Gloria Steinem and the roar of the gyno-saur
Well, I had to weigh in on Gloria Steinem’s politics of gynocentrism. Here’s my syndicated column out today. Enjoy!
***
The death cry of Gloria Steinem
Michelle Malkin
Copyright Creators Syndicate 2008
Behold with me the politics of gynocentrism. What a depressing and desiccative sight it is. Just look at Gloria Steinem. From once-ripe feminist icon to idea-barren harridan, she offers nothing to young women but anachronistic man-hate, anti-military bigotry and woe-is-me wallowing.
Hope and change? Try harp and whinge. Some things get better with age. The women’s rights movement isn’t one of them.
In the dark and desperate days of gyno-candidate Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Team Hill dragged Steinem out of the leftist dustbin for a grieve-a-thon in Austin, Texas. The 73-year-old activist sulked about Barack Obama’s ascendancy to The New York Observer, blaming voters who “want redemption for racism” and complaining that not “as many want redemption for the gynocide.”
What does she mean by gynocide? “There are six million female lives lost in the world every year simply because they are female,” Steinem asserted, making a passing reference to pregnant women killed by male partners. Presumably, she’s not including the millions of unborn girls aborted around the world every year because of their gender. (Not exactly the kind of empowerment the fist-raising, bra-burning pro-choicers had in mind.) And nothing in Steinem’s record indicates that she’s thinking of the untold numbers of girls and women murdered for “honor” in the name of Allah by Muslim relatives.
It’s Western men Steinem detests. You know, the ones who watch football, whom the NOW propagandists tried to blame for a mythic rise in domestic violence on Super Bowl Sundays, and the ones who serve in the U.S. armed forces — like that gyno-enemy, John McCain.
As the Observer reported, Steinem launched into a full-scale tirade about McCain’s war heroism — peddling a double standard that simply doesn’t exist:
“Suppose John McCain had been Joan McCain and Joan McCain had got captured, shot down and been a POW for eight (sic) years. [The media would ask], ‘What did you do wrong to get captured? What terrible things did you do while you were there as a captive for eight years?’”
In fact, nasty anonymous fliers in South Carolina did attack McCain’s years in captivity, and liberal websites have spotlighted the grievances, doubts and conspiracy theories of some of McCain’s fellow POWs.
But it’s not just about John McCain. “Steinem’s broader argument was that the media and the political world are too admiring of militarism in all its guises,” the Observer helpfully explained.
“I am so grateful that she [Clinton] hasn’t been trained to kill anybody. And she probably didn’t even play war games as a kid,” Steinem spewed, later adding that “from George Washington to Jack Kennedy and PT-109 we have behaved as if killing people is a qualification for ruling people.”
From Vietnam to Iraq, self-contradictory feminists have always behaved as if serving in the military was about nothing more than “killing people” — even as they clamored to put women on the front lines in combat roles in the name of gender equality. Leave it to the progressive left to smear their sisters after pushing for decades to integrate them into the “war machine.” They don’t care about the accomplished careers of women in the armed services. They care about haranguing Congress on government funding for their favorite contraceptive pills and abortions, portraying female soldiers as victims, hounding military recruiters, and exploiting accusations of harassment and abuse to undermine military institutions.
American women are the freest, wealthiest, most educated in the world. They are liberated enough to choose someone for president other than a female candidate out of uterus-based loyalty. This should be viewed as progress, not heresy. But the old-guard feminists — the “ruling people” — deeply resent this independence as they cling to what’s left of their power base and their shrinking absolute moral authority card.
Like their increasingly whiny candidate Clinton, Gloria Steinem and the fading gyno-saurs just can’t accept when it’s time to quit.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Jules Crittenden » Stay Ugly
- PAXALLES
- Obama- Whining We Can Believe In « Out West
- Ed Driscoll.com
- BizzyBlog » Couldn’t Help But Notice (030608)
- workplace communication
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Feminist Nonsense, Hillary Clinton
I bet she’s really a pleasure to be around. barf.
As I noted over at Hot Air, back in 2004, she proclaimed her support for Kerry, saying
(Source - Time interview)
Yet another well reasoned argumentative, MM! I agree with every word of it, especially the last line.
GREAT column, Michelle!
Spot on!
I guess that would make her a “vagina ideologue” to paraphrase the “Vagina Monologues.”
“I am so grateful that she [Clinton] hasn’t been trained to kill anybody. And she probably didn’t even play war games as a kid,” Steinem spewed, later adding that “from George Washington to Jack Kennedy and PT-109 we have behaved as if killing people is a qualification for ruling people.”
Superb column, Michelle. “Idea-barren harridan” and “gyno-saur” — zing!!
Game.
Set.
Match. To Malkin. Bravo!
I wouldn’t be too quick to write off the old-guard feminists. They still have considerable political clout in Congress, where they vent their anti-male sexism in sometimes odd ways, such as trying to dictate whom heterosexual men may consort with and marry.
Otherwise, a terrific column.
A couple of new words for me to look up, but I’m pretty good at guessing.
Spot on, MM.
Hear, hear.
Excellent piece!
Damn Michelle, let it all out, don’t hold back.
