• EatATaco@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ve yet to see anyone say they are doing this because they are afraid of dying if they get pregnant. The article quotes someone who says it’s about respect, and all of the other things I’ve read are about fighting the patriarchy and men being controlling.

    I think you want it to be justifiable, and are trying to figure how to spin it so it is.

    • meec3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      How it’s presented has zero impact on the actual result. That is to say ‘Risk Abatement’.

      Some women might intend this as punishment or revenge on an individual or society at large, but that is also irrelevant.

      It stems from a conscious or unconscious understanding that the risks have changed. And so must their decisions.

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        How it’s presented has zero impact on the actual result.

        Sure. But my whole point is that this is misandry. So if the intent is to punish all men because you blame all men for this, the fact that it minimizes some risk has no bearing on that point.

        but that is also irrelevant.

        What? It’s absolutely relevant. Like if I punch a black guy because they are black that’s racist. If I punch a black guy because he attacked me and I was defending myself that’s not racist. The outcome doesn’t change the intent here.

        It stems from a conscious or unconscious understanding that the risks have changed.

        Whether the misandry is conscious or unconscious doesn’t make a difference. Or do we think that our unconscious racial biases aren’t biases?