Not this shit again
Immediately after posting the previous item, I checked my reader for new posts, only to find zuzu from Feministe proving my point, responding to Matt Yglesias’ take on the abortion study I linked to previously:
What I’m interested in right now is the privilege on display — Matt, who will never have to face the question of whether to have an abortion, dismisses the Guttmacher study as “questionable.” And why? Because, gosh, it just doesn’t make any sense that women would seek abortions where they’re illegal and dangerous! It’s quite telling that Matt can’t get past the mathematical modeling of it all to reach the understanding that the reason that reproductive-rights advocates argue in favor of safe and legal abortion is that women will get abortions regardless of whether or not they’re legal, and they will get abortions regardless of the possibility of injury or death, because the alternative for them is worse. IOW, criminalizing abortion does not make abortion stop. It simply makes it more dangerous.
In other words, Matt’s purely scientific concerns with the study’s methodology are without merit, because the study agrees with zuzu’s ideology. Also, Matt is sexist.
zuzu is, of course, employing the patented “Privilege Defense” employed by some feminist bloggers. It’s a version of the ad hominem retort that involves ignoring the merits of your opponent’s argument, dropping words like “privilege” and “patriarchy”, insinuating that your opponent is sexist, and hoping they’re cowed enough not to respond. It’s the worst kind of well poisoning, and frankly it’s complete bullshit and needs to stop.
For further insights into the Privilege Defense, see Mike Meginnis. He knows more about it than anyone really should.