When I read this
The first thing that came to my mind was answered in your next two sentences:
As a woman, I find most modern day feminsts appalling (the exception being Feminists for Life, for example). They do not - I repeat, do not - speak for me. I give my deepest honor and respect to the original feminists…they were also pro-life, pro-family, and not anti-male.
Modern feminism is no longer about choice, about giving women the opportunity to do what they want - whether it be a career or a family. Modern feminists’ definition of “choice” falls into one of two categories:
1) Having an abortion.
2) Having a 60-hour-plus/week career.
Anything outside of that is terrible and a setback to the movement.
Look how they treat pro-life women, or women who choose to have many children. The self-described feminists on a discussion board I once frequented called Michelle Dugger (the Arkansas mother of 17) a “dog” who needs to be spayed. I don’t doubt that if she’d had her 17th abortion, they would have applauded her for exercising her “right to choose.”
Or how they treat stay-at-home mothers. They call that work - the hardest, most demanding work on the planet - “pointless” and tell women they are “wasting” their lives and education. As a mother who has to work, I can’t tell you there’s nothing more difficult than leaving my son with my parents (or in-laws) so I can go to the office. Today, he was sick. And I’m at work, and the feminists would applaud that (although, they’d probably encourage me to plunk him in daycare with strangers rather than family).
Feminism is the biggest hypocritical mindset on the planet. It denies everything about a woman that makes her feminine (especially childbearing and childrearing); it demonizes men while telling women they should pursue relationships with men at all costs (think “Sex in the City”); it tells women they have a “right” to abort their child, but shouldn’t have more than one or two children.
And, as Michelle pointed out, they get all hysterical about Catholic women having to wear chapel veils at Mass and the patriarchy of Christianity but say nothing - nothing - about the real abuses facing women under Islam.
Modern feminists do not speak for me.
Good article, Michelle.
I equate Gloria Steinem with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and others of their ilk.
Their time has come and gone and they can’t accept this, as their meal tickets depend upon there being racial and gender bias. I’m not so naive to believe that they don’t exist at all, but these people behave as if it’s the prevailing thought of America. Gloria needs get out of that sixties bubble she’s in and enter the times we live in today. Maybe she’d be pleasantly surprised.
That’s tellin’ ‘em, Michelle!
I’m sick and tired of getting mail addressed to Ms. I am a married woman.
I resent what these gyno-saurs have done to our country! If they still had any relevance, they would be leading the voices decrying the abhorrent treatment of women living under Sharia law! They are shamefully quiet about the horrid laws against some Muslim women.
Wow… what a loon! She needs to read her Bible.
I went and read her Wikipedia page and it says that her parents got a divorce when she was a little kid…. Hmmm, Daddy issues. Go figure!
“gyno-saur.” I love it.
Back in the early 80’s I worked at the Rutgers campus bookstore in Newark, NJ. Steinem’s latest book - Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions – was on our shelves, and she was scheduled to speak at the campus. I don’t recall if I’d read it cover-to-cover, but I do recall a passage that stuck with me to this day. (Keep in mind that I’m recalling this some 20-plus years later.) In the book, she mentions working for Richard Nixon, and witnessing Nixon’s casual conversation with a black man. Nixon had previously met with some handicapped children…..I don’t recall if it was a ‘Special Olympics’ event. At any rate, Gloria told how Nixon had asked the black gentlemen if he knew of a particular boy from this handicapped group. When the man replied that he was unaware of this particular boy, Nixon pressed on. “I’m sure you must know who he is..” Nixon stated. But again and again, the black man responded that he did not know the boy. It was at this time that Gloria came to a stunning realization: Nixon equated black people with being handicapped. How she arrived at that conclusion completely baffled me. If anything, Gloria was looking for a connection between Nixon’s handicapped boy and the black man…………….so she made one. It wasn’t Nixon’s equation, it was Gloria’s.
Again, this is a 2-decades old memory I’m recalling. If anyone has access to that book – the original printing from 1983 – then please feel-free to correct me.
You are so right Michelle. Steinem is such a sorry,sorry individual.
She’s a dried-up hack looking for a reason to stay relevant. I have no doubt that she’s clutching at Hillary like a drowning man…oh, sorry…drowning woman.
Found it!
Nixon describes the handicapped young man as having a “…hook for an arm..”
Scroll approx. 1/3 of the way down.
link
Outstanding article, Michelle.
It’s too bad her mother didn’t think like her…..then she never would have made it in the world
#12 Englishqueen
Or how they treat stay-at-home mothers. They call that work - the hardest, most demanding work on the planet - “pointless” and tell women they are “wasting” their lives and education.
You’re right. My wife CHOOSES to stay at home to work with our autistic son. She works MUCH harder than I do. She can’t call in sick or take a day of vacation. She gets no days off. Being a stay-at-home Mom is the hardest job in the world. That’s why God, in His infinite wisdom, gave women more patience and nurturing ability.
On weekends I often take our children out myself to give her a break. She deserves it.
Hear, hear.
However, let’s not pretend the fight is over. American women still have a long way to go.
On Sunday the Washington Post published an editorial on women being dumber than men. No evidence was cited. Anti-feminists are making it harder for women to report rape (if you’re drunk then that rape is in a “gray area”). Women still don’t get promotions as quickly as their male counterparts.
