But here's the thing: Akin didn't make this idea up. That women can't get pregnant when they're raped is a thing that some people actually believe. I stumbled across this several months ago while researching another story. It turns out to be an idea held and repeated by individuals who oppose abortion in any circumstance.Not only them! I was taught a version of this as an undergraduate, in a class on Eastern (i.e., Asian) metaphysics. The professor was explaining the benefits of Kundalini meditation, one of which was allegedly that it allowed women to exert greater conscious control over their reproductive functions. This was something women could do anyway, he said, as in the example of women repelling pregnancy from rape; but with adequate meditation you could come to understand and order the flow of energy within your body, and use the same capacity simply as birth control.
I put this down as a highly unlikely claim. Still, it's not a surprising one. Fertility is one of the great mysteries of nature, and it is not at all surprising that there remain some magical ideas about it. It's a magical process, in the good sense of the term: it brings forth life and renewal. It's also a hidden process, in that the early stages of it happen out of sight and according to things we really don't consciously control. That's the kind of process where magical thinking is most likely to turn up.
So it's hard for me to blame someone for believing something like this, assuming he was -- as Akin said he was in his original remarks -- told it by doctors. Such doctors exist; the Mother Jones post just cited offers a link to "Physicians for Life," which makes the same claim. The claim isn't inexplicable, and it seems to be shared by certain pseudoscientific figures on both sides of the abortion debate (my professor was quite left-wing on reproduction issues: his whole point was that here was another wonderful way for women to take control of whether or not they got pregnant). It's important to get the facts right, and to disabuse people of claims that are demonstrably wrong: but if their reasons for holding the belief is understandable, it's not a demonstration of bad character that they happened to believe something that isn't really true.
I'm willing to suspend judgment on his bad faith, but not on his bad judgment. I don't want to see the GOP saddled with guys who speak publicly about their magical convictions about women's fertility. If that's what's going to inform his votes, we don't need him, and he will lose us absolute tons of women's votes. If a doctor tells him something like this and he lacks the critical faculties to doubt and test it, what's he going to do about modern monetary theory or global warming?
ReplyDeleteAs a practical matter, I suspect the same set of advisers would lead him to decisions you'd accept on those questions.
ReplyDeleteBut as to the practical question, that's actually hard to answer too. Are these doctors wrong? As we were talking about at Cass' place, the study being cited as evidence against this claim shows (a) a 95%+ natural rejection of pregnancy from rape via natural mechanisms, but also (b) a stated rate of pregnancy from rape above 32,000 per year in America -- which would require, for the percentages to be right, almost an order of magnitude more rapes per year than the FBI crime statistics show.
Meanwhile, there seems to be no agreement at all about what the regular rate of pregnancy for a single incident of unprotected sex might be: I'm seeing numbers that really are an order of magnitude off, from 2.5% to 25%. If it's the one, rape is twice as likely as consensual sex to lead to pregnancy; if it's the other, it's 80% less likely to lead to pregnancy (which would make these doctors look a little less stupid).
So really, I'm not sure we're in any position to evaluate his judgment. I don't think we actually know what we're talking about here either. This looks like magical thinking, to be sure; but it's based on a doctor's opinion, and in the absence of better numbers, we can't be sure of how far off the doctors really are. We can't even be sure of the 5% figure from the study of rapes, since the absolute figures for rapes it suggests is so far out of order with our other statistical studies of rape. (The FBI numbers are bad, as I was explaining at Cass' place, but I don't think they're so bad as to be this far off. If they are, though, that's a huge problem of a different sort.)
Now, to be clear, I don't care if the guy ultimately resigns or not. He's not my kind of Republican, and I'm not a Republican anyway.
ReplyDeleteStill, I'm a little tired of the flash lynch mobs. Before we destroy someone's career over a momentary remark, and one he has apologized for making, we ought to be sure the remark really merits smashing everything he's spent a lifetime building.
Maybe it's the Olympics that have me in this mood. I hate them, precisely because you have these wonderful people who have spent their lives trying to pursue a dream... only to have their lives' work destroyed by two-bit rules-lawyers over the slightest thing. They move back a match due to the closing ceremonies, so that it occurs at a separate time, and disqualify everyone who didn't get the message and shows up at the usual time. You make a joke people don't like, and you get bounced out in spite of having spent a decade of your life to qualify. You meet your wife in a hotel, and it's considered immoral and you get sent home.
