apologies made to all but the right person
sophiewi at uoguelph.ca
Mon Feb 12 10:36:07 EST 1996
ED MCNALLY (cruyff at ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: 2. My words were discounted simply because I am a man. Reverse
: discrimination against men by some will not help resolve any
: oppression leveled against women.
Ed's words were "discounted" (I like this image: like "70% off!") because
he was a man, offering another way to deal with pregnancy. If the rest
of you don't mind -- I'd like to persue this.
Do we have to value all opinions/insight at the same ("100%") level? Or
are some sources more value-able than others? I would have thought the
pro-choice movement would argue exactly that: a woman's opinion of her
own abilities to cope with a baby, and her own insight into the whole
abortion/life question, are more valid than anyone else's. More valid
than a doctor's, and more valid than a politician's, and more valid than
any other man or woman who is not in her shoes. That's why
she should get to choose, and politicians and doctors and other people
(even though she's
outnumbered by them on a straight everyone-is-equal basis) don't get to
choose for her. Anyone whose own experience resembles hers may perhaps
have some insight (i.e. women - since their experience resembles hers
more closely than men's?) -- but hers is the ultimate viewpoint.
No, I'm not keen on starting an abortion flame war, either. But I find
this a very difficult and worthwhile issue to consider. Whose opinions
count? Whose can be discounted? Is discounting ever valid?
More information about the Womenbio