Thank you for showcasing that you prioritize a persons health less than your own political expedience.
Try to make sense from one post to the next, please.
Your made the point that something sounds like peer pressure. Would you say that peer pressure is laudable? The reason you are asked this question is because you asked how the presumption of the worst in the peers allegedly pressuring her prioritize her own health less than their political expedience constitutes an attack on women.
It wouldn't be
men pressuring her to march, Kittamaru.
As
I said↑, she will answer according to how she perceives them perceiving her; she will not be seen sitting this one out because it means this much to
her.
Or, as
Bells↑ put it: "The pressure was self inflicted, if you will."
The problem with your temper tantrum retorts is they don't actually explain anything to anyone. You choose to not address the reasons why people are frustrated with your behavior, but want to complain nonetheless.
The question remains: Peer pressure is the first presumption,
why?
And the thing is that nobody knows what else to tell you because you refuse to do anything other than bawl. Do I try a football metaphor? I don't know, in some cases it might work. Because in questions of Ockham and LaPlace, why would I deviate from observable, reliable baseline? I can think of a player who turned up with a professional team, and the superficial question is how bad a year was the team having to sign the guy; the next question in line was who the hell was his agent. He was a good receiver, don't get me wrong. But he had no business being on the field. After his first obvious concussion, other teams targeted him, and his college career ended after his fourth; he literally didn't get through a complete game after the first. His agent? The doctor who cleared him? Nobody without a direct financial interest would be pressuring him to play pro ball. But I do come from a football family, and from once upon a time. Coaches are now expected to have a better line than, "Can you walk? Then you can play." The players, however, will
always say, "Put me back in, I can still play." There are times when the best thing to do is stay down, and everybody knows it. And in that moment, he's still going to get up and try to carry on. You climb the mountain because it's there. You play the game to win. And you will not be seen giving up. And nobody need be a bellrung athlete behave that way.
After all, at the end of the day the Trump voter doesn't really care what I think. Neither did the #NeverTrump Republican. Yet they both have their reasons, and believe in them, and just like the athlete, or just like the cancer patient, what they answer is their own perception of how others perceive them.
That this is the issue framing our discussion of nationwide marches pretty much makes its own point, but, still, the presumption of
antisocial hostility↑—(
"Peer pressure? On a cancer survivor? Surely the world has not come to this.")—stands out: Women are people, and even act like it, and people need not be college football players to answer themselves first and foremost; it is perfectly human behavior.
And underneath it all is also a
tabula rasa question, which we might already answer; our neighbor has a
recognizable history↑ presuming poorly about women and defining their experience for them. Furthermore, you might notice
I asked↑, this time, and at least let him
say it explicitly↑. It is not like the answer actually surprised me.
It is not unclear in the least, Kittamaru, that you disagree with
something I say, but please do try to make sense from one post to the next, because otherwise it just reads like disjointed personal dispute.
I don't know what to tell anyone about how to perceive others perceiving them, but it's rather quite easy to tell the football player it's not worth dying for; whether he believes us or imagines we think him weak is his own doing. And it's perfectly human.
It is also true I can imagine it rather quite easy to tell the cancer warrior to stay home and focus on recuperation. But I'm also an American, and we always pretend this ferocious pride, and there are some things, in our American canon, worth dying for. And, to the one, this time it's not really ours to judge; to the other, this is not football. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness; Liberty and Justice for All; freedom from tyranny; human rights; these are the sorts of things Americans often pretend are worth dying for.
This is a time including notions of the sides of history, and answering the call. Nobody lives forever. She is a cancer warrior. And as I said, this could be the revolution women have been waiting for since well before I was born, and every time circumstance presents this opportunity, it will also be some woman's potential last chance to make this stand.
And compared to being just as human as the next person, I don't see why we would start by presuming ill of the women around her. Except, of course, a perspective driven by mistrust of women is, as has been noted,
hardly unusual↗; given history, argumentative principles of Ockham and LaPlace alike would suggest your vague pretense of outrage presents the extraordinary argument.