I'm really getting tired of this kind of crap, and maybe this event is just the last straw. I don't even care about this candidate in particular, but I'm really tired of seeing our lives turned into a machine. Machines grind away the space we need in which to be human beings, who sometimes commit errors, but who are capable of better things too. We need space, though. And we need not to be trapped in a system that is so mechanical, made of such hard steel, that it smashes us over the slightest straying.
God knows I need second chances sometimes. It's a small thing to want to see them given to others, at least where the offense is not one of character, and the truth is so hard to come by.
Folks always wish to believe 'the science is settled' but so often, it's far from it. Much about us and our bodies is quite mysterious still. My tendency is to question those who speak with such certainty on these issues, from any angle, and to have a more open ear and higher consideration, generally, of those who take a more humble approach in these matters. So, either way, he should resign, especially as there are decent alternative candidate waiting (I think he won a three way primary with a little over a third of the votes).
ReplyDeleteSarah Palin endorsed one of his opponents, Sarah Steelman. I suspect she'd be a politician more to my liking in general terms. It would doubtless be a benefit, then, if he did step aside and she was chosen instead. As a practical matter, I can agree with that.
ReplyDeleteNo one is getting smashed here, Grim.
ReplyDeleteVoters have a perfect right to decide whether a particular candidate is someone they trust. A guy who can't be bothered to do the research (who just accepts what he desperately wants to be true because it confirms, in some totally illogical way, his position) is not someone I trust with power.
If any destroying was done, it was self inflicted. Unlike T99, I hope he stays in the race and am quite content to let the votes fall where they will
I agree with your point regarding the voters, Cass. They have a right to choose whom they prefer however they prefer it.
ReplyDeleteWhat I object to is the huge push by the establishment (and the conservative media) to force him to step aside -- without letting the voters choose. That's what strikes me as trying to smash his career. But of course the voters have the right to choose, and ought to choose by whatever standard they prefer.
That said, I don't think that the standard you're putting forward is entirely fair. What's at issue is that the man trusted doctors he knew to give an opinion on the subject of medicine. The suggestion that he 'do the research' is problematic for two reasons:
1) As we've discussed, having done the research, what we find are wildly different statistics from which it is very difficult to draw any certain lessons;
and also,
2) On what other occasion would it be reasonable to privilege the kind of research a non-expert can do on the internet over the opinion of an expert with a dozen years of specific higher education and -- assuming these doctors are not fresh from med school -- additional years of practical experience?
To me, this is the inverse of the issue that caused me to stop supporting Michelle Bachmann. She made a similar controversial statement about vaccines (although for worse reasons -- trusting not a medical doctor, but a woman who came up to her at an event), which she believed to be true at the time she said it.
What caused me to stop supporting her wasn't that statement, though, because we're all wrong about things that are outside of our areas of expertise. Once in a while, we're going to find out that something we accepted because it sounded plausible is just wrong, or is much more controversial than we thought it to be.
But Bachmann wouldn't back off. She couldn't accept that something she believed needed to be rethought, or questioned in the face of the new evidence presented. That's why I stopped backing her: someone who can't do that really isn't fit for office.
This guy, he didn't do that. He's issued several apologies, the televised one being deep and apparently sincere, and is obviously willing to accept that his remarks were out of order.
Again, he's not the kind of candidate I'd have voted for anyway; not in the primary, at least. If he's replaced, we'll get a better candidate out of it. But I really don't think we're handling the guy fairly. This doesn't seem like an issue of character, and I'm not sure it's fair even to make it an issue of judgment. It's an issue of a mistake, but we all make mistakes like this; the way to judge is by how you handle the mistakes you make, not that you made one.
What I object to is the huge push by the establishment (and the conservative media) to force him to step aside -- without letting the voters choose.
ReplyDeleteFunny, that's exactly what I objected to during the Harriet Miers debacle :p
As we've discussed, having done the research, what we find are wildly different statistics from which it is very difficult to draw any certain lessons;
And that tells its own tale. I've long since lost track of the number of topics I decided not to write about after not being able to make sense of what I found during the research phase of drafting a post.
That a politician would take less care over forming a policy proposal that (as T99 observed) has life-changing results on rape victims than an unpaid blogger does writing a blog post bothers me.
It should bother any voter. The duty of care is higher for a paid professional (leader/public servant) than for a former housewife writing a blog post on her own nickel.
