Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Feminist icon Gloria Steinem thinks coercing women to have children they don’t want is the fundamental cause of climate change.
…
People argue that climate change and other issues are also feminist issues. What do we lose by broadening the meaning of the term?
“Are you kidding me? Listen, what causes climate deprivation is population. If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn’t have the climate problems that we have. That’s the fundamental cause of climate change. Even if the Vatican doesn’t tell us that. In addition to that, because women are the major agricultural workers in the world, and also the carriers of water and the feeders of families and so on, it’s a disproportionate burden.”
…
Climate advocates are often (though not always) population control advocates. Unborn children are an easy target for the population control freaks – they can’t defend themselves.
Suffer the unwanted children.
Actually, though, won’t somebody think of the grandchildren: https://cliscep.com/2017/05/19/sick-butchering-little-kids-to-save-the-planet/
My advice, after having children, is never to have children, only have grandchildren.
I once saw a car sticker that said.
“My Grand Children Are Great I Wish I’d Had Them First”
James Bull
Jer0me, yeah, many of my relatives second your philosophy. For some reason, though, it tends to be one of those attitudes that “skips a generation.”
My favorite bumper sticker: “Stupid people shouldn’t breed.” Which about covers progressives. If these unhinged “feminists” think they’re going to undo the Darwinian imperative, good luck with that. Fleas and ticks are smarter than these people!
All my children are perfect, they tell me so regularly. All my grandchildren are better than my children. According to my children. I’m impressed by how they overcame my multitude of imperfections.
Your children are your parents’ revenge!
Want to know why Grandparents and Grandchildren get along so well?
They have a common enemy!!!
Now I appreciate that Bill Cosby has fallen out of favour in recent times but I still insist that performed the funniest monologue on children I have ever seen.
He also achieved the impossible by actually talking about brain damaged children and making it funny as….. His underlying message was that childhood necessarily involved a degree of brain damage (note that means everyone).
Well G L O R I A just how many children have you been forced to give birth to?
If you ask this same question to every woman alive today I’m quite certain that the number in every case would be around ZERO
sorta the equivalent of someone that doesn’t like dogs…
…telling you puppies are destroying the world
And complaining about how puppies have been forced on people.
Like most leftists, Gloria can’t imagine why smart people would ever want to do anything that she wouldn’t want to do.
I’m thinking all a woman has to do if the old man starts to get frisky is show a picture of Gloria to him. That’ll put him right out of the mood.
BTW – what’s climate deprivation?
Thank heaven the patriarchs never forced me to force her to have children. Systematically or not.
Bryan, some women bear children from being raped. I think it is safe to say they count, and the number is NOT zero. And they bear those children not because the Vatican says anything at all, but because they believe that lives matter, even those that you didn’t want to help start. And what is equally amazing is that in spite of what happened to them, they still love the child.
But Tom,
I never said it was exactly ZERO I said it would be around ZERO
about ZERO
very near ZERO
Given a female population of 3.5bn, indistinguishable from ZERO
But not exactly ZERO
Bryan, I always think it is cruelly ironic that people who want less population to protect _______ (fill i the blank) never, ever want to show by example that they believe in what they are saying. Will the radical feminists, Fascists, Communists, radical Greens, etc. ever learn the the best leaders lead by example.
It is always you go first and I will not follow because I and my work are too important.
Note it is only patriarchal societies. Matriarchal societies get a free pass for forcing women to have kids.;)
Birth stats from a hairdresser …
Hey GLORIA, why don’t we force men to have the kids, oh wait this isn’t a climate model. What to do. Tell ya what Gloria, sit down and STFU. you are NOT a climatologist or Medical Doctor, you are a s3IT DISTURBER OF THE HIGHEST ORDER. bY THE WAY THE PINK ELEPHANTS MUST HAVE ARRIVED.
My daughter was a planned preganancy. We decided it was time and my wife was pregnant within a week.
My attitude was that she, (my daughter), did not ask to be born and therefore she desrved the very best chance in life.
We home educated her until she was old enough for school at 5 years old.
We chose private schools of which she received the top academic prize on graduation from each one.
She got a first class honours degree at university and now works for one of the top companies in the world.
The world is her oyster, she makes a great contribution to society and is a fully rounded person.
Of course we are very proud of her and there have never been any regrets on our part for our decision to bring her into the world.
Can it be that our devotion and contribution for her childhood was worth while.
You bet it was!
Were we unusually fortunate?
Probably not.
The potential is with every child, it is the job of the parent to make sure that the child’s potential is realized. Discharging this responsibility is the greatest gift for the world and society that a citizen can give.
Sorry Gloria, you missed out big time!
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
Fits with lewandowsky being back in this new article explaining how to neutralize misinformation even though we know he is actually the source if much climate change misinformation. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0175799
People who long for Guiding Fictions seem to be the first to also scream Fake News at realities they want people to disregard.
Poor Gloria knows not what she is doing. If we went her loony way, the only winners would be the Muslims, that breed like rabbits, and would soon take over by shear force of massive population. Followers of Gloria Steinem would feel the blade of the sword on their necks as they lost their useless minds.
There will be no discussion on population control because it is non-whites who are over breeding.
Wally,
when did they get over it? And what’s their new hobby?
“Climate deprivation”? What the heck is that?
Climate Deprivation ™
By your selfish right wing actions, you are depriving virtuous correct thinking left wing martyrs from their rightfull climate. And the children (that you shouldn’t be having).
You couldn’t make it up if you tried! 🙂
“Climate deprivation”? What the heck is that?
————
No idea in reality (I don’t think it exists in reality), but it’s a new one for my “Climate monastic chant” list.
Philip California writes
I wondered that too. Maybe is because children won’t know what snow is?
“Climate deprivation”?
Something experienced by elitist ” academics” who never go outdoors.
Climate deprivation is the climate Arizona steals from Canada in the winter, resulting in climate refugees fleeing climate persecution. If Hillary had been elected, Canadians could have just presented themselves at the US border, undocumented, and the US gov’t would have provided air tickets south, along with bottled water and complimentary green cards. But Mean Mr. Trump retained border inspections — life is grim under Republicans.
Maybe she said “depredation”, and someone made an error transcribing it?
Misspeakage is certainly one interpretation. Let’s not rule out the possibility she was trying to confess to being climate depraved.
She might be thinking about the oxygen deprivation she had at birth.
Well she certainly seems to be an oxygen thief.
“Climate deprivation”? What the heck is that?
==============
that is when you aren’t getting any. as they say, a picture tells a thousand words.
You won. 🙂
Climate Deprivation
Is when you deprive the Clim-a-tics of their arguements
I suspect it has some relationship to “Sensory Deprivation Tanks”, as much as possible remove one from any contact with reality. Remove one from reality long enough and then it becomes much easier to impose your reality on them.
A side branch of would be “Information Deprivation”.
Dead people are climate deprived.
It is quite true that population growth has been a major cause of growth in greenhouse gas emissions.
No, it is the population growth of the poor people who are denied access to cheap energy….
Indeed. Getting down from trees was an error, getting out of the caves was bigger. Why we die in millions now is caused by those two mistakes in the past. Plus patriarchy.
The cure is Nuclear Winter. Duh!
Absolutely correct. It is a proven fact that births are the number one cause of deaths and all the suffering in between. Why bother? On the other hand if one can slither out of angst of social pessimism peddled by the likes of Gloria Steinem and similarly programmed humophobes there are a few fun things along the path that make it all worth while. Really good french fries come to mind.
Right on!
If not for the patriarchy forcing women to have unwanted children, there would be no people, hence no Man-made (no women involved) GHGs, thus no “climate change” problem.
So it’s literally Man-made climate change. If feminist goddess Gaia had Her way, there would be no people, therefore no problem.
“humophobes”
I am stealing that. 🙂
True as far as it goes. But I’d say the causation train is a little more involved.
Population growth was made possible to a great degree by the invention of inexpensive, reliable energy sources (whose use caused greenhouse-gas growth).
And population growth in turn accelerated the invention of more-efficient ways to use the more-available energy.
And the more-efficient ways to use energy itself spurred more. . . .