The feminist movement needs to keep working towards equality. It’s a shame Steinem’s ridiculous comments are attracting attention instead of the things modern feminists fight for every day.
Unfortunately I live in CA and there are only ‘feminists’ here. It is very sad.
That’s ridiculous. My mother was pro-choice and here I am. Same for the many, many Democratic parents I know.
EQ and Tre, anyone who says it’s not feminist to be a stay at home mother isn’t a real feminist themselves. What’s important is that women aren’t automatically expected to stay at home because of their gender. But making the decision (as opposed to the obligation) to be a stay at home mother is a wonderful choice.
Too bad she could not find a good man, have a family and enjoy her life. I understand her as well as others like Maureen Dowd who tried, but has never married seem overly hostile towards men. Perhaps if they kept themselves for marriage, things might have been different. Their crime is to paint with that broad brush as one of my liberal friends often accuses me of.
Rusty:
Rusty, there are those that would contend in the days of affirmitive action, it is actually a handicap to be a white male.
As much as I despise rapists and hope they die, the very sad fact is that its an extremely hard crime to prove and there are injustices on both sides of the issue (think Duke lacrosse).
As you all probably guessed, being the resident heathen, I side with Rusty on this issue. He is right in this one statement.
According to her wikipedia page, she did marry in 2000…. a guy named David Bale
“Gyno-saur” that’s a gooder,I wish i could come up with stuff like that but sadly I cant even spell good or nothing.
Let’s all hope that Steinem gets swallowed up by the same black hole that Nelson Mandella fell into.
JLP
Yeah, but there are a great number of people who can’t make that statement (their mothers were also pro-choice, but they decided to abort). Rusty, how does it make you feel that there was a chance that you wouldn’t be here today?
guitarguy thanks for the link! Clearly the connection Nixon was making was that they, like Nixon, had all won the same award– and frankly, there was probably only one guy with a hook-arm who’d won it, so he probably thought that guy would “stand out” as it were.
Now, Rusty
and
If you’re making these claims, shouldn’t you cite the link/ provide evidence too? Plus, everyone knows you can’t trust the papers, anyway
You need to be a little more nuanced here. Technically, if you can’t remember details, that does constitute “gray area.” Plus, I think this canard has lost some of it’s cache in the nearly 20 years since I was a college freshman when I first heard it trotted out. On a side note, I wish the feminists that were busy telling me I have the right to stand naked in the street yelling “sleep with me” (in coarser terms) and expect to not be raped if I suddenly said “no” had also spent a little time teaching me about personal responsibility and risk.
I’m sure this CFPA would make the gyno-saurs heads explode. The fastest women on the planet
Being irresponsible does not excuse rape. Someone else pointed out that walking in a dangerous neighborhood at night is pretty dumb. But if that person gets mugged or killed, that doesn’t make the crime any more understandable.
amystitz, I didn’t produce the article link because the editorial was published as a cheap and gimmicky way to generate controversy at women’s expense. The editorial was so bad that both liberal and conservative blogs (including HotAir) took time to point out how horrible and offensive it was.
But since you asked…LINK.
As for the promotion thing, I was referring to the biggest class action lawsuit in American history against Walmart for gender discrimination.
Let me again reiterate how silly Steinem’s comments are. I’m an HRC supporter and no one gives me a hard time for voting outside of my gender.
Let me also reiterate that most modern feminists don’t but into Steinem’s thinking either.
Just another example of the true feelings rich White Liberals have for Blacks. Usually these “feminists” would be bending over backward to prove they like Black folks, unless one gets “uppity” which makes them speak out against trhe very white guilt phenominon they foist on our youth.
People like Steinum like Blacks poor, dowtrodden and beneath them.
Way back in 1972, Gloria Steinem campaigned for George McGovern. So there is one white male she did like. But a little googling turned up something curious about Madam Steinem that she does not like to talk about. Back in 1969, Ms. Steinem was a supporter of Norman Mailer when he ran for mayor of New York City. This was the same Norman Mailer who was arrested for stabbing his own wife. I guess domestic violence didn’t bother Steinem back then. This was the same Norman Mailer who discarded loads of wives during his lifetime and the same Norman Mailer, who basically endorsed Black on White violence. The sheer hypocricy is sickening.
She’s old, she’s useless, she’s beaten down. Time to go home and retire from her misery of life. She can join Michelle Obama in all her hate.
Desperatly hoping she was relevant again, sorry Gloria but your day has passed & the statements she made show why she is not deserving of attention as she has nothing to say of importance.
There’s staying at home if you can afford it and staying at home and being on welfare but I digress.
I guess for some people it’s a hard thing to get old but for others it’s a time of grace. Too bad for Gloria she’s so unhappy in her “choices” in life.
Wow, I am coing to Rusty’s defense.
In any case, actually, no there aren’t any of the people you describe because they don’t and never did exist.
Rusty likely doesn’t “feel” anything about the possibility that had his mother not been ready to have children he may not have ever existed, because she likely WAS ready to have him as evidenced by his exsistence.
“desiccative”…I LOVE IT!
In publicizing the Austin event, Fox News showed a photo of Steinem with a woman priest standing behind her (guessing this was an [unsuccessful] attempt to lend moral credibility). Does anyone know who that clergy person is?