If you're speaking as a voter, then of course you're entitled to that standard if you prefer it. This, though, is a standing disagreement of ours: I regard with great suspicion a candidate whose communications with the public are all carefully filtered and tested. I realize you take this as a mark of professionalism, and perhaps it is just that.
ReplyDeleteYet I believe (as Washington did) that America was not supposed to have professional politicians, but rather citizen legislators. Because these are simply ordinary men and women, who serve for a while, they ought to be expected to behave like ordinary men and women -- and that means they make mistakes.
This seems healthy to me, because it helps us know and understand our representatives far better. A politician who is too careful to speak only after a subject has been researched and the phrases poll-tested will not end up telling us what he thinks, but what he thinks we are prepared to hear. A man who speaks his mind will often (as in this case) let you see his unexamined assumptions; and having seen them, you can help correct them (or, in the case of Rep. Bachmann, come to realize that she isn't reliably capable of self-correction).
So, speaking as a voter, you may prefer the one standard, but I very much prefer the other. I'd prefer a candidate who makes his mistakes in public, in conversation with the people, to one who regards the people with suspicion and is afraid to bare his thoughts to us. If such a candidate can admit his errors, and shows humility in asking forgiveness when he has made a bad mistake, I don't hold it against him or her; I only hold it against them if they can't adjust fire in light of new evidence, or if they simply won't admit it when they're wrong.
But, again, you're certainly entitled to your own standard of judgment here. Everyone gets to vote however they like.
Also, in terms of self-censorship, may I ask that you not do that so often? Very often it's extremely helpful to say, "Hey, you know, I thought that X, but when I looked into X, I found all this strangeness in the numbers. They don't add up. What do you folks make of these numbers?"
ReplyDeleteI do posts like that from time to time, and it can make for very interesting discussions. I'd be interested to hear when your attempts to test your assumptions lead to aporia. That's a technique Plato used to great effect to show us where there were interesting questions, and I suspect it would be true for you, too.
Akin: "I misspoke one word in one sentence on one day."
ReplyDeleteAppalling. He really has no clue.
True, he misspoke. However, he seems to forget that a similar misspoken line doomed Clayton Williams Jr. in his quest to become a governor of Texas. Sorry Mr. Akin, that dog won't hunt in politics these days.
ReplyDeleteLittleRed1
Well, the gentleman from Texas made a joke about rape -- that's always in bad taste, even twenty years ago. If Akin had been joking about rape, I wouldn't be defending him even in a limited way.
ReplyDeleteHere's what he actually said, not out of the blue but in response to a question about a rape exception to his pro-life stance:
"It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let’s assume that maybe that didn’t work or something: I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."
It appears the doctors he was relying upon were wrong (although the statistical figures are strange enough that we still can't be sure about this); but this isn't a joke. He's explaining that he doesn't think it happens much, but if it does he thinks the punishment shouldn't fall on the child.
This isn't making a joke about rape; and I think the context shows that he doesn't believe what many people took him to believe (i.e., that rape cannot lead to pregnancy). Rather, it's an explanation, in response to a question, about why he holds the principles that he does. Even where I disagree with a representatives principles, I want one who will give you an honest and complete account like this. If they're wrong, but they can learn, that's all I ask.
Yes, that charming old line occurred to my husband and me today, too. What a creep.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Akin misspoke. I think he just regrets saying it out loud in public. He probably was surprised at the response. He needs to get out more if he thinks he's ready for prime time.
I don't think Akin misspoke. I think he just regrets saying it out loud in public. He probably was surprised at the response.
ReplyDeleteBingo. I'm going to take a moment to address Grim's earlier comment, because the way he frames it is problematic:
A politician who is too careful to speak only after a subject has been researched and the phrases poll-tested will not end up telling us what he thinks, but what he thinks we are prepared to hear.
There is a huge difference between research directed at whether a position is well supported by the evidence and research directed at whether a position is popular. To conflate the two is wrong, both as a matter of accuracy and of fairness.
A man who speaks his mind will often (as in this case) let you see his unexamined assumptions; and having seen them, you can help correct them (or, in the case of Rep. Bachmann, come to realize that she isn't reliably capable of self-correction).
A man who speaks his mind will also often let you see that he is living in a bubble. Many people with strong opinions either don't know or don't care to find out facts that undermine their beliefs. I don't mind that he said it - I mind that he's dumb enough or sloppy enough to believe it.
