I’m going to post some quotes about reasons for circumcision. I want people to think if these are good reasons for cutting children’s genitals and what we could do instead. If you agree with these statements, then I’ll do what I can to change your mind in the future, but fair enough. If you don’t, come back for the next post to discuss the issues.
Unfortunately, our daughter fell into the statistical minority, developed UTIs, and was circumcised before 6 years old to prevent recurrence. I no longer had to fear for my daughter’s fragile teenage years (which will soon be upon us), and her mother understood that, for our daughter, the procedure was medically necessary. But if I were making the decision today for a young child, given the current medical advice, I hope I’d be more open to leaving things the way nature intended them.
Is this how we would typically treat a UTI in North America or Europe? I had a few of them myself growing up, it’s not abnormal. I didn’t get sliced up – even if it would have helped – instead I was given antibiotics. Yes antibiotics carry their own risks and can damage the gut through eradicating gut flora. Nevertheless with a bad infection it’s the best course of action. Surgery for anything is normally a last resort. Apparently, when it comes to children, it’s easier to slice up their bodies. They cannot really say no, make their own decisions.
Then I saw this about bullying:
Please have girls circumcised my wife still at 48 has emotional scars. The kids nicknamed her spinster, called her ugly – other girls age 8 tried to pull her pants down and with a pocket knife saying they were going to make her normal and pretty. (Their mothers wanted her to be marriageable).
Is this typical of dealing with bullying? Rather than dealing with bullies and cruelty, we plead the right to mangle children. Why have emotional scars when your privates can be one big jagged scar of vacant flesh.
Are these good reasons to circumcise? Should we allow female circumcision (any of the four types), based on the pleading of family? Avoiding emotional scars, infections, “health issues”, ability to marry… could we validly say these are serious considerations for mutilating young children?
It would be great to hear some opinions before posting the follow up, so I have more to work with 🙂
There’s been a ton of violence against anyone right of Marxism since President Trump won. No one in the media has cared about the constant riots, the taking over of schools, the attempted murders, the actual murders and the killing of police. Now that people vaguely around “centre” politically are protesting being beaten and potentially murdered, well that just won’t do, will it? What good is a victim that fights back when one is an anemic frail pale bourgeois college student? Be a good victim and take your beating. It amuses me that they speak about the oppressed, and money, and how they’re part of the workers revolt; yet they’re the bourgeoise they detest so much. They’re blind to their privilege, being able to go to schools most people couldn’t afford in multiple lifetimes.
And now people are sick of it and refusing to submit. The act of defence is now violence.
When a schizophrenic commits violence it condemns everyone who doesn’t want to be beaten by the left and submit to their insanity. When the left commits violence it’s met with silence, media blackout, or actually applauded as justified. Twitter lights up with congratulations, and demands for more death. This is fine by standards of the North American media and Canadian politics. Why is this fine? Frankly it’s not fine. Not at all.
I think that there is one very simple litmus test for if you are on the right side of history.
Is your political affiliation killing babies?
Not only will you kill for personal, political, material and fianancial gain, but you are willing to kill your own flesh and blood, the weak and dependent, the most innocent if it means you can potentially advance. How can anyone trust a person who will butcher their own children for personal gain?
And how can anyone hope to survive more than a generation if they are the last generation? They and their comrades slaughtered their offspring and brought their glorious revolution to a screeching, screaming, bloody dead end.
It isn’t just America anymore. First we had a parade. Then we had to have an entire festival and a week of “pride”. Then many of our crosswalks were made into rainbow stripes. It was so “beloved” they’re permanent fixtures. This wasn’t enough, however. Now our city has drag queens with inappropriate names, reading stories to and speaking with very young children. Stories with sexual titles (Mary had a Little Clam, for example) parading sexuality to children. Not one drag queen, but a whole line of them.