Poor Gloria. Just another psuedo-serious lib who, ultimately, will spend her “Golden Years” as an object of serious comedy.
Great job Michelle!!!
Great article, Michelle.
However, we haven’t seen or heard the last of Gloria and won’t until old age catches up with her and she draws her last breath.
#36 Larraby said:
And a lot of Googling will turn up many curious things Miss Steinem wouldn’t like to talk about…such is liberalism.
Gloria is like Madonna…a walking example of constant self-evaluation, wrapped in a cloak of pseudo-intellectualism; to protect herself from the hurt in her past, and to dress up her constant attempts to explain the things she doesn’t agree with or understand. Pin your hopes on her at any given time and you are bound to be confused or disappointed later on down the road.
As the late, great Laura Branigan sang it:
Funny how these ’60’s leftovers of the “feminist movement” never seem to cite all the woman-hate that constitutes the entire gangsta-rap street thug culture that has infected three generations of young men in our society. Not just African-Americans, either. White suburb kids seem to love this crap, and it fits with Latino macho attitudes as well.
How about this, Ms. Steinem.
I got 99 problems, and a b*tch ain’t one.
And yet Rusty abandoned his first-born child after giving birth in a park.
The “old-guard feminists” are to women what Sharpton and Jackson are to blacks – charlatan merchants of hate, fear and perpetual victimhood.
In their world, it is perfectly permissible, even laudatory, for a woman to say “I am voting for Hillary because she is a woman” and for blacks to say “I am voting for Obama because he is black.”
I am voting for McCain because I believe that he is the best (albeit not perfect) candidate. If I were to say “I am voting for McCain because he is a man,” Steinem and her fellow gyno-saurs would undoubtedly call me a sexist pig. If I were to say “I am voting for McCain because he is white,” Sharpton and Jackson and their fellow race-baiters would undoubtedly call me a racist dog.
In liberal-land, hypocrisy will always reign supreme.
Look on the bright side. They have no children to whom to pass their values.
OK. Presidents are not “rulers” under our system of government. A real glimpse into her political leanings.
As for “killing people”, the fact of the matter is that every President has had to take action that resulted in the deaths of others. Jimmy Carter may be a qualified exception to that rule, since the only deaths he was responsible for that I am aware of were our own troops.
Think about it - a President WILL face a more than a few decisions in executing his sworn duties that involve killing other human beings. Any Presidential candidate who is conflicted with that prospect simply cannot serve in such a position.
That is not to say bloodlust is a requirement for the job. Far from it. A decision that invloves the taking of human life needs to be tempered by conscience and high moral standards, and made only when those values can reconciled with the defense and security of the American people.
Hey Michelle! you’re one tough, classy broad!
Also, nice research on the troll Texas! But, yeech!
That column was gy-no-mite!
(Apologies for the cheesy pun but I couldn’t resist.)
Concerning the military, I think the real reason why Steinem and her fellow crones hate it so much is because it is an institution where traditional manliness is a virtue. The gyno-saurs loathe manliness and all it entails. They think manliness causes wars and violence. A manly-man can’t be controlled either. This is why they wanted so badly to cram the military full of women and out-gays, because they think if we feminize the military, there will be “peace” (we won’t be as effective against an enemy).
The military to some degree has been feminized and subjected to political correctness, but it is still effective overall. And that drives Steinem crazy.
Okay. Give Rusty a t-shirt to commemorate.
#46 Brian72 said:
Tru dat! Or how liberal feminists rarely speak out publicly about how Islamic culture, worldwide, savages women as an inferior and unclean class of being.
I believe, in this regard, liberal feminists are just being liberals. That is, they are scared (youknowwhat-less) by their true aggressors (thug culture and Sharia Law) but find it easier to seek comfort within their own protected, academic circles; making up “Super Bowl Sunday” canards and charges against the only group who are willing to either listen or put up with their shrillness (the American White Male.)
John Wayne in She Wore…, “The sun and the moon change, but the Army stays the same!”
That was for greenfairie.
I get it, MM. feminism is tired stuff.
Excellent post, Michelle. Simply excellent.
Modern “feminism” is simply one more example of how “progressivism” bastardizes its own principles to the point of self-contradiction if not self-caricature. For example:
- Labor unions. Most of what they originally fought for in terms of working conditions and hours has been codified into law. Today, their salient effect on the workplace is to make whole industries non-competitive in the global economy, while funding the donkey party with millions of dollars of forced contributions from a dwindling membership.
- Civil rights. We’ve gone from the goal of a colorblind society, immortalized by Dr. King’s “Not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character” - to assorted expressions of reverse racism and reverse sexism based on the notion that two wrongs really do make a right: race-based quotas for school admissions and civil service jobs that override merit-based qualifications, significantly more women than men enrolling in college while Title IX still mandates the dismantling of men’s collegiate athletic programs in the name of “equality,” and moral and intellectual charlatans like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton now claiming the mantle of “civil rights leaders.”
- The “antiwar” movement. Initially motivated by a debateable but at least arguable desire to end a socially divisive war in Vietnam, it has flowered into nothing more than reflexive anti-Americanism in the guise of selective “anti-militarism”: it’s expressed only when the American military is used to defend or promote American national interests.