Joe Born
Population growth is not down to energy, in fact it’s the opposite. The energy rich western world has a declining population whilst the developing world is increasing.
The reasons are simple. Without welfare for the elderly, the means of their care falls to their family. Therefore producing a large family is a necessity, especially in the face of high infant mortality.
Encourage the building of scrubbed coal fire stations, satisfies energy needs, the country becomes wealthier and population increase slows as welfare becomes more affordable and a government with increased taxed income can contribute meaningfully.
Here is an article pertinent to the population discussion;
http://drtimball.com/2014/overpopulation-the-fallacy-behind-the-fallacy-of-global-warming/
HotScot:
I knew someone would make that debating point, of course.
It’s true that wealth has decreased the rich-world fertility rate recently. But the survival rate increased with the energy-use increase of the industrial revolution. Even if you start at the depths of the Black Death, you can barely squeak out a quarter percent per year increase before the 1800s.
World population growth rate actually fell during the early decades of the Industrial Revolution. IMO it took off more from improved public health and medicine than from fossil fuel use alone, although we couldn’t feed, house and clothe so many people without fossil hydrocarbon resources.
Population grows because for up to a few generations under developing economies, people continue having kids at the rate required previously to ensure the survival of one or two kids. Then they realize that they don’t need so many. That’s called “demographic transition”.
Birth control helps, preferably voluntary. My great grandparents (extant 1850s to 1950s) all came from large families, yet some of them managed somehow to have only two kids in the late 19th century, while others had big old-fashioned broods.
I’ll second Butch’s observation.
I’ll also add that humans occupy 3% of the planet’s land. And much of the developing world is forced to routinely burn timber (and dung) felled by illegal loggers who are merely responding to demand for fuel to cook and heat with. Roughly 11% of the planets total energy consumption.
Promote the building of scrubbed, cheap, coal fired power stations and entire cities will be released from the burden of burning dirty fuel over which there is no control.
It will also provide the means by which clean water can be processed and pumped, and sanitation can be dealt with safely. Irrigation is a natural extension so food can be grown and animals kept healthy and productive. Industry can thrive and the demand for international aid can be dramatically reduced. Wars and terrorism largely driven by poverty and the need for food would also be dramatically reduced.
And the fear from this energy development is what? That whilst there has been no observable detrimental effect of increased atmospheric CO2, other than political, the planet has greened by 14% over the last 30 years. Truly, an unprecedented, observable, positive benefit of increased atmospheric CO2.
Renewables? With global energy demands rising at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years, nearly 2,000 terawatt-hours between 2013 and 2014, it would require 350,000 wind turbines to be built every year globally just to meet increasing demand, far less address the current need. That’s around one and a half times the total number built since the early 2000’s. In 50 years a land mass equivalent to half of Russia would be covered with wind farms, little of which could be used for agriculture.
If you want the full details of this, including the genuinely staggering environmental cost of merely manufacturing this number of turbines, read Matt Ridley’s short blog on the subject. http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/wind-still-making-zero-energy/
Isn’t over 50% of Earth’s land uninhabitable by humans ?
Robert Kernodle,
would that not make the equation of man’s inhabitation of the earth’s land mass 6%, rather than 3% then?
Not an earth shattering difference methinks.
You say that like it’s a problem.
Well yes, but population growth also enables the broad support base required for a high tech civilization. Do you think we would have iPhones with a world population of 100 million? Do you think if we somehow managed to peacefully reduce world population to 100 million those “no longer climate deprived” people would have enough time left over from basic food production to even learn everything necessary to maintain the level of civilization we have now, let alone advance it?
Pick any number you want for earth’s “natural carrying capacity” and assume you could somehow engineer a non-catastrophic reduction to that level. When all is said and done, the lower the total population the lower the level of technology that could be maintained.
Your argument has merit, but having once reached a certain level of technology and automation, you can surely then carry on producing enough food, goods, etc, with far fewer people??
zOMG, a world without iPhones. Now there’s a dystopia I can get behind.
We could indeed get by with fewer people….
I hereby nominate Griff to decide which types of people we don’t need; and as population czar, he should have the right to implement all policies necessary to fulfill his depopulation agenda.
Least destructive method for reducing population to 100,000,000…
send everyone else to Asteroids for mining or to the moon to set up house or to Mars to set up house and start with the most populace regions/religions
AW,
Most, if not all, dynamic systems have an optimal level of operation. That is, cars have a speed at which they get their best gas mileage. Higher speeds not only cause greater consumption of fuel, but increase noise and tend to be fatal more frequently when there are accidents. Steam engines had governors on them to keep them from destroying themselves.
Actually, I suspect we could support something like “iPhones” with 100 million people. However, even if that number isn’t large enough, I believe that there is an optimal population that can support the advantages of technology while minimizing the disadvantages. To “give the Devil his due,” it is only environmentalists who even hint at the idea of an optimal population. I don’t believe that the level of technology varies directly with the population. Instead, I think that there is more like a threshold effect to sustain the economies of technological societies. Consider the Antikythera mechanism, ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism ) which was invented when the world population was much smaller. However, it had to be custom built. Economy of scale would allow such things to be made more widely available. However, not everyone in the world needs one. For that matter, not everyone ‘needs’ an IPhone either!
DonM,
Make Griff the program manager for the “B Ark”?
IMO Griff should be on the special Short Ark, for the Gammas. Or Deltas, despite his initial letter.
100,000,000 people worldwide would be a population of 500,000 per each of the 200 countries. In the U.S. that would equate to 10,000 per state. Currently, there are 35,000 cities and towns in the U.S. which would then equate to 14 – 15 people per city or town.
Countries with high GHG emissions have longer life expectancies. We need to reverse that trend and will leave it to you to lead by example.
Probably wind up with a society like that in Logan’s Run where everyone dies at 30
Again, people who want less population never, ever lead by example. They always want others to die because they are so important them must live.
Leonard Lane,
You said, “Again, people who want less population NEVER, ever lead by example.” I have no children and I will die soon enough. There is a direct correlation between the accuracy of your statements and their value. Therefore, you might want to think about your statements before sharing them with a large audience.
Bryan A,
Being a commenter here, you should be painfully aware of how averages distort reality.
Nic, But that’s not the same thing as women were forced to have children they didn’t want. The population explosion is primarily as a result of massive reduction in children mortality rates due to modern medical advances. Women had and average of 4+ pregnancies in past centuries just to keep populations level. However, pregnancy rates have now dropped dramatically but there is a significant lag – hence population growth. However, population growth is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for economic growth and prosperity.
niclewis,
And I can’t think of a single “pollution” problem that wouldn’t be improved if there were fewer people contributing to the pollution.
All life pollutes. Pollution is a necessary biproduct of life. We cannot choose to NOT pollute and still exist. We share this in common with all other life forms. As a sentient species, we have some ability to choose how we pollute. We make these choices based on our preferences, not some Gia inspired heirarchy of sin.
Ultimately, those like Gloria are essentially arguing for the end of humanity, by putting a moral value on all human pollution, right down to our every exhale. This most be a form of mental illness.
“Ultimately, those like Gloria are essentially arguing for the end of humanity, by putting a moral value on all human pollution, right down to our every exhale. This most be a form of mental illness.”
No, she is arguing for a smaller population. There is a massive difference between someone arguing for a less than 9B population, and zero. There is no question that at 9B the resources of the planet are overtaxed. The mass of fish in the ocean is down by 90% from what it was before, the ocean is full of plastic. There are similar stories on land.
Well-thinking people love Humanity. It’s humans they despise.
Ha ha!
I really didn’t think that people could be this inanely funny in public. Peak insanity?
“Peak insanity?”
I wish. But there doesn’t seem to be such a thing, it doesn’t seem that a peak exists.
The Left is on an spiralling downward 3D asymptote of insanity. A negative infinity lies just beyond their reach to their Left. Think of them like a turd spinning CCW, downward in a toilet bowl. They will try to get to whatever lies at the singularity of insanity.
500 years of ‘patriarchy’? You mean 50,000 or 500,000 year don’t you Gloria. Where does the 500 year come from?