I know I’m an evil bigot for not wanting to sexualise children. This is hyper sexualization and everyone seems dandy with it. We have antibiotic resistant gonorrhea and in the gay community rampant hiv/aids, and last I heard, exploding hep. Perhaps some people think I’m over stating this, but consider: drag queens are performing sexual expression. Look at their dress and their makeup. It’s not dress up. The purpose is of a sexual nature, even if they repress it. The very entity of the drag queen is sexual. Then look at the whole idea of “pride” itself. Gay pride is people literally being proud, delighting in and taking meaning from, whom they have sex with. No healthy person should ever be forming their identity, marching, celebrating or including children in who they are having sex with.
Gay pride and the whole idea of identifying as gay is identifying as someone who has a certain type of sex with certain people and lives in a certain way pursuant to the physical homosexual act. No healthy normal person identifies and bases their personhood on who their jibbly bits go inside of. Most people do not identify as who they have sex with. It is a part of their lives and if anyone really wanted this to be about “love” (which marriage is not, sorry kids), most people wouldn’t be able to tell who was in a gay relationship, who was straight, who was single, etc. If everyone simply lived their lives and didn’t form identities by who they have sex with and then have to tell absolutely everyone else and rub it in their faces there wouldn’t be so much of an issue.
Instead, our families and cities are being forced to embrace and watch live action porn every year. If anyone tried to show public films of the things we make children witness during “pride”, there’d likely be criminal charges. Why are we forcing our children into more and more sexual situations and forcing them to think it’s normal? Why are we so obsessed with sexually perverting our children. THIS IS CHILD ABUSE.
Whatever happened to the idea that “what two consenting adults do in their bedroom is none of your business”? When you take it out of the bedroom, it’s now my business. When you start involving children, it’s my business. When people who don’t want to be involved are forced into acceptance by threat of legal action by the government, it’s my business. How is this about consenting adults anymore, when you’ve got CHILDREN involved?
We are now reducing people to how much they cost. If old people can save the government money, then doesn’t it make sense? They should save us money and if that means dying to do so, so be it. What about sick people? They cost the medical system money. Why don’t we just leave them to die to save money? Cancer patients? Why treat them, they’ll probably die anyway, and think of the savings!
Parliament votes themselves raises for doing nothing but ruining the country, empoverishing the people, and sitting around preening. Better kill granny to save some cash, those raises have to be funded by something.
Think about it for a bit. Killing old people, sick people, also called euthanasia, is being promoted as a way to save money. Can someone remind me what the love of money is?
Oh yes, the root of all evil.
I had wanted to finish this miniseries of inanity, but at the time didn’t think the damage to my sanity was worth it. However I believe it is about time this is done with. It is the last six points of eighteen, found here. She claims female privilege is insane, I argue its commonplace and what our very civilization is founded on; further that the things she complains about aren’t female oppression, or are actually caused by feminism itself.
13. Female disadvantage is being payed a lower salary in the same position a man holds. Female disadvantage is being judged if you’re a stay at home mom because you’re not living up to the rights won by feminists past but being judged if you do not stay at home to raise your children.
This is the wage gap myth. Women work less overtime, take more holidays, take more sick days, leave work earlier/start later, take maternity leave and generally don’t ask for raises as frequently as men. Women earn the same as men hour-to-hour in the same position; statistically women earn slightly higher than men in the hour-to-hour, same position job, on average. Its a fractional percentage but it exists. Forbes goes into the wage gap myth. Women also do jobs with less danger (and thus lacking danger pay) and with more emotional or self satisfaction, such as caring for others or doing something they love but for less money. Even with “liberation” women still mostly become secretaries and nurses. I don’t know of many female underwater welders, crab fishers or oil rig workers. Where are the summer roofing women clamoring for fair representation hauling shingles and mucking about in tar? Where are the women demanding they wake before dawn to sling garbage off the streets as equitable distribution of careers? Why don’t they want to close the death gap? 93% of US workplace deaths are male, and this excludes military deaths. Why aren’t women demanding they be given riskier, more dangerous jobs that puts more female lives on the line, if they so desperately want to be closing gaps?