- The “feminist” movement. Like with the labor unions, most of what its founders fought for has been made into law, from sexual harassment regulations to equal work/pay legislation, statutorily mandated maternity leave, right down to the Franchise itself. And today, like the labor unions, it serves as little more than a fundraising and propaganda front organization for the donkey party, doing more to poison personal and professional relationships between men and women than anything else.
All that modern feminsim has to cling to is its bald-faced and politically motivated hypocrisy. When Bill Clinton perjured himself in connection with a sexual harrassment lawsuit, “feminist leaders” like Steinem formed the Can-Can line and started singing “Stand By Your Man.” They kept right on kickin’ and singin’ when Juanatia Broderick came forward with her story of rape.
That’s when they lost their last shred of even plausible credibility. On anything.
I recall a couple of editorial cartoons which perfectly captured the essence of today’s Steinem-style “feminists.” Both satirized their response to Broderick’s accusations. The first showed three women, each stating in turn:
- “Sounds like consensual rape to me.”
- “Didn’t happen in the workplace.”
- “Yeah, and I hear she once even dated a Republican!”
The other showed two “feminists” sporting lapel pins: The first read, “I beleive Anita.” The second read, “I don’t believe Juanita.”
And that tells you pretty much all you need to know about the “feminist” point of view.
He’d probably poke a hanger through the shirt.
greenfairie,
I disagree. Check out the link I left in #33.
Good post as usual Regulus.
TT, you are one funny individual.
Shay asked-
Shay, my husband’s grandmother is an Episcopalian and we happened to be talking on the phone when that shot you’re talking about came up. She said that woman is an Episcopalian priest who is active with the more “liberal wing of the church”-her words. She said that when they lived in Alexandria, VA, this woman was there (probably 10 years more or less) yapping about the “right to chose”. My husband’s grandfather got up and said “too bad your mother didn’t make the choice to have you aborted” and walked out. They never went back to that church again.
Texas Tiger-I always wonder at those who are pro-choice myself. If they were aborted, they would not be here telling the rest of us how wonderful they are.
Nice article Michelle! Regulus your post was excellent too. Thanks for sharing.
60s Leftists seem to be coming out of the woodwork these days. The 70s Leftists never went away either.
Same stupid statements from the same fantasy land logic embracing buffoons.
Pretty scary business in these dangerous times.
Rusty
No kidding. Thanks. As a woman, I probably couldn’t have figured that out without your help.
Seriously (and speaking from experience), no reasonable person could argue that alcohol abuse excuses such a wretched crime. However, it is (or should be) part of our responsibility to teach young women about the dangers connected to an unhealthy relationship with alcohol. Part of arming our daughters to protect themselves in a sometimes hostile world should also be teaching them about personal responsibility and good choices. And I frankly resent being castigated by feminists for voicing that belief. I know that the man who raped me is FULLY responsible for his actions, but I also know that, given the circumstances under which it occurred, it would not have happened if I hadn’t been intoxicated and without a “buddy”– thus putting myself into an unreasonably vulnerable position.
As for this and the rest, my point is that you seem to use scant anecdotal evidence for sweeping claims.
MM:
Great column! You succinctly wrap up what Ms. Steinem really stands for: double standard feminism. As a conservative feminist myself and someone who’s studied the movement, I really do not like the liberal feminist stance on reproductive rights. Feminism and the women’s movement used to be about opportunities for women be it in the political, social, or economic arena. Why can’t they stick to that?
Where’s her concern for women in places like India, China, and the greater third world? Why is she and other feminists so focused on reproductive rights for women only to see how disproportionate India’s and China’s populations are becoming? What about female mutilation in Africa? Is her “gyno gyrations” the best she can do for women whose options of a better life are limited at best because all they can hope for is a birth control pill and an abortion?
I had to read her writings in college and I always felt keenly the conflict that she made her fellow women feel. In one instance, you can not embrace your femininity or that will make you seem weak to men and in another you must be seen as special because you’re a woman. Because of people like Ms. Steinem who’ve hijacked the women’s movement, there are many women who are plainly hostile toward men (I’ve seen them myself)only to find that later on in life when they’ve alienated the opposite sex on the way up the corporate ladder, they can go to a fertility clinic, get a donation, and make their contribution to motherhood. This is the kind of feminism that Ms. Steinem has introduced and has done our society no favors except to create more women who must “have it all” at any price which in the end makes both themselves and society generally disatisfied.
What this highlights for me is how closely Hillary is tied into identity politics and I’m SO SICK of identity politics. With her it’s about what group you’re in and she will never stop it. Continual references to her being a woman and how tough that is. Identity politics is for those who are empty inside. They have their oppressed groups, the women, the blacks, the jews, the lesbian/gay/bi/transgendered, the latinos, the poor, then your bifurcations like the women of color. Then you have rich white men who are the enemy, because, the logic goes, they identify with their skin color, their gender, their power, it’s about class and wealth and privilege. I’m so sick of it. And Hillary will NEVER stop the identity politics. It’s her life, that is her milieu, that’s the water in which she swims. What about those of us who don’t define our identity so narrowly as she identifies herself? We’re invisible to her. She doesn’t fathom there’s something beyond it. She’ll never grasp the true meaning of America.
I saw that picture of Gloria Steinem and the first thing that came to mind is that she looks like a man. Too bad the man she looks like is Ward Churchill.
