Thanks for clarifying what the article was about. I was basing my words on the one I wrote a few years ago, based on the one I found about how Trump single guys were having a hard time finding dates.
I think you're right about liberal women - Haidt notes that young liberal teens & women have the highest rate of mental illness, and it *doe…
Thanks for clarifying what the article was about. I was basing my words on the one I wrote a few years ago, based on the one I found about how Trump single guys were having a hard time finding dates.
I think you're right about liberal women - Haidt notes that young liberal teens & women have the highest rate of mental illness, and it *doesn't* seem to be related to political issues (although I wonder about that - it contributed to *my* depression back in the day, wondering if Reagan would destroy Roe or start a nuclear war, the latter of which I worried about *a lot* and had nightmares about.
It sounds like the young American women you're talking about are catastrophizing about Roe, in somewhat the wrong way. It likely won't put as many women's lives in physical danger as they're making out, but it WILL ruin their lives if these pregnancies are not planned, their baby daddy (if he's even a partner) isn't up for the task of daddyhood/husband (she may rightfully not want him to be), she could be ostracized within her family or a nutty religious group, etc. And some *will* die. But more may die from illegal abortions, just like 'the good old days' conservatives fantasize so much about.
I'm really hoping this results in men getting laid less. Nothing will change the law quite like women snapping their legs closed.
> "It sounds like the young American women you're talking about are catastrophizing about Roe"
To be a bit more precise, the young women are catastrophizing about **pregnancy and childbirth**, as a result of the political tool of "exaggerate your victimhood as the source of getting power" used to foster opposition to the ending of Roe v Wade. Talk in graphic details about a dozen possible negative outcomes of (any!) pregnancy. Exaggerating or hyperfocusing on the (real) risks of pregnancy & childbirth (and associating them with being oppressed and a victim) is unlikely to fully dissipate later when considering whether to voluntarily have kids, as an unintended side effect of this victimhood-centric organizing tactic.
As for your last sentence, Nicole, do you really think - in today's society as we best understand the dynamics thereof - that women as a whole can improve the situation by using the withholding of sex as a weapon? What changes in men do you think such women would expect before granting sex?
First off, I think it creates all sorts of psychological problems - for both partners - to use sex as a political weapon. At the minimum, it reinforces the concept of sex as a tool for manipulation rather than as a mutually desirable and mutually rewarding activity.
You seem to hope that most of the men will cave, and do whatever the women want in order to have access. I'm not at all sure of that; wouldn't coercion of that general sort generate some negative reaction on your part of you were the recipient (whether the reward was sex, attention, money, whatever)? At the least it would depend on what the women required before opening their legs (see below). But if the men don't mostly cave, I don't think a society is likely to benefit from having a lot of men who feel frustrated, manipulated, and angry with women and with society. That's not a good breeding ground for positive engagement with society, but rather the opposite.
Note that the situation is that there are about two single liberal women for every single liberal man. Who is going to have the stronger hand in that market?
But what would "women snapping their legs closed" demand before opening them, if that tactic DID work? The masses are not going to share your or my understandings of the world. Would you expect liberal women to convert conservative men to (pretend?) wokeness as a pre-condition to granting sex, due the shortage mentioned above?
And if it did work, would this coercive power be used only for grand political schemes, and not for personal things (like extracting money, marriage, etc)? If men as a whole are willing to do what it takes to get women to open their legs, what will be demanded next? And what happens when this tactic stops working?
But maybe you were not serious, and just wanted to imagine an easy Lisistrata victory over the bad forces in our society. If almost all women had your values, insight, and intelligence that might be a good thing (with the above concerns), but I think you are not the norm, and that power would not be used in the ways you would hope.
I said it tongue in cheek. Of course it's not a real response, and I wrote a sarcastic article last year called NO MORE BLOWJOBS!!! making up humourous responses to the loss of Roe. Although I think it's possible some women might be less inclined to have intercourse because of this. Part of the reason why I waited as long as I did to lose my virginity was fear of pregnancy. Sure, there was birth control and abortion but I was a college kid without a lot of money, and I didn't want to disappoint my parents who would have supported me, but nevertheless been really upset. I know men aren't THAT easily controlled by their ding dong!