Generally women will gravitate towards things they like even if it pays less, while men have historically been forced into any paying job they can get. Men will more often hate their jobs or careers but do it for the money it brings. They usually do this so their children can be raised in the home by a parent (mother), rather than in a institution by a stranger (daycare, school). Women will also take lower wages if it means they can work from the home, or do small home business from the home, to be with children. This contributes to the average of lower pay; also in Canada small businesses earning less than $10,000 a year are untaxed. For a mother that’s helpful and it doesn’t push a family into a higher tax bracket.
The second part is this girl shooting herself in the foot. That “disadvantage” comes from feminists and feminism. Stay at home moms, like myself and most of the women I know, don’t attack each other for raising our children. Nor do we go after the women we know who work, and they don’t attack us. The only people causing disadvantages here are feminists who expect every woman to pick up and follow them in lock step. If one does not, then they are to be ridiculed, ostracized and beaten down. They take it as an insult that other women don’t appreciate their efforts to “free” them.
Some women simply don’t like working to pay for a second car and daycare, so they can go to work. Others care more for being the ones to actually raise their own kids, or put education on priority and prefer homeschooling to the decaying school system. The condemnation about stay at home moms, or even motherhood in general, comes from feminists. Most stay at home moms I know prefer women to be home with the kids, and consider it the better choice, but all also understand that sometimes circumstances necessitate otherwise. That’s not judgement.
I don’t think its fair, or intellectually honest, to use problems among feminists, caused by feminism, to argue female disadvantage.
14. Female disadvantage not having her opinion taken seriously when there is a real issue.
Does this actually happen or is it just rhetorical fantasy? I would also like to know, is your opinion valid for the real issue? There may be a real issue, but your opinion may also be validly ignored. Opining that your cookies are excellent has nothing to do with the real issue of the five cent increase in gas prices because of the carbon tax. There is no reason to take your opinion seriously in this moment. Or, there may be an election of Canada’s new Prime Minister but your views on the pertness of a candidate’s arse or how cute he is, while your opinion, cannot be taken seriously for electoral platforms.
If you have a valid opinion, in your patriarchal fantasy world, you’d get a pat on the head and told what a pretty, smart girl you are to have thought of that all on your own. So even in the darkest corners of your male dominated nightmares, you’d still get credit. After all, those nasty men let you speak in their presence, didn’t they? As someone who lives in a male dominated social structure, and worked in a male dominated industry, I have never been condescended to or had my opinion not taken seriously. I actually have men ask my opinions willingly, or consider them thoughtfully; men appreciate intelligence and wit. I would ask the feminist, are you sure your opinion is valid for the situation, or are you just so used to participation trophies you cannot comprehend being dismissed on the grounds of failure? You may actually be dense, illogical, invalid, plain wrong or flighty; not oppressed or disadvantaged.
15. Female disadvantage is being successful and being told it’s only because you’re a woman, not because you’re hardworking.
Sometimes women do make it because they are hardworking. There could be valid reasons for general suspicion that aren’t being considered. Let’s weigh in against the claim. Being a woman greases the wheels. It’s also harder to not let a woman be successful because she can take you to court for discrimination. Women often don’t do as well, yet are promoted, because of lowered expectations. This is actually real, and as hardworking as you may be, and may have earned everything to a certain level, at some point you are raised above men for being a woman. I have to agree with the premise of this one, because the government establishes sex quotas. Women have to be hired in certain percentages, have to be promoted in certain percentages, etc., for “equality”. This insures women are hired or promoted at standards considered unsatisfactory for men.
What I disagree with is that its a disadvantage. This is actually female advantage, in that women are handed things they don’t earn. If a woman cannot make the standard, that should be the end of it. The fact that women are forced into roles and jobs, objectively they did not earn, makes the complaint of “because you’re a woman” credible. This is not every situation, of course, and it may happen to some women and if so I hope they prove their grit and mettle. Generally speaking if you can do the job, that’s all anyone cares about.
Ambition is usually a male trait. There are ambitious women, but nearly every male is ambitious in some way, while it is less obvious in females. (For this we will ignore hypergamy and the social climbing of women; these are different sorts of ambitions.) Typical ambition drives men to be actively successful, or to scrape their ways to success. Women do start up many small businesses, usually from the home, but they are generally little part time jobs they like to do. Men will start something and drive it to become a large business; women are less inclined and less interested in doing such. Men are also more likely to fail and lose more than women, as they risk more and invest more; feminists like to disregard this point.