Follow this logic to its end and you can surmise that birth control and even abstinence are wrong.
Everytime you don’t have unprotected sex you are denying a “possible” person thier life.
In fact, right now, you just failed to produce a life.
Regulus:
Extremely good post. I am not sure I have ever seen it summed up so neatly and conscisely. Great job.
Rusty said:
Pray tell, Rusty, just how disingenuous can you be? How could you possibly know many, many, or ANY, Democratic parents that had been ABORTED? “Why, I know many people whose parents had not aborted them!” Gee, really? And how could you possibly know the ones that were destroyed in the womb?
Unbelievable.
zeroangel, now thats just ridiculous rhetoric.
Abortion has nothing to do with contraception, but rather if killing an unborn baby is murder or not. Where do you believe life begins?
Raging:
It is not rhetoric, it is a conclusion I have come to in thinking on the matter.
I don’t believe life begins when a sperm joins an egg, nor do I believe it begins early on in a pregnancy.
I am against late term abortions however.
So, for me, since I believe an embryo is not a life: abortion DOES have to do with contraception. If I do not believe a fetus is a life, yet destroying that fetus is wrong on the grounds that I am preventing a “possible” person, then I must conclude that contraception is wrong too.
I realize you and I are not going to agree precsiely because it is the question of “when does life begin?” that is at the heart of this matter.
Zeroangel’s point is that saying I survived Roe v. Wade is similar to saying I survived Griswold v. Connecticut. If life begins at conception, where are all the shirts saying “I survived the pill.”
And BB, the argument being presented to me was that pro-choice women don’t have children. Which is nutso. There millions upon million of pro-choice women who have kids. Most people with children that I know are also pro-choice.
So to say that if Ms. Steinem’s mother shared her political beliefs then she wouldn’t exist, well, that’s patently ridiculous.
amystitz, I just want to change one thing:
I agree with that 100%
ragin:
Oh and I agree with your statement that abortion has to do with whether it is murder or not.
I was just trying to illustrate to others here the fallacy of the “potential person” arguement.
Rusty:
I hate to point out the obvious here but this sounds a lot like your posts on poverty in Anacostia and other lurid disapointments in both your life and in America.
Then there is this wonderful drivel:
and
In the first instance: my sister got herself into this situation. My parents wanted to press charges against her perpetrator. Guess what? My sister was too troubled by her “embarassment” to seek justice. Women usually have trouble reporting their rape or pressing charges when alcohol is involved. If you can’t remember who raped you or find a witness to that effect, you’re SOL.
As to your second assertion, wow, one whole example. Much better than your typical average of 0 citations. Now, if gender discrimination still poses a risk in society (which I’m sure for some women it does) I’m sure you can find some statistics, surveys, even studies to back up your claims.
Excuse me while I throw up. How much more equality do women need? There are women CEO’s, they are the majority of the American population, and the majority of the American electorate. What exactly are modern feminists fighting for?
You have no conception, Rusty of what women face when you say patronizing things (as a man) like this:
Please. How do you know? Or is this more anecdotal evidence? It’s just like saying this:
How do you know this? Anecodatal evidence? Who are the dissenting viewpoints?
Since you’ve taken a couple of history courses I’m sure you have some room left to take a few women’s history courses as well. I mean, you feel “our” pain and you’re also part of the biggest victim group of the entire liberal identity movement, the poor.
Steinem is a hyprocrite.
Steinem is a
hyprocritehypocriteImagine - Gloria was once a Playboy Bunny.
How quaint.
Zeroangel, in #67 you attacked my little post so here is my explanation back at ya. You’re way off base if you believe that I am talking about birth control-what I am talking about are children (I know you and Rusty think they’re not and you certainly like to remind us of your opinion) who are already here. The egg and the sperm has met, there is now a person. I have no problem with b/c. You can take that to mean I am denying a potential person-that’s your opinion although I doubt it’s one you really have, you just want to be obtuse.
Must have been slim pickings that year at the Playboy Club.
terrig:
I am not trying to be obtuse. I am trying to be intellectually honest.
IF I believe (as you do) that life beings at contraception I would have come to the exact same conclusion you do.
As Raging points out, its not about contraception it about where life begins.
I was not attacking you. You said you wondered about people that are pro-choice. I was explaing to you the perspective on the “potential person” arguement from a pro-choice point of view. Why do you think I am attacking you? Clearly you and others on this forum certainly like to remind Rusty and I of your opinion.
You don’t have to explain anything to me. I understand your point of view. We just diagree on the point at which life begins. To me, a aperm and egg joining doesn’t equal a person. If I believed that I would have to say IVF is murder too? Do yo uthink IVF (in vitro) is murder?
ZeroAngel:
How does abortion= contraception? What a load of horse manure. So my taking birth control every month is a form of abortion? How so? So my taking birth control to control my menstrual cycles and painful periods is just another word for abortion?
Your contrived explanation doesn’t address what RR is saying. I agree with RR. Are you now saying that a first trimester baby, only a little jumble of cells, is like some bad tumor that needs to be gotten rid of? The only way I can agree with your argument is in instances of ectopic pregnancy where the fertilized egg gets stuck in the fallopian tube and threatens the life of the mother (because the embryo eventually expands until it can no longer be contained and ruptures the tube). Otherwise, I’m sorry you are killing another life, albeit a much more tiny, simplistic, unwanted bundle of cells to you. How sad.
