Emervents recently commented on my previous post, in which she remarked that she had received much hate mail, which I presume to be from anti-choice wing-nuts. I've also noticed on the Tell the "Truth" blog that Ron has a habit of specifically writing posts that directly, by name, refer to comments Emervents has made on his blog.
I find this very interesting. I too am a regular commenter for the pro-choice position on that blog, and though I have had some comments in reply to mine, never has Ron seen fit to take me to task. And even though I, like Emervents, have my name linked to my Blogger profile, from where one may visit this blog, I've heard nothing: no comments from them on this blog, no email in my inbox. Well, there was one comment on his blog that made clear a reader of Ron's blog had visited me here, in which she confused humanoid for hominoid.
But anyway, the point I note is that Emervents and I seem to be being treated differently. The question thus arises, Why? Am I simply misunderstanding the response? Are my comments not worthy of responding to? Are my comments so dazzling that they are unable to respond? Am I reading to much in to this, seeing an illusion, a phantasm of my own creation? Or is it that Emervents is a woman, whereas I am a man?
I think the answer may lie in that last question. It is an aspect of the ideology of the anti-choice brigade to seek to control women, specifically the reproductive choices women are able to make, but also more generally. They view women as inherently weak, in need of special protection and care. They patronise, and so demean, women. A strong, articulate woman who develops and holds to her own beliefs contrary to their own is a woman to be feared. She is a virago and a witch, to be burnt upon the stake. They seek to harangue and shame women into compliance, and to point her out as the danger that an independent woman is. They would deny women the agency to act of their own accord. A woman is to be seen only as mother, and any action contrary to that by a woman is a horror and an abomination; such a woman is a monster to be destroyed.
Not so a man. A man possesses his own agency, and by it may take a foolish and false opinion. If he is to be confronted he is to be educated, not attacked. A man is his own. He is strong, and resilient. He will, indeed he ought, to fight back, so do not attack him. Far easier to go after a woman.
One more thing to note. In his most recent address to Emervents, Ron reprimands her for using anecdote. Apparently, "She told me so" (as Ron words it) is not an acceptable means of contributing to discussion. The irony of such a charge is grand, for the anti-choice brigade display no hesitancy in providing anecdote as evidence of the evil of abortion. Time and again, they will take any story that supports their position of the evil and harm of abortion, stories that are but anecdote.
Indeed, they are cowards and hypocrites as well as liars.