I admit, I shut off after this point: First of all, I think that everyone should have the right to choose whomever they want to visit them in the hospital and to make decisions for them. Sadly, it’s often women’s spouses who get them in the hospital in the first place. I want to choose who visits me in the hospital, who makes my medical decisions, and who receives my Social Security benefits. Maybe I want my nephews to receive my benefits, not my partner. It should really be up to me. To me, that shows such an utter infamiliarity with how the medical system works, or how we interact on a social/cultural level with said system, that I have a hard time even bothering to spend my time considering the rest of what they say. If they're this naive, blind, or just uneducated about that aspect of what they are discussing, then what are they that naive, blind, or just uneducated about, on issues that I don't know enough about to see it?
For example, the bit about how black kids are more likely than white kids to be removed from homes by CPS. Certainly, that's what the statistics may show, but suggesting CPS is targeting black families for the sake of targeting black families is, at best, disingenuous. Tacking on that they're doing so as a result of some nefarious government scheme to disenfranchise black people as a whole is over the line and into "ridiculous" territory.
"CPS disproportionately targets black families as a result of a variety of socioeconomic, cultural and historical factors which result in enduring poverty and hardship for those black families, in turn causing them to be more likely to fail to meet CPS standards as a result of economic need." would be a fair statement. "CPS hates black families" is just specious.
The whole site reads to me like someone who's taken a glancing look at something they have deemed Bad, and decided how it should be fixed without understanding why it's a problem in the first place. Problematic situations are rarely what the surface impression indicates - as your example neatly illustrates. And I won't even go into all of the problems with their ideas about how medicine should work.
Do you really believe there's no factor other than those you listed going on with the disproportionate targeting of families of color? I'm thinking of cases like the woman whose baby was snatched by CPS because they assumed that a woman who was not fluent in English would naturally be unable to care for her infant.
Oh, how lovely. A ridiculously long and sanctimonious list of ways to make a simpering asshole out of yourself. Just what we need!
(I don't disagree with a privilege-based view of sexism and the solutions that implies, but seriously? "Go to feminist events and disrupt them for missing the point, just on a whim"? "Never apologize to a woman for anything, ever, especially not the one you're in a relationship with"? Guh?)
Then there's "when women and men disagree about anything to do with feminism, ever, the man should always admit defeat, or else he is not listening, and is therefore not feminist".
Which, of course, directly contradicts "guilt-trip women of your acquaintance out of doing anything non-feminist".
Comments 10
First of all, I think that everyone should have the right to choose whomever they want to visit them in the hospital and to make decisions for them. Sadly, it’s often women’s spouses who get them in the hospital in the first place. I want to choose who visits me in the hospital, who makes my medical decisions, and who receives my Social Security benefits. Maybe I want my nephews to receive my benefits, not my partner. It should really be up to me.
To me, that shows such an utter infamiliarity with how the medical system works, or how we interact on a social/cultural level with said system, that I have a hard time even bothering to spend my time considering the rest of what they say. If they're this naive, blind, or just uneducated about that aspect of what they are discussing, then what are they that naive, blind, or just uneducated about, on issues that I don't know enough about to see it?
Reply
For example, the bit about how black kids are more likely than white kids to be removed from homes by CPS. Certainly, that's what the statistics may show, but suggesting CPS is targeting black families for the sake of targeting black families is, at best, disingenuous. Tacking on that they're doing so as a result of some nefarious government scheme to disenfranchise black people as a whole is over the line and into "ridiculous" territory.
"CPS disproportionately targets black families as a result of a variety of socioeconomic, cultural and historical factors which result in enduring poverty and hardship for those black families, in turn causing them to be more likely to fail to meet CPS standards as a result of economic need." would be a fair statement. "CPS hates black families" is just specious.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I suppose my reason for thinking their points were good was that again, they were in favor of ensuring medical benefits,etc. besides gay marriage.
Reply
(I don't disagree with a privilege-based view of sexism and the solutions that implies, but seriously? "Go to feminist events and disrupt them for missing the point, just on a whim"? "Never apologize to a woman for anything, ever, especially not the one you're in a relationship with"? Guh?)
Reply
Which, of course, directly contradicts "guilt-trip women of your acquaintance out of doing anything non-feminist".
Reply
Leave a comment