16. Female disadvantage is having your body dissected by the media and society, and having immense pressure to live up to an arbitrary and unattainable ideal image of beauty.
I both agree and disagree with this one. The writer and I agree for different reasons I suspect. I’m disgusted with the grotesque display of bodies everywhere. There’s no sense of modesty in our world. Girls dress like hookers, and young women wear skin tight clothes with all their bits jiggling. On a limb, my guess is the feminists see nothing wrong with this, but complain that people look and judge. They create their own monster.
Feminists on one hand whinge about objectifying women and living up to unrealistic standards, then turn around and talk about empowerment, slut walks and “their bodies”. As women have become more “sexually empowered” the more clothes have come off, the more weight has come off and the more demanding the gluttonous media is. Women wanted to keep shortening their skirts, pulling off their sleeves and tantalizing men, because they were “free” and “liberated”.
I agree that being part of a meat market is wrong and disrespectful, but sweetheart, it starts at home first. This disadvantage only goes as far as the individual woman allows it. Women who dress nicely but modestly are not only treated with more respect simply in passing, but are not treated as objects. Being pretty and unpretentious avoids the whole situation. Women make money off their bodies; models, strippers, porn stars, reporters and tv anchors, actresses, waitresses and bar tenders to name a few. The very system feminists complain about let them make money with little labour. What is an advantage to many is a disadvantage to others.
In this case, empowerment belongs in the hands of each woman: isn’t this actual empowerment? Women can choose to unplug from the mass media and not enslave themselves to all these trends. They can choose to reject slut walks or looking like they’re standing on a corner. I agree that the media has a crazed view of beauty they are pushing but one doesn’t have to obey. Most women don’t look like that and everyone knows photoshop and air brushing is used. Few people truly believe women need to appear like supermodels at all times. Surprisingly (not so surprisingly) most men I know dislike makeup and fake parts.
I’ll add that this unattainable perfection affects men, too, but admit it is not to the same level. Fitness magazines push the perfect six or eight pack, chiseled features, hairless bodies, and rippling muscles. Most men also do not look like this. Unlike women, men also do not get private gyms. There are unisex gyms and women only gyms. There are plenty of overweight, obese, untoned, and completely normal average guys in the gym. Many more are too ashamed to even enter, as women intermingle and it is as hard for a fat guy as a fat gal to exercise in front of others. Another trait men are judged on is their height, and there is massive hate for short men out on the internet. Plenty of women, feminists too, rail against short men and mock any male shorter than they for daring to ask them out. (Yes, my husband is shorter than I.) And guys, you’d better have good credit, a good job, your own place, a car, etc., etc. Because women’s eyes turn to looks that aren’t on a man’s body, but in what he possesses. She can judge you for appearances she prefers but no man had ever notice anything physically attractive.
17. Female disadvantage is having to hide the fact that you’re a feminist because it’s seen as a dirty word. Female disadvantage is being told you’re just a harpy nit-picking feminist who is being over-sensitive.
Feminist is a dirty word, because feminists are shrews and harridans. Wanting all the advantages and rights with none of the obligations and responsibilities is simply wrong. Women aren’t forced into compulsory military service, women don’t usually end up paying child support, women don’t have to work dangerous jobs, etc. I would also like to know why it is a female disadvantage to deny feminism. That seems more like a choice, rather than a sex-spanning conundrum. Most women don’t like feminism. Personally, I’m against every wave of feminism. I accept this is an outlier position. Almost every modern anti-feminist thinks the first wave, and even the second, were good. It is this last “third wave feminism” that has so many people – yes people, all sorts of people – pissed off.
Why is hiding feminism female disadvantage? Universities thrive on it. Even the only men’s gender course is run by the women studies people. Women can complain about anything they want, in public, and completely lie (glass ceiling, wage gap), and they are taken seriously. When boys are killed in the world, no one cares, but if girls are kidnapped, it’s a global outrage.