Clowns like Steinem make ‘patriarchy’ seem like a reasonable alternative frankly.
Yes, that one had me puzzled, too. Maybe she means the 500 years that Europeans and their descendants have lived on North America. This means she is a Euro-centric bigot who thinks that Native Americans were incapable of being patriarchal. Either that or she thinks the world is only 3600 years old.
Likely just a number she pulled out of her Arsenal
500 years ago is when those nasty Europeans started to dominate much of the world.
That struck me, too. Five hundred years of patriarchy==>reminds me of the old song “don’t know much about history, don’t know much biology. . .” A typical green.
Maybe the last of the Amazons died 500 years ago?
(Oh wait. Wonder Woman. I forgot about her.)
Sorry Gloria, us real women out here don’t need your advice. We already know how to wack our men into submission with a 2 by 4 and we don’t need a pink hat to do it either.
[This website cannot condone the use of violence against its weaker readers. Nor its female readers. 8<) .mod]
Sorry Mod, : )
I should have used a sarc tag.
For clarity, I do not condone violence.
EJ mod was only kidding. Charles? is a very caring person :))
understood
and some of us men like being beaten by a strong woman like EJ, the lash is just so 19th Century..
Please miss, can I have some more….. 🙂
EJ, you can beat Gloria with a 2×4 cos it sounds like she could really do with it too….
(and you leave EJ alone you meany Mod.)
[The mods are now confused. Should they duck under a 2×4, or swoop to the non-rescue of an upside non-rescued Aussie? .mod]
[Somebody else asks if a a 2×4 is a 4×2 in Australia? ]
Thank You for the chivalry, Convict. Your mother taught you well.
Obviously, Gloria, has not yet become wise in her years to obvious male whacking submission tool, the common birthday suit.
(I’ve never seen a meany mod here, but just in case)
Husbands quote ” never underestimate the power of a 5 foot Yooper”
Here’s a good read about ancient women. Quite a few artifacts on Ancient Nomadic Priestess Warriors
https://csen.org/WomenWarriors/Statuses_Women_Warriors.html
Dear Mod,
mate, its a 2×4 if you get hit with the 4 side and a 4×2 if the 2 side makes contact ( or is that the otherway round – I am usually concussed or in nirvarna at these times). I assume EJ was offering to paddle whack not brain someone. She sounds like a disciplinarian not a serial killer.
You seem easily confused Mod. and perhaps just need to get out more. Come down to Oz or catch up for a session with EJ.
🙂
When talking about wood, there is no such thing as a 2×4, or a 4×2 any more it’s 50×100 or 100×50. ;-P
I would recommend ducking, mod
With an over inflated facetious mindset. ; )
Convict,
” I assume EJ was offering to paddle whack not brain someone. She sounds like a disciplinarian not a serial killer.”
Not sure on the ‘paddle whack’, there’s no sms (?) here. ( tread lightly folks)
But truely, I have always been the disciplinarian, and I have two well rounded, self thinking, children to prove it.
Gunga,
“I mean, Ej can wack her man with a 2×4 and get away with it. But if her Man wacked her with a 2×4….”
You ‘might’ be right on that, but Ej, smarter than the average bear, (facetiously) Ej remembers every moment of Hunters safetly classes.
“”“Be sexy and carry a big stick.”
PS Being truly “sexy” doesn’t require looks. It requires mutual love for each other.””
So true, Gunga. This is why the man chose me, and I him. On any given day I could be out there hauling wood, using the wheel barrel, mixing morter, and I can honestly say, I lifted every single sheet of particule board up to the roof top of a garage we built. AND it was me and him putting up the trusses.
Yep, 2×4’s are not your fathers old 2×4’s. They are now 1 1/2″ x 3 1/2″.
Now, that I’m done replying, I’m off to put on that silk dress with heals and darn it I am sexy in it too !! My lucky husband !
When Bill Maher asked Gloria Steinem about FGM and the abuse of women in Islamic societies (interview), she danced and equivocated and refused to condemn Islam for the brutal anti-woman institution it is. “I can’t handle any monotheism,” she said, as though they were all alike these days.
She praised Muhammad as a reformer for women of his day — an accolade easily refuted by even a cursory historical study. Contemporary Byzantium did a better job, for example, and so did Scandinavia.
Meanwhile Muhammad (by reputation) had sex slaves, raped female captives, took child brides, and allocated himself 13 wives. If anything, Islam concreted the abuse of women into sacred dictate.
I don’t think Gloria realizes she’s reached her goal.
I mean, Ej can wack her man with a 2×4 and get away with it. But if her Man wacked her with a 2×4….
(in countries not suffering under Sharia law type nonsense)
Put this in the wrong spot………
Gunga,
“I mean, Ej can wack her man with a 2×4 and get away with it. But if her Man wacked her with a 2×4….”
You ‘might’ be right on that, but Ej, smarter than the average bear, (facetiously) Ej remembers every moment of Hunters safetly classes.
“”“Be sexy and carry a big stick.”
PS Being truly “sexy” doesn’t require looks. It requires mutual love for each other.””
So true, Gunga. This is why the man chose me, and I him. On any given day I could be out there hauling wood, using the wheel barrel, mixing morter, and I can honestly say, I lifted every single sheet of particule board up to the roof top of a garage we built. AND it was me and him putting up the trusses.
Yep, 2×4’s are not your fathers old 2×4’s. They are now 1 1/2″ x 3 1/2″.
Now, that I’m done replying, I’m off to put on that silk dress with heals and darn it I am sexy in it too !! My lucky husband !
Didn’t Teddy Roosevelt say something along those lines?
“Be sexy and carry a big stick.”
PS Being truly “sexy” doesn’t require looks. It requires mutual love for each other. “Looks” are two dimensional with that. Using someone because they “look good” is one dimensional.
I’d guess when she was younger that last is all the “love” she ever got?
I want to adopt a working college graduate.
Kamikazedave
Good luck with that! (McDonald’s is trying very hard to get their robot-server-oder (er, order) takers to make as many mistakes per hour as the live ones do. Soon as they get the bugs worked in, the last of the college-graduate entry-level positions will be gone!)
Hope she’s making tasty, non-Michelle-approved school lunches! 😉
No worries, RACook. My working college graduate will have a MS Chemical Engineering degree.
Just read this to my wife as she slaved under my weighty thumb making my kids their lunches for school. I think we’re both more than a little disturbed by her comments. We will continue to celebrate our 5 wonderful children and what they will bring to the world.
“what causes climate deprivation is population. If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn’t have the climate problems that we have. That’s the fundamental cause of climate change. Even if the Vatican doesn’t tell us that. In addition to that, because women are the major agricultural workers in the world, and also the carriers of water and the feeders of families and so on, it’s a disproportionate burden.”
_________________________________________
Right, Gloria –
we don’t need no
https://www.google.at/search?q=india+widows+burning&oq=india+widows+burning&aqs=chrome.
How about men die in the workplace at ten times the rate of women. link link
We’ve been trying for many years to encourage women to become engineers. For sure there are more women engineers than there were in the 1950s but I think it has plateaued since the 1980s. Women are highly resistant to taking up some jobs. The fact that women aren’t doing dirty dangerous jobs isn’t just because of the patriarchy.
Graph showing the percentage of women engineering students since 1991. It has remained around 20%.
Patriarchy prevents women from cleaning up main sewers, driving trash trucks and dying to heart attack at their 60’s. Neat, isn’t it.
Changing the wheels on my tractor every season.
Been doing engineering for more than 40 years. Worked with hundreds on engineers, managing/supervising a good number. Women in engineering are average, neither brilliant nor dullards, just as the IQ data would suggest, grouped in the middle. Motivation, dedication, and passion are similary grouped, down the middle.
Maybe simply a reflection of reality, most want marriage, motherhood, and family as a core of their life’s arc. Nothing wrong with that. It’s just the reality that Ms. Stenim and her ilk have been trying to deny for more tha half a century now.
I agree. Camille Paglia, one of the few feminists who acknowledge the role of biology, often finds herself at odds with other feminists.
Radical feminism is a lot like climate science in that heterodoxy is swiftly and harshly punished. Inconvenient facts are outright denied.