Contraception= abortion? I don’t think so. Taking the pill or using a condom is controlling egg fertilization which leads to an embryo. In the case of birth control, women control their ovulation. The egg is a zygote, not a fetus. Some people may feel otherwise. When an egg is fertilized by sperm it is no longer a zygote it is an embryo and therefore a life even if you think it rather useless or even parasitical like an amoeba.
Abortion is the forced expulsion of an embryo. Miscarriage, unfortunately, is quite the opposite. Are you going to say to women who’ve experienced miscarriages that their experience was rather like having abortions? That their babies were unwanted because they didn’t make it to full term pregnancy?
When a woman becomes pregnant is when birth control has failed or has been forgotten.
Thanks for explaining, zeroangel, in your atheist point of view, how abortion works. Silly me here thinking that I was cutting down my cancer risk at the same time planning for a time when I can happily anticipate a wanted pregnancy.
oops should read “life begins at conception”
aperm = sperm
yo uthink = you think.
Jeezz…
emjem24:
No. I am saying its just a jumble of cells, nothing more. Its up to the women what she wants to do with those cells. I didn’t say it was a cancer, or bad, or anything else.
You don’t have to expain the biology to me. I am well aware. Suffice it to say, I do not see a fertilized egg as anymore then a life then a sperm or unfertilized egg.
My opinion doesn’t nessecerily stem from being an atheist since there are plenty of theist that share my point of view.
emjem24,
It’s amusing to me that someone who is pro-death uses the term “fetus” which is latin for unborn baby.
Azygos:
Its amusing to me when people who claim to be “tolerant” and accepting make implied statements that atheists have no morals.
It’s tragic these people can’t see the out and out bigotry.
Terrig:
Zeroangel’s “quaint” way of equating birth control with abortion is a slap in the face to all the grieving women who lost their babies to miscarriage (not the forced kind). Now Zero is saying that IVF is just as obscene as abortion even if it’s the only medical of way of creating life for couples with fertility issues.
IVF medically brings the sperm and egg together when the process can’t happen on its own. Abortion is taking a life away. I think even Zero bringing this topic up is a canard and silly.
My mother told me how hard it was for her to conceive in her 30’s (in the 70’s there were fertility problems too). I remember how upset she was. The three babies that she ultimately miscarried meant something to her. To her, they were precious lives and to imply otherwise in the case of birth control is patently absurd.
I’m in my 30’s now and conceivng is a very poignant issue as well as deeply personal. To have some troll imply that years of planning (birth control) is murder is insulting to both me and my husband. I might not be overly religious but even I value what life is and means. To suggest that a little baby growing inside of you is like a tumor or parasite is not only godless but inhuman.
Michelles take on blogging while female.
.
Not going down that road again. We did that the other day. What was the topic again?
There is no valor nor achievement when one’s success is contingent on the denigration of others. The deconstruction of Western European male accomplishment is and was the feminist line of attack. To them I say, Bible, Bible, Bible, Shakespeare, Shakespeare, Shakespeare. Nothing written by anyone since has approached the beauty and wisdom captured by these men.
#69 On March 5th, 2008 at 2:22 pm, The Raging Republican said:
“Abortion has nothing to do with contraception, but rather if killing an unborn baby is murder or not.”
Agreed.
Preventing the sperm from fertilizing the egg is NOT the same as abortion.
Contraception means against conception, conception referring to the fertilizing of the egg by the sperm.
An abortion, and let’s be honest about it, kills at the post-conception stage.
#80 emjem24:
“The egg is a zygote, not a fetus. Some people may feel otherwise. When an egg is fertilized by sperm it is no longer a zygote it is an embryo and therefore a life even if you think it rather useless or even parasitical like an amoeba.”
Sorry to be picky, but I believe that a fertilized egg is a zygote.
Once the egg is fertilized by the sperm (i.e., the union of the two gametes), and before it undergoes division into 2,4,8, etc cells, the fertilized egg is a zygote, with the full complement of 46 (23 pairs of) chromosomes.
And yes, it is then (as a zygote) a life.
I agree with you and believe that completely.
enjem24:
Yes of course, I am “slapping women in the face.” Perfect “appeal to emotion” there.
IVF joins a sperm and egg. Are those fertilized eggs alive or not?
Did not say that.
Furthermore, I support IVF, and I am happy for couples that can produce children from it.
P. S. Don’t feed the trolls.
I would rather not envision that, if it’s okay. *gag*
emjem24 / terrig / others:
You do realize that in the course of IVF, several fertilized eggs (lives) are discarded? Right?
They fertilize a handful, but only implant the ones that seem to be the “best.”
Zero:
I don’t respect your opinion. I find your lack of value in even the tiniest of lives to be short-sighted, convenient, even deplorable. Yours is a reflection of the turn our society has taken toward the lack of respect for any life be it born or unborn. I’m not seeing it in your post.
What is more troubling is how proud you are of your “opinions.” You speak of it clinically, even dispassionately, as if you were one of those abortion doctors who’ve performed the procedure.