Having to hide feminism and feeling judged is a personal issue; one cannot take legitimate criticism of feminism and dreams it is abundant (victim mentality and martyr syndrome are endemic in today’s society). Everyone proudly proclaims themselves as feminist, or pro girl, or girl power, or whatever else pro-woman they can think up. How this is female disadvantage is beyond me. The only thing I can think of is that when people now bring up feminism, they may be openly critiqued or asked questions. It is no longer taken strictly as gospel all the time. This social heresy makes hard line feminists, I’m extrapolating here, feel very disadvantaged.
It is not disadvantage to be told you’re a harpy and nit picking and being over sensitive, because you are. If you stopped being a whining nag emoting over everything, people would stop saying it to you. It is not female disadvantage to be told off; everyone is told off. Everyone gets annoyed, and everyone pushes too hard and too far at some point. Being told to shut up and sit down isn’t female disadvantage, its an individual issue. I’m not disadvantaged because your feelings were hurt, or because people disagree with you. Nor is any other woman.
18. Female disadvantage is being tossed aside as irrational and arrogant. Female disadvantage is being told “You have it good enough, why keep fighting?”
This one makes me feel like she was really scraping the bottom of her skull for anything after that flop in point seventeen. If you are being irrational and arrogant, than you are going to be told so and, yes, tossed aside. If you are not being irrational and arrogant, than other than all your feelings, where is your proof? If arguing for feminism has people calling you irrational and arrogant, than frankly I agree with them. It has nothing to do with you being a woman, everything to do with you presenting rhetoric, lies and slogans. Neither men or women had great pasts; for most of history men and women worked together, performing different functions, so we could all survive. Women were given the good graces to not have to work outside the home, as breastfeeding, raising toddlers, taking care of a home and garden or farm and making all the food and clothes from scratch was already a full day and night of labour. Why feminists are obsessed with adding a forty hour work week to all the work women already do by their very natures is mind boggling. Unless they really hate women.
Women don’t have it good, in the sense that women able to be women, wives and mothers thrive; they aren’t. Women as materialistic entities “winning” at society, do continue “the fight” and do have it good. They marry men, instigate the majority of divorces, then take everything. They can get jobs they aren’t qualified for, based on legally enforced government quotas. They get the same hourly pay as men, even though they statistically don’t do as much actual work. Everything in schools circles around them. Harming boys and mocking men is celebrated.
Wives and mothers, on the other hand, get shafted. Their husbands struggle to find work in a failing economy flooded with competition from men and women. The government taxes families into poverty, making a family life difficult. (People are staying unmarried or divorcing because they lose less money as separate entities than as a family). The government funds single mothers in daycare, camp, college, after school activities; when she marries, all these are cut off. Families have to pay school taxes even if they home school.
Is there a graduating scale of how alive someone is? Can we say the injured adult on life support for massive trauma is less human? They are not viable outside of the hospital bed, or self-sufficient. Under normal means, many people at any given time can be incapable of independent living. In the future they will hypothetically be capable of living on their own again. For this reason they are artificially supported. It could be a major trauma with a positive post-surgery prognosis or a debilitating disease undergoing treatment. The individual is factually incapable of living without support in the immediate; it is understood however they will at some definite point be able to function normally. It is a matter of time, not their present state, that determines the viability of a human.
There is a problem here. For a child, it is simply a matter of time, as with an adult, before they are independently able to develop. It can be tracked with relative exactness, more so than an injured adult waiting to achieve viability yet again. Is the worth of an adult life measured in the immediate? Is the use of medication or ventilators presently determining a lack of viability, thus a non-human status? We await the day a person heals and returns to normal. We await the day when a child takes its first steps. Eats with a spoon for the first time. Walks to school alone; was the child less human before each measure of independence from Mother?