Although we already have a nation of frustrated, manipulated, angry and entitled incels, so too late for that ;)
Thanks for clarifying what the article was about. I was basing my words on the one I wrote a few years ago, based on the one I found about how Trump single guys were having a hard time finding dates.
I think you're right about liberal women - Haidt notes that young liberal teens & women have the highest rate of mental illness, and it *doesn't* seem to be related to political issues (although I wonder about that - it contributed to *my* depression back in the day, wondering if Reagan would destroy Roe or start a nuclear war, the latter of which I worried about *a lot* and had nightmares about.
It sounds like the young American women you're talking about are catastrophizing about Roe, in somewhat the wrong way. It likely won't put as many women's lives in physical danger as they're making out, but it WILL ruin their lives if these pregnancies are not planned, their baby daddy (if he's even a partner) isn't up for the task of daddyhood/husband (she may rightfully not want him to be), she could be ostracized within her family or a nutty religious group, etc. And some *will* die. But more may die from illegal abortions, just like 'the good old days' conservatives fantasize so much about.
I'm really hoping this results in men getting laid less. Nothing will change the law quite like women snapping their legs closed.
> "It sounds like the young American women you're talking about are catastrophizing about Roe"
To be a bit more precise, the young women are catastrophizing about **pregnancy and childbirth**, as a result of the political tool of "exaggerate your victimhood as the source of getting power" used to foster opposition to the ending of Roe v Wade. Talk in graphic details about a dozen possible negative outcomes of (any!) pregnancy. Exaggerating or hyperfocusing on the (real) risks of pregnancy & childbirth (and associating them with being oppressed and a victim) is unlikely to fully dissipate later when considering whether to voluntarily have kids, as an unintended side effect of this victimhood-centric organizing tactic.
As for your last sentence, Nicole, do you really think - in today's society as we best understand the dynamics thereof - that women as a whole can improve the situation by using the withholding of sex as a weapon? What changes in men do you think such women would expect before granting sex?
First off, I think it creates all sorts of psychological problems - for both partners - to use sex as a political weapon. At the minimum, it reinforces the concept of sex as a tool for manipulation rather than as a mutually desirable and mutually rewarding activity.
You seem to hope that most of the men will cave, and do whatever the women want in order to have access. I'm not at all sure of that; wouldn't coercion of that general sort generate some negative reaction on your part of you were the recipient (whether the reward was sex, attention, money, whatever)? At the least it would depend on what the women required before opening their legs (see below). But if the men don't mostly cave, I don't think a society is likely to benefit from having a lot of men who feel frustrated, manipulated, and angry with women and with society. That's not a good breeding ground for positive engagement with society, but rather the opposite.
Note that the situation is that there are about two single liberal women for every single liberal man. Who is going to have the stronger hand in that market?
But what would "women snapping their legs closed" demand before opening them, if that tactic DID work? The masses are not going to share your or my understandings of the world. Would you expect liberal women to convert conservative men to (pretend?) wokeness as a pre-condition to granting sex, due the shortage mentioned above?
And if it did work, would this coercive power be used only for grand political schemes, and not for personal things (like extracting money, marriage, etc)? If men as a whole are willing to do what it takes to get women to open their legs, what will be demanded next? And what happens when this tactic stops working?
But maybe you were not serious, and just wanted to imagine an easy Lisistrata victory over the bad forces in our society. If almost all women had your values, insight, and intelligence that might be a good thing (with the above concerns), but I think you are not the norm, and that power would not be used in the ways you would hope.
I said it tongue in cheek. Of course it's not a real response, and I wrote a sarcastic article last year called NO MORE BLOWJOBS!!! making up humourous responses to the loss of Roe. Although I think it's possible some women might be less inclined to have intercourse because of this. Part of the reason why I waited as long as I did to lose my virginity was fear of pregnancy. Sure, there was birth control and abortion but I was a college kid without a lot of money, and I didn't want to disappoint my parents who would have supported me, but nevertheless been really upset. I know men aren't THAT easily controlled by their ding dong!
Although we already have a nation of frustrated, manipulated, angry and entitled incels, so too late for that ;)