Gloria is a true Citizen Unfit for Naval Training.
A quick reference to the World Bank and the UN website on population will reveal how ill-informed this person really is. The fertility rate – the number of children per woman – is dropping rapidly Worldwide, and has been for years.
Could that possibly be because of education?
Bearing a child is still one of the most dangerous things a woman can do. It’s the sixth most common cause of death among women age 20 to 34 in the United States and for every 167 births in that country, there is one stillbirth. Globally, at least 3.3 million children less than 5 years of age die annually because of serious birth defects and the majority of those who survive may be mentally and physically disabled for life.
Maybe the Vatican could explain that in the Terms and Conditions section?
The Vatican has never objected to abortions needed to protect the life of the mother.
Mark,
“It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans abortion to save the life of the mother. ” As described below however, if the embryo or foetus is accidentally (“indirectly”) killed in the process of operating to save the mother, it’s allowed.
https://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC043.HTM
ABORTION TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER
THE ‘DOUBLE EFFECT.’
Source of Confusion.
The very rare cases of pregnancy that pose a real and immediate threat to the mother’s life including uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancies are a source of great confusion, especially among Catholics.
It is absolutely true that the Catholic Church bans abortion to save the life of the mother. However (and this is an extremely important point) the mother’s life may be saved by a surgical procedure that does not directly attack the unborn baby’s life.
The most common dysfunctions that may set a mother’s life against that of her unborn child’s are the ectopic pregnancy, carcinoma of the uterine cervix, and cancer of the ovary. Occasionally, cancer of the vulva or vagina may indicate surgical intervention.
In such cases, under the principle of the “double effect,” attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother’s life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby’s life, the baby will of course die. But this would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.
The principle of the “double effect” also applies to sexual sterilization. If a woman must have a hysterectomy to remove a dangerously cancerous uterus, this will result in her sterilization, but is not a sinful act. However, if the purpose of the operation is not to heal or safeguard health, but to directly sterilize, then that act is intrinsically evil and is always a mortal sin.[12]
[12] Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, #14, July 25, 1968, and Pope Pius XII, “Allocution to Midwives,” #27, October 29, 1951.
Father John Connery, S.J. Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective.
Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1977. Hardcover. Order from: Life Issues Bookshelf, Sun Life, Thaxton, Virginia 24174, telephone: (703) 586-4898. This study traces the entire history of the Roman Catholic doctrine regarding abortion from the beginning of the Christian era to modern times. Particular attention is given to the controversy and confusion within the Church regarding abortion to save the life of the mother.
A classic example of the ignorance of the left. In poverty, women will generally conceive more children. Those that survive are sent to the fields, factories, militias and brothels to provide for the family. The march through the Institutions of Western Culture by the Socialist Green Left, the ‘Watermelons’, destroys the wealth of our communities, creating the poverty, limiting the choices women can make to provide for their future.
The irony is we are funding the Looney Left to preach about saving the world, when they are the harbingers of poverty, population and pollution.
The missives of shills like this one, the news of blackouts, suicides and industry closures have merged with the actual text of Ayn Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’. We are living Rand’s prophecy.
The Socialist Green Left is now so many generations removed from the farm, factory, and any other practical occupation that they literally no longer understand how anything works. Which is why under their dubious leadership, their theories have brought the world to the brink of Peak Charlie Foxtrot. They are looking sillier every day, and the more they rant the quicker their ride down the chute to the dustbin of history.
Except that their message of pure evil disguised as benevolence is very appealing to about half of the population who refuse to acknowledge the evil because it undermines their politics.
Well she said “over the 500 years of patriarchy”, so the children she’s talking about are dead already.
Anyway, I’m amused to see the “problem” with climate is “patriarchy”. Misandry. Or whatever, my spell checker tells that is not a word. Might actually prove a point.
Misanthrope.
I am sorry but if The Patriarchy is forcing women to have children “they can’t care for”, then wouldn’t there be a lot of dead children? That is unless their fathers stepped in and helped care for them, which is against the rules of The Patriarchy. I betcha poor Gloria thinks “The Handmaiden’s Tale” is a documentary.
To quote from another commenter elsewhere.
“Pity Gloria Steinem’s parents didn’t follow her advice.”
+++++++ many
Her revolt against her parents has not been completed and the question is about when it once began. Very late probably …
Why do people save a horse from the swamp.
___________________________________________
For a person thei’d pull the mobile cam and hinder the rescue action.
because :
A horse can make a new horse.
Can you make a new horse?
Tom,
enough locked away in isolated detention
sticky dreaming of a good rogering.
Dream along.
Apparently Ms Steinem never received a good rogering.
We unfortunately live in an age of reason-deprivation and in a climate of fear-mongering. Feminism is championing the death of babies, free speech is silencing people with violence, science is marketing gender dysphoria and anal sex to our youth with artless theatrical performances. Leftism has turned every concept and value upside down. We’ve gone past perversion to full inversion. Hopefully we have just passed bottom dead center and are starting to climb back upward toward the light. #peakleftism
You do realise that the answer to those Ills (if ills they be ) is mass- conversion to Islam .
Why don’t the lefties ever consider debt to be the greatest driver of global warming? The ability to borrow 10x or more of ones income and consume today rather than save and consume later is obviously the greatest driver manmade CO2 emissions. Come to think of it, my CO2 emissions actually tanked when I had kids, no more boating or vacations for me.
It is incredible! All of those people trying to account for the phenomenon of climate change being blamed on humans, when along comes Dr. Gloria Steinem, DSc, Ph.D, MD and DDS,, and gives the world the “definitive answer”. Despite the absence of any evidence that humans are allegedly responsible for global warming this “outstanding researcher” has made the “breakthrough” with “sound reasoning” that makes it comically clear that, yes, humans are responsible. Her “brilliance” also fuels the “wisdom” of the left-wing provincial premiers in Canada, e.g. Wynne and Couillard of Ontario and Quebec, respectively, who instituted provincial taxes on gasoline.
It is worth pointing out out that those carbon taxes are gender-neutral and LBGTQWERTY friendly. There is nothing as modern and fair as a carbon tax for all. Except the North-West Territories which will not have them because they are different.
I thought the whole point was that there are no differences? No so, friends. Gender-neutral and LBGTQWERTY friendly carbon taxes will not apply to all Canadians.
Thank you Anthony for introducing me to ‘LGBTQWERTY’ via Crispin. Raised my endorphins for just a brief instant making my life on this doomed, God foresaken planet bearable if only for an moment.
Gloria Steinham is a pig. She blames children for every ill suffered by mankind. Better kill all the children Gloria. You and all you pig friends better get out there and kill the children. Kill them in concept before they are conceived, make them a pest in the minds of young girls, kill them in utero, kill them in the crib, kill them in there minds in schools, just kill them. Everything bad in the world is the fault of children. Kill them all so YOU and pigs like you can be fulfilled.
Translation: Our groups are in line for carbon tax revenue. check
Next up we have the eminent scientists from the Kardashian Group and the Paris Hilton Institute.
See a bandwagon, climb on a bandwagon.
Men write history.
Women wear the weight of the world.
Women multi task.
Men prioritise.
Nothing to do with anything, just thought I’d throw it in.
I’m sure women do prioritise. But. When some complain on men not ‘taking part in household work’, you should always ask if the household work is correctly defined. That is, for example, washing windows four times a year sounds like a hobby, and you can buy it as a service so why would you do it in the first place?
Fixing car usually is not included, but making food is.Again, both can be seen as hobby. That household work is defined as those jobs that many women prefer to do themselves rather than buy, and prefer to do often, is beyond my understanding.
Wow, Steinem answers the question of “how much anger, hatred, misinformation and stupidity can reside in one person”. A lot, apparently. She must be a joy to be around.
Many more than 500 years although every so often there’s some reaction.
“don’t weep like a woman for what you could not defend as a man”.
http://painting-history.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/moors-last-sigh.html
I wonder how she determined that “patriarchy” began only 500 years ago.