This larger problem of independence looms. What stage of development is considered independent existence from their parents? Can anyone with a child actually claim they develop independently? A preterm baby, in a ventilator and receiving treatment as the trauma patient does, develops further. They follow the same route every baby does no matter their supported location or placement in time. A child still in the womb, at the same level of development, is just as capable of surviving the external treatment other children their age undergo. Is a baby post due date more, or less, viable? Are the considered “alive” but in the wrong location? They were considered “alive” and “viable” if they had been born on the due date. Is a preterm baby alive but non-viable? They are outside the womb, but not independent of support. Is a trauma patient alive but non-viable because of the same support? Does the location alone form the determining factor? Are children born in the “wrong” nation less human or less viable, because of locale?
There are milk banks, for women to donate breastmilk, for premature infants, some in the 20th week. Preterm babies do better when fed breastmilk. (Their own mothers won’t lactate for many weeks, given the circumstances). Studies show premature babies – even extremely fragile early ones – grow healthier and better when put skin to skin with parents or volunteers, and carried upright as part of routine treatment. These simple developmental facts of nurturing demonstrate their humanity. The children are not independent of support, even if considered alive and viable.
A newborn is certainly considered viable. If one, however, chooses to ignore their viable (and according to the definition, “further development can occur independently of the mother”) newborn and have them develop independently, they will find the opposite result of the definition of viable. The newborn will quickly die of a few factors. Failure to thrive and starvation being two immediate ones. A mother who does not rear her offspring kills it with neglect. How is this possibly independent growth? If anything, a born baby is less viable than a baby in the womb. A gestating baby has everything provided and done for it, the mother does nothing but exist. A born baby needs constant care and feeding. We also continually push back the age at which a baby will survive early labour. Even 18-week babies surviving, while rare, is not unheard of.
In the Victorian Era, there was a wasting disease of babies, called “failure to thrive”. The babies could be taken care of materially, but they would still die off. Orphanages had a 100% mortality rate at times. Anecdotal discoveries made some doctors instruct their nurses to hold each baby for a short session each day. The failure to thrive deaths drastically reduced. Children need human contact to be healthy and even to survive.
The direct translation of “fetus” (Latin) to English, is “offspring”. When is the fetus capable of growth and development independent of the mother? A baby’s world is the mother, whether in or out of the womb. A newborn needs physical contact to be healthy, has to be fed and needs to be cleaned when soiled, as well as protected from harsh climates (it is winter here in Ontario, necessitating shelter and warmth) and predators. An infant is no more capable of survival than a newborn, and a toddler may eventually be potty trained and go through the fridge, but cleanliness and nutrition are far out of reach. A child cannot outrun predators or fight back, but cannot care for and sustain itself alone. While most teenagers may actually get through singular survival out of sheer rebellion and foolhardiness, college and university students seem to be in regression. They apparently cannot emotionally handle mean words, they throw fits, smash things and scream when they don’t get what they want/their own way, and can’t cook Kraft dinner: making them about as capable as the toddlers.
So what is viability? What is humanity? If we found DNA floating in the atmosphere of Jupiter, it would be alien life, from Jupiter. When we find human DNA in a woman’s womb, we question what it is. That DNA is the same at conception that it is when born, that it is when an adult, and still the same hundreds of years after death extracted from the pulp of a tooth. That “mass of cells” is always going to be born from a woman, either naturally through the birth canal or via c-section. That “mass of cells” will always be a baby at birth. It is not a guessing game or mystery box. We never ask a woman “is it human”, but “boy or girl”, with the presupposition that she has a baby inside her.
A “mass of cells” at 7 weeks looks like a little peanut, with a visible head and body, and more importantly, with an evident beating heart, pulsing like a strobe light. That is not a mass of cells, that is a definable human being, with a brain. At 19 weeks, when the average ultrasound takes place, a woman can see her baby’s skeleton, the features of the skull, its actual brain and inspect the lobes herself; one can see the baby kicking, sucking its thumb and watch its heart beat and the different sections of the heart work.
Anywhere else in the world but inside a human mother we would say that baby is a human. The very place that baby is intended to be somehow negates its humanity and makes it a “mass of cells”.