It’s interesting how you decry Azygos for his lack of “tolerance” while you speak about how abortion and the death of babies is like birth control or IVF. Azygos wasn’t “implying” that all atheists have no morals. That’s your take… he’s just focusing on your lack of a soul… or a reflection I guess.
It is my contention that those folks who support abortion do so at a distance and usually with the sort of clinical appraisal one would find at an autopsy or dissection. The human heart doesn’t enter into the equation.
Thank you for reminding me that there are loathsome creatures who see abortion as a means to an end of an inconvenience. That baby wasn’t a living entity, it hadn’t developed its brain, lungs, or limbs yet. You couldn’t see the color of its eyes. No, its just a thing that can be erradicated as easily as a bug infestation.
Again, how thoughtful of you to remind us all how great a stride our society has truly made in making life truly less meaningful or lacking of value. /sarc off
emjem24:
Just as proud as you are of yours.
I am sorry, but I think you misunderstood. IVF DOES kill fertilized eggs and if one (like me) doesn’t believe a fertilized egg is anymore a life than a sperm, than I must conclude that contraception is on the same moral plane as abortion.
As for Azygos, maybe you missed another thread where Azygos basically said in no uncertain terms that atheists have no morals.
In my case, you are wrong. ’nuff said on that topic.
You are fond of this particular logical fallacy aren’t you?
I am waiting for the reductio ad Hitlerum.
Zero:
You’re using IVF as another expedient straw man in your quest to prove that life should not have any meaning… even the tiniest.
As to fertilized eggs, I do not like their being discarded and perhaps some other couple can use them. Perhaps, there is something medically wrong with those not chosen? I do not know. This is the tricky thing with scientific intervention in human life. Where do we stop? Where are the boundaries?
I’m sorry life or the creation of it isn’t as important to you as the rest of us. You don’t begrudge couples who benefit from IVF but seem to think that implying birth control equates abortion is a back-handed compliment.
You don’t think a “bundle of nerves” or even a “fertilized egg” is life. You sound positively creepy like a scientist working his latest experiement. To you, there is always a means to an end. If a woman had a one night stand, let’s get rid of that little “mistake.” Let’s not be reminded that personal responsibility like ethics doesn’t enter the equation.
How dare I insert emotion into the debate? Gosh, since pregnancy is a rather personal matter where a woman is connected to a living being for 9 months of her life, you had better believe emotion is part of this issue. You may have unintentionally insulted women who miscarried but it is what you did.
It must be nice looking at life through a scientifically disinterested prism like yours…
Zeroangel, I had 7 failed IVF attempts. Do I beleive it was murder? No, although I wish I had had a child from it. Funny thing though, three years after we stopped fertility treatments I got pregnant-once and only once. We have our little girl who has DS but that’s okay, she’s a gift. We were also lucky enough to adopt a little guy from social services in HI. We feel blessed.
I know it’s a tricky thing but we used all the eggs that were retrieved. I don’t know about discarded eggs, I know plenty of people who want them who for whatever reason don’t have ovaries, etc. It’s a pandoras box I know but I do believe life begins at conception.
No, I am not. Despite what you may think of me I use forums like these to help form my opinions and discuss an issue rationally. I have a great respect for human life and my time in Iraq helped hone that. I despise murderers, which is why I can’t accept that a fertilized egg is on the same plane as a person.
If a fertilized egg is a life, then discarding those during IVF IS murder. Therefore, I MUST either reject IVF or reject that a fertilized egg is a life.
A straw man arguement is when one misrepresents another’s position. That is what you are doing to me. That and lots of “appeals to emotion.”
Didn’t say that either. I support a woman’s right to choose. Doesn’t mean I want my wife to get an abortion if our b/c fails.
You really should drop the sarcasm and childish taunts. If you think it’s even slightly hitting its mark you are wrong. I am just trying to have an honest discussion about a hot button topic.
Zero:
Actually, you pretty much do sound like Hitler. Let science take over everything. Soon, only those worthy enough of procreating will be given the opportunity to have children. Soon, we’ll be like China with their enforced abortions if you have one kid two many.
In Azygos’ way, I think you’ve proved his point. You really have no moral compass if you think life is to be gotten rid of at will by any human being in particular. Well, it takes more than a disinterested human being like yourself to actually have a soul.
To you, there are no boundaries. Whether it’s an unwanted pregnancy, a discarded fertilized egg, no matter. It can be easily gotten rid of.
I’m sure some atheists would disagree with you just as some religious folks would disagree with me. However, you underestimate the human connection and what makes us all innately human: a heart and a soul. I’m sorry I can’t be as scientific or academic about life like you…
Terrig:
Congradulations on your good fortune!
Despite what ppl may believe about me just based on my opinions, I am not a bad person.
IVF does involve discarding fertilized eggs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IVF
scroll down to where it says issues. It’s also in the meat I believe.
These discarded eggs COULD become a life if implanted.
IIRC the Catholic church calls IVF a sin and encourages devout couples to seek other means of having a child, perhaps adoption.
Despite some ppl thinking that I am trying to advance some agenda or that I am a mad scientist, I am truly just a person trying to be informed as much as possible about the issues.
I cannot be intellectually honest with myself and at the same time support IVF BUT say abortion is murder.
There it is! Thank you emjem24 for a stimulating discussion.