So, speaking as a voter, you may prefer the one standard, but I very much prefer the other. I'd prefer a candidate who makes his mistakes in public, in conversation with the people, to one who regards the people with suspicion and is afraid to bare his thoughts to us.
Again, you are framing things in a one sided fashion Grim. This is a false choice, as there are also candidates who are careful and care about accuracy. There are candidates whose beliefs are based on both their values and real world experience. And then there are candidates who believe what they believe and shut out anything that doesn't confirm their pre-existing biases. There are also candidates who are careful to say what the party base wants to hear. Conservatives tend to think this is "brave", but it's not brave if your strategy is to get the base behind you.
If such a candidate can admit his errors, and shows humility in asking forgiveness when he has made a bad mistake, I don't hold it against him or her;
There's a difference between "holding it against him or her" and saying, "Someone who believes this doesn't share my values, or (apparently) do his homework". This is an important issue to Akin, not some fringe topic on which it's acceptable for him not to have done his homework and put in the necessary thought.
I only hold it against them if they can't adjust fire in light of new evidence, or if they simply won't admit it when they're wrong.
And you're welcome to take that position. Though following up by saying that the "legitimate" reference meant that some women lie when they say they were raped doesn't strike me as 'adjusting fire'. When my husband heard that, he said, "So... he's walking back his apology now."
I had the same reaction.
Bingo squared.
ReplyDeleteAnd I don't see any evidence that he's capable of learning from his mistakes, if his "I misspoke one word" crack is any guide. I don't think he even knows what his mistake was, which means he either isn't reading the public response or he's incapable of grasping it. I think his bubble is still largely intact.
What you're saying "Bingo" too, Cass, is exactly the kind of statement about unknowable motives that you used to get on me about regarding Romney. If you feel about Akin the way I do about Romney -- that his words are empty and unreliable -- then there's no reason for me to offer even a limited defense of him. Even the most full-throated defense, if I felt he was the kind of man to merit it (and I know nothing about him beyond the events of the last few days), cannot overcome a set opinion about his unprovable internal motives.
ReplyDeleteAs you know, having tried it with me. If he strikes you as a snake, then for you, he's a snake.
As for research for accuracy v. popularity, it's a fair point, as long as we don't hold people to impossible standards of accuracy. Accepting uncritically the opinion of an expert is justifiable in cases when (a) you don't have the right kind of education to make a better stab at understanding the facts, and/or (b) the matter is of minor importance to you.
ReplyDeleteI was just about to cite an old professor of mine, in answer to a comment by Douglas on the matter of Japanese staircases, as pertains to the Mansard roof and Second Empire architecture. I went looking for a quote to back up his assertion (which was that the Mansard roof became popular to avoid a certain class of tax in Paris), and discovered that his teaching was implausible: the tax did exist, but not for 132 years after Mansard's death; and the Second Empire style became popular years after that.
But it's something I've believed uncritically for years and years. Why not? I'm not an architect, or (except for that one class) a student of the history of architecture. My professor was an expert in his field. It sounded plausible at the time he said it, and I had every reason to believe he was the right kind of person to know what he was talking about.
I share your unease with a man whose words are empty and unreliable -- but not enough to embrace a man whose words are direct, revealing, and inexcusable. That's what I call a false choice.
ReplyDeleteWell, I wasn't asking you to embrace him. As a voter, you've every right to reject him. I reject a lot of plain and honest speakers of their minds who are, say, socialists; or members of groups like the KKK. One of the benefits of people being direct and honest is that we can make decisions like that in the clear.
ReplyDeleteWhat you're saying "Bingo" too, Cass, is exactly the kind of statement about unknowable motives that you used to get on me about regarding Romney. If you feel about Akin the way I do about Romney -- that his words are empty and unreliable -- then there's no reason for me to offer even a limited defense of him. Even the most full-throated defense, if I felt he was the kind of man to merit it (and I know nothing about him beyond the events of the last few days), cannot overcome a set opinion about his unprovable internal motives.
ReplyDeleteYou can assume away wrt my opinions and whether they're "set" or not, Grim. You'll be wrong, because I have no set opinion wrt Mr. Akin, except that he's not overly bright. When a man apologizes, then says he only "misspoke" a single word, then compounds the problem by saying that what he *really* meant when he misspoke was that women who weren't really raped (false accusers) can't get pregnant because their bodies have natural mechanisms to reject sperm that were never actually inside them in the first place b/c they were never raped....
Aye yay yay. As one of my favorite comedians is wont to observe, you can't fix stupid.