No child is viable, by the definition of viability, for no child can live without their mother or a comparable surrogate. A newborn and infant surly cannot develop independent of their parents; warmth, safety, sustenance and even the need for touch are dependent absolutely on the mother (and includes the father). In what way is this dependence “independent development occurring”? The baby’s brain is still growing, the skull has a soft spot and the plates have to shift into place and eventually knit, it has no practical immune system, the liver doesn’t function for weeks and the digestive tract is incapable of processing normal food if the toothless gums could even manage anything; these are growth and development. There is huge visual and verbal development in the first weeks (compare the cries days after birth to the babbling and laughter-squeals at two months, or how long before the baby follows sounds with its eyes) post birth. Language and walking don’t come for nearly a year. Those are developments and growth, and language is dependent on the mother/father or family-clan-social group.
If we can kill children for a lack of viability, we have two solutions: there’s no killing of humans (especially for the decisions other individuals make), OR we can kill people for convenience or monetary reasons, up until they are able to work and provide for themselves. All a fetus needs is a place to live safely and a source of nutrition and contact with another human. Isn’t that the definition of survival and viability for all humans?
There is an interview from a Patricia Hajdu, Canada’s “Status of Women Minister” (I didn’t know that was a thing either, but I am so pleased the food from my child’s mouth is taken from me in the form of taxes to pay for such needed roles in government). It took a bit of searching, but there are a few sources. It could all be the exact same article spread over Canadian news sites.
The government wants to hear diverse, and opposing views and opinions.
But Hajdu’s enthusiasm for funding opposing voices only goes so far
That’s right. The government will only accept opposing views that agree with their opinions. Let this sink in. The only opposition our government will listen to is the opposition that agrees with how they feel, what they think and their personal paradigms. We have the right to their opinion, and we can dissent, so long as we get permission and only disagree with things they disagree with.
“The work still has to happen within values and evidence and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so what we want at Status of Women is to empower women and to ensure the protection of women’s right to choose,” she said.
“So, it would have to still fall within the realm of feminism.”
I have my grandfathers old criminal code books and the Canadian Charter from when I took law; he was a retired police officer and had them on his shelf. My brother has the Charter as a poster and new criminal law books, from when he did police schooling. In all this, I have never seen “abortion” or “feminism” anywhere in the Charter. There is no clause that states “protection for a woman’s right to choose”. Nor is “empower women” there.
R v. Morgentaler decriminalized abortion in the legal system twenty years after the Charter was written. The Supreme Court also unanimously found the state has an invested interest in protecting the fetus/unborn child. There were two items not decided on in their ruling: whether women have a Charter right to abortion, and whether fetuses/unborn children are included in “everyone” in section 7 and entitled to the same rights. Abortion is a legalistic limbo in Canadian law, not something that is actually protected; it is not even mentioned or defended. Law directly contradicts Hajdu.
Shouldn’t someone who lives a cushy nice life on my tax dollar, who claims to be speaking for all women, in an official capacity in the government, know the simple basics of Canadian Law? No, your claims are not enshrined in the Charter. Fact: the Supreme Court of Canada disagrees with you, Patricia! The Supreme Court specifically said no to a Charter defence of abortion, contrary to your claim. Also, the law does not actually cater to feminism. Then I have to ask, what about all the women the “Status of Women Minister” disagrees with? Are they protected as women and allowed to have their own opinions? Or do they only have representation if they fall in line, do what they are told, obey, and disagree on things with which they’re allowed to disagree? We need diverse opinions, so long as the government consents to the opinions. Is the Status of Women Minister working for all Canadian women, or just the ones she likes?
A lot of Canadian women are against abortion. The number of pro baby young girls is growing. None of these voices are accepted by the Canadian government. A woman’s voice is of worth if she toes the line and does what the government says and follows the government policies already laid out. Canadian government feminism defends women saying things they like; they will not represent, aid, protect, or even listen to any women who have their own opinions. What about women who work hard jobs and don’t want to be made to work while raising a family? The glamour jobs of career women exists for almost no actual women. Yet every woman is being ideologically shoehorned into the model of high paying, upper level glass ceiling jobs, which are reality for nearly no one. Every woman is treated as though she is privileged for being able to work and raise a family at the same time. What if a woman want to raise her kids, but can’t – or simply does not want to – do a hard labour or factory job? Because the government bases its policies on feminism, and women fitting in their pre-established archetypes and delusions of utopia, these women will not be heard.
