Mazak_Kvm
4mo ago
For what it's worth I think I can prove you correct. Here's a recent state level story from Vermont:
Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman’s offers of menstrual products to lawmakers prompted reprimand from House speaker
Speaker Jill Krowinski instructed Zuckerman [D] to remove the products from his office in early 2023 and “consider meeting with House members in the company of others.” In early 2023, House Speaker Jill Krowinski, D-Burlington, issued verbal and written warnings to Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman after state legislators reported feeling uncomfortable when Zuckerman offered them access to a supply of menstrual products located in a drawer in his chief of staff’s office.
“Offering feminine hygiene products in an office and seeking out women to let them know about the availability is not acceptable,” Krowinski wrote in the letter, dated Feb. 2, 2023. “While you may have good intentions, it has left women feeling very uncomfortable and unsure why they were chosen or why it became a topic of conversation with you.”
This quote seems especially germane to the Waltz menstrual products in all bathrooms position, as well as similar debates like free condoms in schools:
“That we need the lieutenant governor to somehow get these poor women menstrual products is pathetic,” [Rep. Heather Chase, D-Chester] said. “We all were voted in by our constituents. We figure out how to drive here. We park our cars. We get a place to live. We organize our homes so we can be away. We do this. We juggle everything.”
I suspect there probably isn't any real principle at play beyond in the moment gut level emotions and 'us versus them' thinking. Which has the tendency to create confusing zones with a lot of invisible electrified rails. Something which is probably massively exacerbated by Culture War 'us versus them' dynamics.
Like a lot of these political and cultural debates it's just people grappling with Philosophy 101 concepts without the tools or vocabulary needed to really engage beyond a surface level (maybe intentionally). In this case it's a motivated rehash of "Doing vs. Allowing Harm" https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/doing-allowing/
The classic example is:
The abortion case is only complicated by the question of whether or not destroying a fetus is "doing harm". If you agree that it is, then an abortion is clearly morally wrong as just about every ethical system agrees that "doing harm" is wrong.
It's practically a non sequitur to bring up "allowing harm" to try to make an accusation of hypocrisy here as it is in no way obvious that doing and allowing harm are morally equivalent. Philosophers have spilled oceans of ink debating the question, and it's extremely unlikely that people who disagree on whether an abortion is "doing harm" or not will agree on the "Doing vs. Allowing Harm" question.
More options
Context Copy link