[Feminists UOA, of which I am a member, invites me to join group enititled "Anti-choice groups are NOT welcome at University of Auckland", with the sub-header "We don't want you so go away!!"]
Discussion that follows:
Ross Brighton 30 March at 13:29
Discussion that follows:
Ross Brighton 30 March at 13:29
While I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure of the methodology - does censorship/antagonism communicate the kind of ethico-discursive stance that a group such as this exists to promote?
Such can lead to a cementing of positions; preventing, rather than promoting, progressive movement.
designating the university a site of conflict/contention has uncomfortable parallels to the designation of the procreative female body (or the female body in general, or the body in general) as such....
That's my stance at least
Such can lead to a cementing of positions; preventing, rather than promoting, progressive movement.
designating the university a site of conflict/contention has uncomfortable parallels to the designation of the procreative female body (or the female body in general, or the body in general) as such....
That's my stance at least
It is our university and we get to say if we want a group to affiliate or not. If we find it offensive we are permitted to vote against it. Just the presence of an anti-choice group at university will cause trauma to students. In my eyes that is reason enough to vote against them affiliating. We believe that the university should be a safe space for all students. Having an active anti-choice group on campus will make it an unsafe space for many people. They want to take away my rights to decide what to do with my body. No other club is trying to do that.
Ross Brighton 30 March at 13:52
Ok. If it's a question of voting then I'm totally in. It is a colonisation of the body, an assertion of proto-property rights in the name of "morality" (would an anti-gay group be permitted?).
Though I would hesitate to employ (discursive) violence against anything other than their (totalising) discourse (unless provoked by the same)
Though I would hesitate to employ (discursive) violence against anything other than their (totalising) discourse (unless provoked by the same)
Ross Brighton 30 March at 13:53
May I post this discussion?
Sweet. I'd like to point out though that the person having this discussion is Alana (me).
2 comments:
do they really have an anti-choice group?
i suppose there could be an anti-abortion group, but pro-choice doesn't mean someone is pro-abortion... pro-choice is about choosing either/or
know what i mean?
Um, kinda -
Anti-Choice is a unveiling of the lie of the designator "pro-life", which, as the discourse of violence they espouse attests, designates "pro-choice" as "pro-abortion" therefore "anti-life" - ie that which "pro-life" opposes must be opposed to life [thus murder, religious rhetoric - after all who is more anti-life than Satan?]
The pro-life lobby puts it in such terms, and if you don't accept their ultimate totalising moral structures (ever notice how the really vocal ones are all guys - look at the board of Right to Life NZ), if you bring in shades of grey, then you're the devil.
***
they didn't try to affiliate this time round though. But I will not have people label me as evil, just because I acknowledge that, as a man, I cannot possibly have the right to make decisions on behalf of a woman who is in a situation that I can never understand.
Post a Comment