In fact, that’s about the time that Europe started getting female rulers, ie Calvinist John Knox’ “monstrous regiment of women” (1558), attacking Catholic female monarchs in Scotland and England, arguing that rule by women is contrary to the Bible. They were preceded by Isabella of Castile, with her husband Ferdinand of Aragon, co-Reconquistadora of M@slim Granada and Columbus’ co-sponsor in 1492.
Does Ms. Steinem imagine that before c. AD 1500 the Goddess Gaia and her human maidservants ruled the planet?
When I married my “water carrier” nobody told me she would be constantly pestering me to fix the plumbing.
Maybe you should teach her to stop breaking it !! :o)
Things started to go downhill with the invention of indoor plumbing. Life was better with just a shed ‘down yonder’ (provided it wasn’t too near the well).
Yeah, what did the Romans ever do for us?
>>
Things started to go downhill with the invention of indoor plumbing.
<<
You’re not too far wrong with respect to Roman plumbing. The term “plumbing” comes from the Latin word for lead: PLUMBUM. Lead was their metal of choice for plumbing indoor fixtures. They even used lead pipes for their siphons. Ever wonder why the Roman aristocracy was so Looney Tunes? Maybe it was their lead plumbing.
Jim
Lead was also used in cosmetics from classical times all the way up to the 16th century, for its tint-erasing properties. If you ever wondered why portraits of Queen Elizabeth I always have her looking white as a sheet, that’s the reason.
And common plates and cups in those times would often be fashioned from pewter, a lead alloy. Juices from acidic foods like tomatoes and other fruits, as well as alcohol, would gradually leech lead out of the pewter.
Your pre-modern life on lead poisoning.
Hence the great Spanish expression, “Plata o plomo”.
lifetime long I fixed their plumberings.
Mommy, daddy, brother, sisters .
Their unpaid electricity bills, rentals and funerals.
TOA TOEU.
Except her. Like all women in the developed world. Which is developed because of fossil fuel use.
Population explosion is over for more than 2 decades. Since 1995 world population under 15 is stable, slightly below 2 billion. Population still keeps increasing thou, because of increasing life expectancy. Which is wrong how?
No one can produce more than one old fart by ageing, so it can never lead to explosion.
By the way, to decrease fertility rate, two preconditions should be met, independent of cultural background:
1. Decrease infant mortality
2. Provide proper schooling for girls
Both preconditions are humane, neither patriarchy nor forced child care is mentioned, and both need stable energy supply.
What glass ceiling? (No, she didn’t refer to one directly).
My wife is head of department in a university, with 50 or 60 senior academics reporting to her. The large majority are women. Her boss is a woman with the responsibility of several hundred academics.
Not one of those staff, to our knowledge, has “unwanted children”. Indeed, some (including close friends of ours) engage in fostering and adoption of children.
Not one of those children is unwanted, they are just badly looked after, or subject to tragic circumstances. Most of the fostered children go one to have good relationships with their parents once they have been shown kindness, discipline and encouraged to engage in education.
So what unwanted children is this eejit talking about?
The mask slips off and the face revealed is monstrous.
Ignoring the over charged rhetoric of Ms. Steinem’s quote, it is unfortunate, in my opinion that the human population load on the planet did not stabilize at 2 billion as opposed to the 10+/- billion projected for the year 2100. A stable human population of 2 billion living at first world standards would be a much better planet, with significant wild areas left to maintain a healthy biosphere. Africa is projected to go from 1 billion now, to 2 to 4 billion people over the next 80 years. The current refugee crisis is a ripple compared to the Tsunami ahead.
There are still significant wild areas on the planet.
There is still a healthy biosphere.
Africa has just about peaked in terms of population and like the rest of the world, it’s population will then start falling.
According to a map in the 2015 CIA World Facts Book, the birth rates for sub-Saharan African countries, excluding S. Africa currently range from 3 to 7 children per woman. The current population of 1 billion is projected to grow to between 3.5 to 5 billion, by 2100. The expected 3 billion increase in world population by 2100 is essentially going to happen in Africa. No one is talking about this issue and its likely effect on future human happiness and environmental degradation.
“… population will then start falling ”
Russia is now in this stage — with big issues ahead as others do the same.
Japan has had that problem for at least a decade, as do other advanced countries.
The only reason why the population isn’t falling in the US is because immigration.
(Both because immigration itself increases numbers and because 1st generation immigrants tend to have birth rates similar to that of their home country. 2nd generation tends to split the difference between country of origin and the US. By third generation birth rates are virtually identical to the rest of the US.)
Leo, those birth rates are falling fast.
PS: I love the way you just assume more people is a bad thing.
Thanks, Leo!
Besides the fact that 10 billion people are not a burden on the planet, there is one fundamental issue to be worked out: let’s hear your plans regarding how “we” decide who gets to reproduce, and who doesn’t.
Europe, amongst others should be actively promoting and paying for family planning programs in those African countries with birth rates in excess of 3 children per woman. They can tie these programs to preferential access to the EU market and contract worker programs. Or conversely we can let nature take its course and let civil war and famine break out. As for 10 billion people not being a burden….look at former versus present distribution ranges for the wolf, the lion, the bison. I have heard that humans, their pets and their food animals account for 90% of terrestrial mammals on the planet, larger than a rat. Last year was the first year that more farmed fish were landed than wild fish from the oceans.
I love it when leftists go out of their way to control the live of others.
10 billion is not a burden.
Bison herds are expanding. The reason they were slaughtered had nothing to do with population growth.
Wolves, lions, etc were killed off because they attacked animals that humans were trying to herd. This would still be a problem if the world’s population were a tenth what it is today.
As to your claim that humans, our pets and food animals are 90% of mammals, that has got to be the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.
Let me guess, you live in a large city, don’t you.
Leo,
Do seals and other marine mammals which breed on land or fast ice count as terrestrial mammals?
The range of coyotes has expanded since Europeans colonized the Americas. Recently the first one was spotted across the Panama Canal. IMO raccoons have also benefited from more humans, as have whitetail deer. Rats certainly have, but you exclude them.
Family planning programs and the like only work if the people accept them and use the recommended methods and provided materials. People in developed countries who “know better” still do not “wrap it up” because it “feels better” without a condom. Even in countries with the highest HIV infection rates, getting people to use (free) condoms is an uphill battle. Preventing pregnancy? A lot of men would not care about getting a woman pregnant, because they do not necessarily have to take responsibility. Women do not get a say about condom use in many developing countries.
The pill only works if consistently taken, and who knows how well it works if a person is malnourished and/or not getting enough to eat. Women who are uneducated do not necessarily understand how it works, so even if they are told to how take it properly, they may not do so*. When they get pregnant, they think the pills don’t work.
None of this matters at all if people have no interest in reducing pregnancy and/or have a whole lot of problems that seem more immediate/serious.
*Plenty of educated people do not take it properly either.
Humans populate 3% of the planet or 10% of the land mass. The Earth can handle another 10 or 20 billion I would think…
Bellamy made similar comments years ago and was ridiculed for it. Of course he is right, the Earth can support more people.
Butch, I too am a glass half full kind of person. The loss of the legendary cod fishery off of eastern Canada, the dramatic recent and ongoing loss of paleo-ground water resources due to accelerated agricultural irrigations in India, Pakistan, Iran and California?, Mexico? … the growing oceanic dead zones in the worlds major deltas as highly elevated fertilizer levels locally promote algal blooms and suck the oxygen out of the water column, the growing regions of agricultural mono-cultures…and associated chemical baths of herbicides/pesticides…reducing plant variety and foods for the Monarch butterfly migration and the wasp/bee populations…..Hey, lets double up the human load to 20 billion, because we can and reduce the non-human biosphere even more. I know we will persevere. I am optimistic. I saw a news story a few years ago about a Japanese scientist who has been working diligently to extract proteins from human excrement and create a meat substitute with it. Soilant Brown perhaps. Like bacteria, I can see from the many ” we’re OK Jack” comments in this response column that humanity, for all of its apparent intelligence, will like all other life forms on this planet, eat its way to the edge of the nutrient medium it lives in, until it becomes so bad, it does something else. Personally, setting a target population on us a species is a good thing for us. I suggested 2 billion as a hypothetical goal for the human population. How many people do you really need to have fun mate?
Leo Leclair
I suggest that you begin by forced sterilization. Of yourself, your friends, and your parents. Your children, if any are so unfortunate as to be born already. That will not go far in killing the 5 billion innocents you demand be killed, but it is the right start.
The Monarch butterflies will thank you. (Actually, that is false. They will ignore you too. But perhaps the plants growing as they take in the extra CO2 released by your decaying remnants will find some use in your brief passage here on earth. )
“Humans populate 3% of the planet or 10% of the land mass.”
So what? 1/2 the earth’s land mass is used for food production, that is what matters. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1209_051209_crops_map.html
A stable human population of 2 billion living at first world standards would be a much better planet
======
there is no justification for saying 2 billion is any better than any other number. why not 1 billion or 3 billion?
the simple fact is that with 7 billion people today, we are doing a lot better job of feeding, clothing and educating the planet than we were with 2 billion.
as to “first world standard”, that is sort of a nonsense idea. that is like saying the world would be much better off if there weren’t any poor people. The Bible dealt with this question 2000 years ago: “The poor you will always have with you.”
“the simple fact is that with 7 billion people today, we are doing a lot better job of feeding, clothing and educating the planet than we were with 2 billion.”
The fact that we are doing a better job today is not because we have 7B and not 2B people, it is because of advances in science and technology. So the population number is irrelevant to the advances. And a planet with 1/3 the population would have far less issues with overfishing, denuded land, polluted water and plastic in the oceans.
“Leo Leclair May 19, 2017 at 6:35 am
A stable human population of 2 billion living at first world standards…”
I don’t think you understand the origin of the term “first world” or “second” or “third” for that matter. It is certainly not about poor or population.
You are right Patrick about my use of the expression “first world standards”, sensu strictu it arose from the cold war, I was using it in the sense of First tier = highly developed countries, versus second tier moderately developed, and third tier under developed. What I was saying is that I think all humans should live as well as we do in the highly developed world. Those living in first tier countries have a higher per capita consumption rate and larger environmental foot print than those in poorer countries. So what human load living at high consumption rates with our present technology might be sustainable, and leave large parts of the world as natural, untouched ecosystems? Pick a number.
I have heard the statement made that 90% of the land mammals larger than a rat are humans+our pets+our food. I did a quick check for some USA numbers in millions. People (321) Cats (95) Dogs (90) Horses/Donkeys (10) Pigs (128 = 115 annual slaughter, 7 breeding, 6 feral) Cattle (90) Sheep (6) = Total 740 million. Now the wild mammals in millions: Deer (30) Beaver (<4) Moose (0.3) I could not find numbers for wild Antelope, Elk, Bison, Big Horn Sheep, Raccoons, Porcupine, Coyote (there are about 0.5 killed each year), Fox, Wolf, Bear, Mountain Lion, Lynx, Bobcat…others? I would be surprised if the ones with no numbers would add up to 40 million to make it to 10% of our 740 million. Thoughts?
I WEAR THE PANTS IN MY FAMILY!!!
(when the missus allows it)
And I can have sex anytime
[that you want it]
Just how close have you and SMC become?
WAAAAAY too much info for me !! LOL
ferdberple and I taint that close. We do seem to have similar experiences with our respective ladies, though.
What I say goes around here
[right out the window]
Odd….
Back in the 60s, when our country was conscripting us male teenagers to fight a foreign war, I don’t recall Ms Steinem demanding the right to register for the draft.
She was already registered as daft.
{Up early, I see. Greetings.}
Good one. I should have thought of that.
: > )
I’ve never heard of a person, whether first or third world, deprived of a climate.
Ahh, Yes.
Gloria Steinem.
The woman who famously informed us that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
Then, at age 56, she got married. For the first time.
(A little late to the party, but who am I to judge.)
Cynics suggested that she married English South African, environmental and animal rights activist David Bale (father of actor Christian) to keep him in the US after he overstayed his visa.
She says she wed then because the marriage laws had become more equal for women than when she was in her 20s.
Bale died three years later. No known connection with proximity to Steinem.
TOA, TOEU –
Tired Of America, Tired Of EU.
Deprivation: Definition: ‘the lack or denial of something considered to be a necessity’
Ms. Steinem uses the made up irrational phrase ‘climate deprivation’ as opposed to the politically correct ‘climate change’ to avoid being asked obvious tricky questions:
If population (humans, people, little rug rats, and so on) is the primary cause of ‘climate change’ what should be done to reduce population?
Comment: Solar cycle changes caused the majority of the warming in the last 150 years, not population growth or anthropogenic emission of CO2, but what the heck, let’s stay in the irrational politically correct paradigm that CO2 is the knob that controls climate.
How many people can the earth support without causing climate change? 500 million? What should we do with the other 7 billion?
Ms. Steinem, are you suggesting that the majority of women do not want to have children?
Are you suggesting that the majority of the women and men in the world do not love their children?
Ms. Steinem, have you ever seen a family where there is joy and love, from birth to death?
Yep . If it weren’t for men forcing women to get pregnant this human cancer would have never been inflicted on the planet .
Damn , this is the second day of severe climate deprivation around here . Just wish I hadn’t put out the red potted cactus a week or two ago .
http://cosy.com/y17/ClimateDeprivation170519_800_a.jpg
Where…?
On the chair to the right….! LOL
http://cosy.com/y17/ClimateDeprivation170519_CactusCrop_800.jpg
Yeah, “climate deprivation” is a new one. Word-smithing by the regressives is an art-form.
Oh, but it’s so easy:
Step 1: Take a word involving any type of human endeavor.
Step 2: Put the word “climate in front of it.
Bingo.
also works well if you replace your first step with
Step 1:Take a word describing any type of human affliction
Step 2: Put the words “Climate induced” in fromt of it
Climate induced Colds
Climate induced Fevers
Climate induced Flu
Climate induced Cancer
Beautiful picture of the snow.
Woke up to a little more this morning .
39.038681° -105.079070° 2500m
Semi Semites are the worst kind. They’ve got something to prove.
The patriarchy forcing women to have children? Funny how even historically and in illiterate parts of the world as soon as infant mortality has gone down so has the birth rate. Women want children, unless they are feminists. They also want children who survive. It is deep in the genes.
‘Women want children, unless they are feminists’. A very sweeping and unscientific statement. I’m a guy, and I know lots of women who don’t want kids, and these women are NOT feminists. I also know lots of women who feel compelled to have children because their partners want them. My sister didn’t want kids, and her boyfriend, his parents and friends gave her a really hard time. They said she wasn’t a real women, and that there was obviously something wrong with her. They bascially made her feel like shit just because she didn’t want a baby. Fortunately for her, she came to her senses and left the guy. So lets have less hysteria on this thread. It’s pathetic. Some of you are as bad as the warmists. 🙂
An idiot goes in, yep, idiots come out !
Steinem is providing proof that old age does affect your logical abilities. I’d say that population growth has occurred since the first homo sapien and existed for very practical reasons – the additional labor to work the land producing food, which is what the vast majority of the population was involved in. As recently as 1910, a major advanced country (the U.S.) employed fully half of its populatioin in providing food. And how does Gloria imagine that technological and medical advancement would have occurred if the population was still the size it was 500 years ago? You need people, (lots of people) to produce folks capable of advanced thinking and inventions. I only remember two electrical geniuses of note at the time of the electrical revolution. With Gloria’s reduced population, there would hardly have been one, much less two of them around. Gloria’s advanced standard of living, far beyond that which would have been achieved in her “cave man society”, is completely dependent upon our planet’s population size. Even if climate were controlled mainly by greenhouse gases, we have the technology to eliminate a large proportion of them, what with molten salt reactors, light water reactors and electric cars. Instead of pushing for actual, practical “solutions” to her imaginary problem, Gloria uses the opportunity to spread more anti-male BS. Gloria is almost indescribably ignorant. I won’t say “dumb broad,” not wanting to
lead folks to think I believe that woman are dumb. Gloria missed the boat when it came to mental abilities.
“Steinem is providing proof that old age does affect your logical abilities.”
Hardly, she’s always been this daft.
Go outside. Look up. See what looks like a bright light? That’s the sun – a gigantic ball of nuclear fire nearby in space. I think that that has more impact that the kid walking around the mall.
Is this maybe some inbuilt suicidal instinct of certain people due to population density, that they think that all problems can only be resolved by dramatically reducing the population?
And I notice she didn’t volunteer to be part of the reduction, for the sake of the Earth.
The goal of modern leftists is to make sure that everyone else lives up to their standards.
lol Have you ever been to the UK?
Global warming has gone missing again here this Spring. Global clouding and global raining, but good for re-seeding the lawn.
“Climate advocates are often (though not always) population control advocates.”
The fundamental thesis of all “environmentalism” is that the world has too many brown babies. This is not new. It goes back many years.
The “eugenics” movement was very influential before WWII. President Wilson, who segregated Federal offices, was a proponent. “Eugenics” was a key part of the “progressive” movement. (read “Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era” by Thomas C. Leonard. esp. Ch. 7 “Eugenics and Race in Economic Reform).
A popular 1916 book: “The Passing of the Great Race” by Madison Grant made the connection between Eugenics and Racism explicit. In “The Great Gatsby, Tom Buchanan says that he reading the book and: “”Everybody ought to read it. The idea is if we don’t look out the white race will be — will be utterly submerged. It’s all scientific stuff; it’s been proved.” Yup, a scientific consensus.
After WWII, and the Civil Rights movement, the thesis could no longer be propounded in public. The genius of the “environmental” movement is that it took the basic idea of the eugenics movement: too many brown babies, and recast it as a problem with natural resources, an idea that harkens back to Malthus*. But, the emotional basis of the movement has always been fear of brown babies.
This why I say that “environmentalism” is the last socially acceptable form of racism.
*The intellectual genealogy of “Eugenics” is Mathus to Darwin to Galton. This one reason why leftists make Darwin a touchstone of “scientific” thinking.
Walter – thanks. I will look up those readings.
After Hilter was exposed, the Progressives, who, yes, have been harping on Population Control strongly, since Darwin / Galton, had to disguise their love of top-down control of the population, and trying to form humanity in their image.
Thy had to hide the fact that Hilter was yet another Progressive. Desiring a government that engineered things from the top down, including who should reproduce and who should not.
So, they painted Hilter as an arch-conservative. They did this by ignoring the Progressivism, and noting the nationalism and the strong military. And so, Progressives rewrote Hilter as an arch-conservative, rather than an arch-progressive.
Hitler’s party was the National Socialists. The conservative party was in opposition.
Well the conservatives were in opposition, until Hitler decided things would run a lot more smoothly if there was no opposition party. Sort of like China, with the large number of Progressive Western leaders heaping praise on how smoothly things run in China because they have only one party.
Stalin was a strong nationalist and advocated a strong military.
Proof positive that communism is a right wing conspiracy.
Darwin was remarkably non-racist at a time when some human groups were considered subhuman and hunted by Europeans.
Galton, a relative of Darwin’s, made important contributions to statistical analysis, but did indeed also promote eugenics, to include naming it. From biographical studies he conducted, Galton concluded that desirable human traits were hereditary, ie from “nature, not nurture”. Darwin strongly disagreed with this hypothesis. Galton coined the term “eugenics” in 1883, after Darwin’s death,
Damn you greedy men! Stop depriving women of their climate! Seriously, where did you hide it?
So what’s the consensus among the eggsperts? should we be blowing up the women or the school-kiddies?
Can even one member of the party of SCIENCE explain to me how listening to her is any more informative than listening to, say, Cher?
Margaret Sanger invented the rhetoric of the woe-is-me tale of women being forced to have babies.
The Feminist angle is that there is opposition to abortion, and they say women when pregnant should have the choice to either carry the baby to term, or kill it – legally, and in an abortion funded by tax-payer dollars.
There is a huge Feminism angle they strongly neglect: rape.
A woman either gets pregnant by actions she is involved with willingly, or unwillingly. If unwilling, then it is rape.
So, here is where the Feminists are at.
Life begins at conception, per scientific consensus and the scientific definition of life (this is all readily supported with the interweb, and with what we all learned in middle school – there is no “spontaneous generation,” and there is no biology/developmental term for some mysterious stage of the life cycle between fertilization and when life begins for that product of conception – this is nowhere in any embryology or developmental biology textbook).
Feminists believe that, if a woman is raped and a pregnancy results, that there is no need to pay attention to the rapist and his evil deed – or that would be their big issue; instead, with the three parties involved – rapist father, raped impregnated mother, and innocent developing child, the Feminists prefer we lean on – get this – the least powerful of the three parties involved.
I thought progressives were fighting FOR the down-trodden, the voiceless, the oppressed? Those with no political voice, with no access ot the courts? -Guess not.
The really sick thing is that the original feminists like Susan B. Anthony HATED abortionists (their word). They saw people who advocated for abortion and extreme “family planning” as trying to degrade one of the defining feminine characteristics/abilities. They also (accurately) saw abortion as enabling unscrupulous men to exploit women without having to take responsibility for their actions. Early feminists would have loathed Steinem and her ilk.
The “modern” feminist movement does not value femininity, and does not want to believe that many/most women want to have children. From what I hear, men are actually much more likely to be ambivalent about having kids, and the ones usually pushing for offspring are women. This desire persists despite decades of being fed garbage about household drudgery, the patriarchy, blah blah blah.
Funny how the same people who spend so much time talking about choice do not actually want anyone to have one. I suppose that is why “feminists” and “environmentalists” get along so well. And now they are combining forces, heaven help us all.
This “coercion” could explain the Roman and Medieval warm periods but what about all those changes before men and women evolved from apes? Really have to wonder. 🙂
So climate science is finally settled then. Kids cause climate change. Can we ash can the models now and save a lot of money?
Gloria Steinem and her ilk are a major cause of the destruction of the family in the US. Women have been taught they are of little worth unless they have a career outside of the raising of children. Unlike the old Soviet Union, we did not force them to work but enticed them through femanist propaganda, pay them less than men in the same jobs thereby reducing the number of jobs that can support a family and requiring two people to work to support a family. Big corporations love the cheaper labor, kind of like illegal aliens. Yep, the femanist movement has really “empowered” women.
The belief that women are paid less for the same job has been demolished more times than I can count.
When you factor in all the differences, the so called pay gap disappears.
Men work more hours per week.
Men take time off to have and raise children in much lower percentages.
Men dominate in the dangerous occupations, and are compensated for that extra risk.
Men dominate the engineering professions. (Honestly don’t know why more women don’t go into these fields, programs to encourage them to enter STEM fields have existed for decades.)
Mark,
Your arguments are mostly supportive of why women get paid less, not that they don’t get paid less. And I agree with those arguments. There is also the PIA factor (pain in the ass). My wife, in our previous business, after three disastrous female hires, refused to hire any more women. One of our close friends, a woman manager, indicates that her 12 female employees have a much higher PIA factor than her men employees. My daughter’s soccer coach says the reason for this is that girls/women “bring more baggage on to the fieldd with them than do the guys”. There are, indeed, significant behavioral differences by gender and trying to ignore or deny them does not work. Women are much better at some things than men, no doubt, but not so much other things. And it differs by the individual woman or man. I shoot handguns competitively and the person who wins most often in our group is a woman. My wife is not a bad shot herself, but would hesitate in a life or death situation…….unless she was protecting the kids……..then you’d be dead before you could respond. As a group, skills and emotional response are generally different between genders. Of course, I am an old male chauvinist pig.
The problem is not women are paid less. The problem should have been women are paid less for the same work.
That men have a larger variance in fitness should not come as a surprise. Most really stupid but also some gifted individuals are men.
Oh well, that’s all right then. Glad we’ve got it straightened out.
Jim G1, those factors are all voluntary. That is women choose flexibility of work over higher pay.
It’s not businesses imposing lower wages, it’s women making lifestyle choices that result in lower wages.
Hugs, when you compare like to like, women are not paid less for the same work.
Jim G1,
I think the main reason it takes two bread winners to support a family is simple inflation. When women started working in large numbers after WWII, it temporarily increased the purchasing power of some families. However, as more women got jobs, there were more dollars chasing the same amount of goods and services, and the prices went up to where it took two people to buy necessities. Consider that in the 1800s a $20-dollar gold piece was an acceptable monthly salary ($240 per year). In the early-1900s, an average salary for a male worker in San Francisco was about $900 per year! A new Corvette sold for $5,000 (an annual salary) in the early ’60s, and they now go for more than $50,000 (again a middle-class annual salary). Everything else has gone up proportionately, except housing in California!
That’s what minimum wage, excessive forced benefits, mandatory health insurance and a host of government taxes have done.
Did she talk to her parents about this. Maybe they wouldn’t have bothered to have her. What she says is easy now that she has alife.
“Are you kidding me? Listen, what causes climate deprivation is population. If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn’t have the climate problems that we have. That’s the fundamental cause of climate change. “
Wimmin!
Unfair. She could have been a male eejit.
An XX is not a man just as an XY is not a woman
Oh no again, agreeing with Eric two post in row.
Could not post earlier because I was watching our granddaughter while everyone else slept. I get happy baby when she first wakes. Getting cranky baby to give up and go to sleep at the end of the goes to mom or my wife.
This what life is all about. Thanks to abundant energy we have time enjoy the environment instead of struggling to just survive what nature throws at us. There is the crowd that wants the best seats in the best restaurants in NYC or LA. The environment is a cause for them not something you enjoy with your kids and grand kids.
We’ve got two of our five here today, 2 and 4 yrs old. What fun! Have one, two or three here most days while the kids all work. Figure we’d rather they learn our bad habits than those of some strangers.
This is becoming a habit… 🙂
Indeed.
This isn’t innovative thinking. What does she have Planned?
Studies show that washed-up has-beens are contributing even moreso to climate change.
“SAVE THE PLANET: MAKE SENICIDE LEGAL!”
If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children
========
not only that. more people today die every day than almost any time in history. More than 150,000 people die every day. The number 1 cause of death in human is women having children.
if women weren’t having children, all human problems could be eliminated. In less than 100 years we could almost entirely wipe out death, disease, famine, poverty, ignorance. You name it, this would solve almost every problem humanity faces.
So while some see the Paris Agreement is a huge step forward, the real solution is for women to stop having children. Long before CO2 levels become a problem, all human problems will be eradicated completely.
Humans have managed to be the most successful primate despite the “obstetrician’s dilemma”. We are extra-uterine fetuses for long after birth because our brains are so big. Most other mammals can walk soon after birth. We are now at the limits for normal birth, which is why childbirth is so dangerous for women.
For human evolution to achieve even bigger brains, in future we’ll all have to be born by C-section. Just one of the ways in which cultural and biological evolution intersect. This alone should be a check on population growth, since few women will want more than two scars.
for every problem there is a solution waiting to be found:
I like big butts and I can not lie
You other brothers can’t deny
That when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist
And a round thing in your face
Maybe nature will find a way, but IMO surgery is a better alternative. Or having babies Brave New World-style, with artificial wombs.
Humans are not evolving.
And the more population grows, and the more multicultural and global we get, the lower the chance of anything close to “evolution” happening.
Nope, our genetic profile seems here to stay for quite a long time.
If you’re reproducing and your population is growing, you’re evolving. Humans are actually evolving quite rapidly. Our generation time is long, so it’s harder to notice than in fruit flies.
https://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n5/full/ng.3171.html
https://www.wired.com/2007/12/humans-evolving/
Our genetic profile changes in every generation.
So 20th Century. Population Bomb? Only if one calls something associated with an implosion a bomb. An un-bomb? In the advanced countries, negative population growth is already ushering in demographic winter. In the less advanced countries, it’s now demographic autumn. In 2100, the notion of population growth will be met with a curious furrowing of the brow.
Steinem espouses Planned Parrothood…..
As hideous as her comments were, at least it is out in the public now. Her view is held by many. As per the WHO 55-56 million children per year are being sacrificed in order to “save the planet”.
I quess that is not enough for her. One can only hope that someday there will be an accounting.
Planned Parenthood is listening to you, Gloria. They have a new ad where they call on “every single one of us” to unleash our inner hero and “use our superpowers to slay.” They don’t exactly say who you should slay, but who else would an abortion clinic want dead other than Steinem’s “unwanted children.” I don’t know what your idea of a superhero is, but I always thought of heroes as those who protect the innocent and the helpless, not slay them. It was always the villains who went around killing the innocents who got in their way. When did we become Bizarro World?
Here’s an excerpt from Planned Parenthood’s website:
https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageServer/;jsessionid=00000000.app20109a?pagename=pp_ppol_WhedonVideo_0517_Landing_c3.html&s_subsrc=3NALz1711W1N1V&s_src=WhedonVideo_0517_Landing_c3_c3web&NONCE_TOKEN=7AB189E94BD54A3F0BE668EABDC1C2D4
Mods, is there a reason why my comment at 12:35 pm is still awaiting moderation after 3 hours?
It’s worse than you thought
https://cliscep.com/2017/05/19/sick-butchering-little-kids-to-save-the-planet/
Pretty sure that’s a parody, not a real Time article.
Not that I have any use for Time Magazine.
It is 500 years this year since Martin Luther published his Ninety-five Theses/ Disputation on the Power of Indulgences. Perhaps Steinem thinks she has bought and paid for her own indulgence and it is tnow ime to pull up the drawbridge on the rest of humanity?
I must agree with her on this point: the world would be far better off if her mother had been able to access birth control.
Gloria, you have hypocritically been silent on female genital mutilation and a host of other egregious violations of women’s human rights because of either personal fear or political correctness. I thought you had died or retired in old age. But here you are waxing (waning?) impotently and gutlessly on Malthusian claptrap.
Gee, you’ve been part of the success in expelling light-skinned men from the ranks of “diversity”. It sure isn’t your old vanquished foe who are making the babies. We are the least fertile of the lot now. So, why don’t you show us some of the old fire and identify who you mean? You might with the same stone irradicate FGM while you are at it. PC got your tongue? Take the advice of friends who I’m sure have told you your work is done. You are irrelevant now. Don’t show that off in your golden years.
When the sculptor Bartholdi wanted to personify Liberty, he chose a woman.
What a noble (and in the case of many, undeserved) compliment he paid to women in that choice. At the heart of Liberty, is Love. Love is the most powerful force in the world. When you love someone, you want what is best for him or her. When you love someone, you give her or him the freedom to choose and, so far as it lies within your power, the means to make that choice happen. This is true feminism. True feminism does not require killing another human being. It does not require dooming people to energy-poverty (and all which that entails: ignorance, want, misery, disease …. and having 5 children because you buried 3 of them).
Love wants Liberty for women (and men). Therefore, Love wants the poor of the world to enjoy the health and happiness and freedom which fossil fuel (and nuclear) power brings. And Love hates lies (like the lie about human CO2 emissions causing significant shifts in the climate of the earth).
This is the kind of woman the world needs:
for she, too, personifies:
Liberty:
**********************
**********************
Well done, Eric W.!
And yet, the liberal left attacks her and threatens her with death constantly..Yet still she stands, tall and proud !! I would be proud to call her an American !
Great post Janice!
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is hero. Her personal courage, especially in the face of serious death threats, is an inspiration to us all.
Ayaan Ali’s courage shows the utter moral bankruptcy of modern feminists who made sharia-loving Linda Sarsour co-chair of their DC woman’s march, and who defend her despite Sarsour’s ideological commitment to the position that women are only half as intelligent as men. The irony would be funny were it not so bitter.
Thank you, Pedric. And yes, indeed.
Follow-up: after finding this defense of Ms. Sarsour I had to leave a comment. It may not survive. If it does not, the irony of ‘feminists for free speech‘ will be compete.
“fellow idiotic women”
Isn’t that the truth !
Hope all is well with you Janice, : )
There is probably more scientific rational behind the idea that unwanted children cause climate change then the idea that CO2 affects climate.
Yeah but when is this killer climate change supposed to happen?