Monday, June 8, 2009

NOW What?

This could get interesting.

Whenever gender selection plays a role in our baby making, baby girls always end up on the shorter end of the bargain.

What will the feminists do now?
After years of defining abortion as their ultimate sacaramental act, in the name of empowering and liberating women, how will they justify the snuffing of girl babies for the sole reason of their gender?


kr said...

But Gino, some of them already have been practicing their arguments about freedom of choice 'even if that choice is reprehensible to me' because of the situation in India. Pretty classic Americana rhetoric, shouldn't be too hard to play.

The last big article I read did show that a good chunk of the pro-abortion "feminists" were feeling very uncomfortable with true abortion-on-demand, though, faced with the obviously uncontrollable situation in India.

I request you stop using "feminist" as if it were equivalent to "pro-abortion." Even in the most viciously toe-the-party-line periods (eg., late 1960s/early 1970s), there have been pro-life voices of dissent in the feminist movements (eg., many of the return-to-natural-birth advocates at the time, who are still active in supporting the mother and the baby in each pregnancy, in what was clearly a primarily feminist movement--and like any truly feminist movement, it was also about family and society and therefore about men too).

I am a feminist--supporting the inherent rights of all humans to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with an awareness of the historical injustices and prejudices that aimed to keep women from being full partners in humanity.

You are welcome to use some more specific term, perhaps "the libertine feminists" or even "the mainline feminists." But please stop throwing shit on me and other feminists like me, male and female, for a set of beliefs abhorrent to us. I get enough shit thrown on me by pro-abortion people.

(I'm a bit up in arms because I just finished reading a summary of President Obama's already horrific pro-abortion record. God help us. ... In good news, Gallup and ... that other poll ... both show increases in people identifying as pro-life and decreases in people identifying as pro-choice ... Gallup even polled that pro-life is the 51% majority now(!) ... these changes since last summer ... I guess having everything thrown into black and white is having some effect. We shall see. An interesting next few years--painful in a whole 'nother way than the last eight.)

Gino said...

i'm limiting 'feminist' to mean anybody who could publish a book and and get tenure at an american university today.
because, in reality, thats all the media and academia will recognise as having any authority over the minds of women, therefore, being the only voices allowed to occupy the public podium and influence policy.

and forget the likes of paglia. she has more in common with my peasant italian grandmother than with modern fems.

kr said...


you haven't been reading all the news, then, just the Big Headline stuff ... there've been lots of articles in the mainline media about the next generation of feminists who really don't understand why the 1960s feminists thought it was pertinent to be so anti-man etc etc ...

Paglia was not out of touch, she was ahead of her time. I was a little ahead of mine. The kids taking those feminist classes in the colleges are irritating those professors of whom you speak--that's why they got written up in the media, because the professors were, apparently, complaining in their professional articles about the 'lack of understanding' and general disrespect/feeling of entitlement of the younger women.

it's all shifting, Gino ... I'm a harbinger. The shift has been coming for years.

You are complaining about the feminist movement the same way Planned Parenthood complains about pro-lifers, taking the most obnoxious (and generally historically outdated) examples ... most of the movement isn't those people.