchised. Democracies fail when people learn they can vote themselves largess from the public trough.

    I would rather the system not give ANY voter the power to “redefine” in the civil sphere my God given rights. The danger was that the small breeches of the principles of checks and balances, election and appointment, rule of law v.s. rule of man were breached long ago, and the initial effects were mostly good. It was more efficient. But like all such evil acorns, they turn into a poison oak.

    voxday.blogspot.com also has decried woman’s suffrage, and his wife is in total agreement. And it is likely a bad thing. And Chesterton had yet another view (like when things like the death penalty is considered, holy women now must be part of the dirty deed).

    But I don’t think given the low quality of today’s men, that removing the women from the voting population would change things. It might make some things worse.

    Women have a critical purpose in society – to civilize the men. Demand men behave. Play damsel to the chivalrous. Instead they have become the greater barbarians.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    Women’s suffrage will be struck down one way or another, but probably not any time soon. I will be sorry to miss it. Women have almost zero business ruling…even by the ballot.

    I can’t believe, among a crowd of Catholics who don’t believe women should be priests, that the (conservative unto uncouthness) Anglican has to be the one to say that.

    @tz

    Women have a critical purpose in society – to civilize the men. Demand men behave. Play damsel to the chivalrous.

    Are you serious? I would ask what you mean by civilize, but you cleared it up straightaway with “demand men behave”. I’m gobsmacked that any serious Christian man would say that online. Sure, you say it at church or parties, but this is the Internet. You can speak the truth here.

    Men are civilized by doing the work of demanding women behave, tz. You have it backwards.

  • Kurt says:

    How about any society that holds a women’s will and desire as a fundamental aspect of equality and freedom will end up supporting abortion.

  • R says:

    Zippy: men are pro-abortion too, would you restrict THEM from voting?

  • Zippy says:

    The feminist pro-abortion ones, sure. (Feminism is intrinsically, materially pro abortion – even though some feminists may formally oppose abortion).

  • Zippy says:

    (It may be worth noting, for anyone who isn’t “from around here”, that I am against liberal democracy in general).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading The War on Womeningitis at Zippy Catholic.

meta