a friendly discussion?
a friendly discussion?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Dude!Originally Posted by alan
what I feel is what I feel regardless of your intent
That the man who made them pregnant is not standing by their side which would eliminate so many of these unfortunate abortions that no-one wants to see happen. But women are always to blame and bear the brunt of pregnancy.
and the bottom line is women are much more likely to be in poverty then men
http://www.nwlc.org/our-blog/poverty...xtreme-poverty
The child poverty rate – already very high at 20.7 percent in 2009 – jumped to 22.0 percent last year, meaning more than one in five children was living in poverty. More than half of poor children lived in female-headed families in 2010.
who thinks that things are getting better in this economy? In the midst of all this the legislators, who are largely men continue to pass laws to try to label women as sluts and whores for trying to access birth control, try to outlaw abortion, and tell them to "pull them up by their bootstraps." the war on women is really a war on children. These poor innocents.
I really think that it is very easy to live in a little bubble about what should be. I for one would be ecstatic if abortion was no longer needed. but what I want and what is are two different realities.
why do you feel that way looking at it....
?.....that certainly doesnt apply to all men.
absolutely. Most men are good husbands, good friends and good providers. If all women could depend on such partners would the abortion rate be so high?
In general, I would say that a discussion is friendly when both parties are willing to be respectful of each other, as well as when each party is willing to own their own statements, recontextualize as required, and also apologize and reframe when that is necessary.
But, instead, I feel that I am being told that I must accept the limitations of a medium as a valid excuse for an individual's miscommunication -- though that argument was never brought forth as valid when I confronted Bae regarding the pepper spray -- and that was an inferred conversation, and therefore a more difficult argument to make -- not a simple, direct statement that is disparaging/condescending that can be clearly quoted and identified).
Or, in the alternative, I could accept that I was "reading into" the statements and misunderstanding, and thereby victimizing the other person -- of course, there has been no evidence on this account.
Nor any evidence that I have been "unfriendly" or "disrespectful" in any way so far.
In the end, the question that I ask myself is this. How do I behave in these media? How do I communicate? Is it effective, pertinent, and clear? Is it respectful of any party involved -- the other posters, the communities about which we are speaking (ie, the amish, women, women who would have abortions, etc)?
WHen I feel that someone is behaving in a way that is in appropriate, what is the best possible means to 'call out' this behavior? I attempted at first to focus on the material, to provide evidence to the contrary of the claims, and when that tactic didn't work, I went directly to the issue that I had.
These statements are what I find problematic. This is why I find them problematic. This is the behavior or recourse that I expect out of this.
There, an entire statement without the word "you."
But at the end of the day, the process is the same regardless of with whom the communication is held.
You felt you were being told that you must accept the limitations of the medium as an excuse for miscommunication?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote