Let's not talk about sex, baby, let's not talk about you or me...

[archanglrobriel]

First of all, sorry I haven't been around more on LJ, but NaNoWriMo is eating my head. You'd think for someone like myself (who tends to fall more on the garrulous side of the spectrum) writing a mere 1,667 words per day would be no big deal...but no matter how you slice it, there's a time commitment involved. And then there's the fact that writing

Comments

[thewronghands]

Wow, he's completely hot in that picture. Pity about my gender. [grin] But good for him! I hope his career thrives.

I'm with you on the politics of outing. Hypocrisy just sucks... it reminds me of an article that I read about how some abortion protestors would go have abortions, and then cover it up and be back out there protesting the next day. Same sort of bizarro-world social pressure to conform driving inconsistent choices that hurt people just like them.

[d2leddy]

That's because abortion and choice are not fundmantally about abortion and choice. In a representative democracy, the only way to gather power is to represent the interests of others. It's best when those others cannot speak, do not speak, or cannot be heard becaue of political weakness.

Regardless of what the anti-abortion and pro-choice activists say, they are respresnting, in a power grab, the interests of those who cannot speak: we do not know what an embryo nor a fetus wants. We cannot. It does not speak. The unborn make a perfect vessel, then, for "support".

Pro-choice rhetoric is not much better. Activists have repeatedly claimed (though not recently I don't think) that they represent those women who cannot speak because they are "oppressed and silenced by their husbands".

Same sort of bizarro-world social pressure to conform I'm not surprised that they appear hypocritical. I propose that the real subject is gathering power through representation: the subject matter is secondary, a means to that end. In that light, the

[centerfire]

Regardless of what the anti-abortion and pro-choice activists say, they are respresnting, in a power grab, the interests of those who cannot speak: we do not know what an embryo nor a fetus wants.

I think this is wrong. To be sure, both pro-choice and anti-abortion activists make the proxy argument -- i.e., "we are speaking on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves" -- but at bottom I think both sides are trying to represent not so much people as principle: on the one hand, the principle that a fetus is a human life that deserves legal protections and ought not be arbitrarily extinguished; on the other, the principle that a woman should be free to control her reproductive functions, up to and including terminating a pregnancy. I think it demeans both sides of the argument to suggest that they're about a power-grab.

[d2leddy]

I think it demeans both sides of the argument to suggest that they're about a power-grab.

I intend to demean them because I think they are self-deceptively disingenuous, and I object to that.

I mean, honestly, do you really believe that when a modern human being does something publicly on principle, with stated intensions that immediately appear for the common good, that is actually what's happening? Maybe I'm another cynic, or maybe I'm a realist. But cynics have been claiming realism to a clich' extreme, anyway.

I propose that as soon as you see the proxy argument -- i.e., "we are speaking on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves" the ostensible subject-matter is a means to an end, the end of grabbing power in a representative democracy. This is how we Liberals shot ourselves in the foot: by representing the interests of those who cannot speak or do not speak or cannot be heard for lack of political power--animals, African-Americans, Native Americans, and more. Especially when they did not (whether because

[archanglrobriel]

Oh good, I'm so glad you liked it. It took long enough to get there though. Sheesh! They must've been all out of -fast- donkeys out of New Mexico.

Hmmm.. I have your address and I know you like weirdo random post cards. You're so in for it now. ;)

[southernpm]

I'm glad you said it. Now I don't have to and I can go back to living in my little happily gay surreal bay area experience. ;)

[archanglrobriel]

Of all the things I miss the most about the Bay area, living happily in the rainbow iridescent joy-joy gay surreality bubble is right up there.

[whitr]

I fucking love you Rob.

That's all there is to it.

I love you.

Can I yoink your ranty letter and post it in my journal with the appropriate props?

Cuz you're way gooder with the words. I just wanna hit things.

[archanglrobriel]

Awww, thank you. That means a lot coming from you. And yes, feel free to yoink me anytime.

Er...I mean, repost at will. *snicker*

[tau]

Thom and I were talking about this, this morning. You'd think that seeing all these gay christian republicans in their midst, they would realize that its a far more human condition than they allow for.

Instead, though, they are further demonizing it as the "repulsive sin" that is taking their leaders away from the fold.

Its amazing how short sighted the whole thing is. I just want Anthropology 101 to be required learning in all high schools - with special emphasis on learning what ethnocentrism means. Argh!

[archanglrobriel]

Wouldn't it be so much better a world if Anthropology 101 were manditory? Actually, I tend to think that you and Thom have really put your fingers on the exact center of this whole "culture war" nonsense:

Ignorance vs. Education.

I'm pretty sure that this whole thing could be resolved with a good, strong does of education for the Uptighty Righties. If we truly valued education in this country, we could rectify this situation in one generation. But no, by all means, lets do keep shorting education and dogging intelligent people and releasing the peasants with the torches and pitchforks to go after "them things whut we doesn't unnerstand.."