Is this pro feminist picture for or against women? If one does not fit into a certain protected group, feminists feel free to personally attack other women. My dresses are mostly recycled saris, nearly everything I have is second hand, my head is not empty but my wall sized bookshelf is full, sometimes three books deep, and we are a working class couple with our first baby coming soon. There is, however, no reason to be frumpy and one can be clean and pleasant, even attractive, while poor. Is the first woman, even if she worked really hard and lives in a tiny apartment, so she could save and afford that Chanel and Prada, to be excluded by the Canadian government for not fitting their stereotypes? Is the second woman actually doing something of value, is she even a good writer, or does she lack the skill and is resentful and bitter, blaming men for her own failings? Will she get government grants and job placements because she fits what the government deems a good feminist woman, worthy of their time and Canadian taxes? Well behaved men rarely make history. There have been how many billions of people on the earth? How many serfs do we know, merchants and traders, knights and militia, monks and priests? We know of very few people who have lived. How delinquent and selfish do women have to be, that a lack of infamy is a mark of oppression? Why does anyone need to make history? These feminists should go to a graveyard and see all the names of forgotten people, male and female, who also never made history. Their own families don’t even know they are there. The entire idea is a non sequitur.
The other issue is that there are plenty of women who have made history. Also, without women, many of the men in history would never have made it. Not everyone has a starring role. Every play has support actors, without whom there is no play. Is the role of a wife and mother, sisters and cousins, aunts and in-law, who directly contribute to a man’s success, to be so tossed aside by feminism? If they aren’t the star of the show, their role doesn’t matter? That is true oppression. Expecting every woman to be reckless and overbearing and a star. Most people never achieve this.
What about the women who are famous? There are women who did make history. We have Hatshepsut, a queen who stole her step son’s throne and became a pharaoh. Nefertiti, a legendary beauty and integral to the Amun cult of Akhenaten. Nefertari was Ramesses II’s favourite wife and well known enough that we still know her name. Ankhsenamun was the wife of King Tut, his half sister, and mother to two very human looking embalmed unborn (miscarried) children. These are just women off the top of my head from 5000 years ago.
In the bible we have Sarah and Hagar (there’s the feminists precious infamy), Judith who beheaded a king, Naomi who kept her gentile daughter-in-law in her family and faith, even after her own son’s death. Without the goyim Ruth, there would be no kings David and Solomon, and thus no Christ. What about Magdelene, sisters Mary and Martha, Elizabeth the mother of John the Baptist; or that the first to see the risen Christ were women and not men. For the atheists: taken as just a story, contemplate the importance of the first people to see God alive after execution, and that they were women. Have these women not also been enshrined in history?
We have an abundance of famous, great Saints who are women. St Clothilde, wife of Clovis, who in converting him changed the course of history for Europe. St Joan d’Arc, ending the Hundred Years’ War. St Teresa of Avila, one of the greatest spiritual writers, and St Hildegard Von Bingen, regarded as a genius. St Helen, mother of Constantine, who found Calvary. St Bernadette, a simple peasant girl from France, loved to this day. St Catharine of Sienna, who told off a Pope, righteously. There are dozens more.
Mary Queen of Scots, Mary Tudor, Queens Elizabeth I and II. Queen Isabel of Spain, who drove out the moorish invasion of hundreds of years. Catherine the Great. Hanna Reitsch who was a female Luftwaffe pilot. Are these not women of history? Then of course, the most beloved, venerated, adored human to have ever existed, Holy Mary, mother of God. In what way have any of these women not made history? They were all either well behaved or fulfilling their duties, which is in fact being well behaved. Even if we have salacious and mostly fictional or out of context stories today, the same happened to famous men. Most were good and duty driven, we only think differently because of legend and fabrications.