Thursday, March 15, 2012

East Cleveland Writ Small

When we talk about paying for Sandra Fluke's contraceptives and abortifacients, we're missing the bigger picture. She does not have sex. They have sex. We are being asked to pay for a couple's sex life, not hers.

Who is the fellow? (Are there several?) Why does he allow his girlfriend to be ridiculed like she was? Why doesn't he stand up for her? Why can't he pitch in for half the cost of the contraceptives? Does he have a job? Is he shopping for a ring?

She puts out, has to find the money to pay for her health care, will have to pay for, raise, house, educate, discipline and otherwise care for a baby if it comes and he is expected to ... party?

Welcome to East Cleveland.


tim eisele said...

KT, I'd suggest that you read the transcript of what Sandra Fluke actually said. Given all the things that have been said about her, the thing that struck me when reading the transcript is that she never once said anything about *her* sex life, or *her* contraceptive expenses. She also was very careful only to talk about married women, and about women who needed the Pill for medical reasons other than contraception. For all we know from that transcript, she could just as easily be completely celibate and merely talking about *other* women.

I have to wonder whether the reaction to her would have been any different if *exactly the same testimony* had instead been presented by a male doctor talking about his patients. Which it could have been, since it barely referred back to the speaker at all.

K T Cat said...

Sandra's testimony can be as precise as you like, specifying just this type of woman or that, but in practice it's something quite different and we all know it. That's why the clarion call is for "Women's Health" and not "Married Women's Health".

When Sandra lawyers up and picks and chooses her words, she is protecting herself only. That is the essence of the movement. It's good for the rich as it allows them license to do what they want. For the poor, the results have been undeniably disastrous.

Women are female mammals, designed by evolution to want children. When the contraceptives fail and they end up pregnant, a good many of them find themselves unable to abort and without a committed man to help them out, they and their children are screwed, big time. The rich ones can make do. The poor ones end up living in hellholes.

tim eisele said...

KT, my point is that if you are going to argue with somebody, you should address what they actually said, without indulging in unsupported, speculative, gratuitous character assassination - it just wastes your time and annoys the people you are trying to convince.

Just think about all the people who try to dismiss the positions of the Catholic church by doing character assassination of the Pope. Does that make you any more likely to change your mind? Or does it convince you that the person doing the character assassination is really just an idiot who doesn't have a real argument?

If an argument is wrong, then it doesn't matter if it is said by a man, woman, child, centenarian, talking dog, or the latest Honda android. Same if an argument is right.

K T Cat said...

The problem is, I don't believe her words. If she was only addressing married women, then she's got a lot of 'splainin to do because there's tons of evidence that shows they take care of themselves in this area quite nicely. She's not that ignorant of the statistics and in her appearances elsewhere she's not being so careful. It's also not the way the message is being carried out in the media.

By the way, here's Sandra's PR firm. I haven't seen them rushing about making sure we all understand that her remarks only referred to married women.

tim eisele said...

"Here's Sandra's PR firm"

Yes, so? In what way does the PR firm affect whether her arguments are any good? When I follow that link, it essentially says "Somebody we don't like supports her, so she must be wrong!" It doesn't address anything substantive at all.

Her testimony was supposed to be the best argument that the people you are opposing could put forward. If you can show how the arguments that she puts forth are wrong, then you will be convincing. If you can't, then you won't be. Calling people names, or impugning their motives, or claiming a conspiracy, will just solidify the resolve of the people who oppose you. It's as simple as that.

K T Cat said...

Here's her editorial. She argues the general case with no qualifications. She wants you to pay for her sex life. It's as simple as that. Here's what she says about men:

They are husbands, partners, boyfriends and male friends who know that without access to contraception, the women they care about can face unfair obstacles to participating in public life.

The limit of what she expects from her men is that they politically support her as she lobbies to get you to pay for her contraceptives so she can have sex with one of these guys. His responsibilities end there. When that's all you expect of men, you aren't going to get much. That's the East Cleveland problem.