Wednesday, January 15, 2014

Equality is incoherence

To paraphrase V.I. Lenin, sometimes one has to murder a few thousand girls to achieve sexual equality:
Thousands of female foetuses have been killed due to gender-based abortion within some ethnic groups, the latest data reveals. Official figures suggest as many as 4,700 females have disappeared from the latest national census records of England and Wales, raising fears that it indicates the illegal practice of sex-selection abortion has become prevalent in the UK. A government investigation last year found no evidence that women born abroad and now living in the UK were opting to abort females. But an analysis of the 2011 National Census has shown widespread discrepancies in the sex ratio of children in some immigrant families, which suggests girls are being aborted.
Feminism is intrinsically destructive because it is not only at war with biology and societally beneficial intersexual relations, it is simultaneously self-contradictory and totalitarian.

Sarah Wollaston, a Tory MP and GP: "said she is a strong supporter of women’s right to choose but that this practice reinforces a very misogynistic view that girls are less valuable than boys."

In other words, the parliamentarian is a strong supporter of women's right to choose, so long as women's choices meet with her approval. Because equality.


Anonymous said...

Egad, people are stupid. How in the hell are you going to have legal abortion and illegal sex-selection abortion? Apparently these equalitarians think that women are so stupid (or so incredibly honest) that -- even though they're so desperate for an abortion that they'd let some guy do it with a coat hanger in a back alley if that were their only choice -- they won't be able to lie to an abortionist and say, "Gosh, no, I'd be here all the same if it were a boy."

Alexander said...

Huh. I've thought of this before, but I really thought it would be the gays who would be the first to scream about criteria for abortions. Either they're a lot less concerned with keeping up the 'born that way' image, or the feminists are finally being swayed that aborting the next generation of feminists was not the best way to keep the movement going.

That said, isn't it *interesting* to see a pro-choice advocate suddenly refer to a fetus as a person - after all, things, parasites, mass of tissue, etc. etc. don't have genders, they can't reflect misogyny, they don't have race, and they certainly don't have comparable value to boys and girls.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

Cries for equality should be taken in the same manner as the modified rule in Animal Farm: everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

Jason Roberts said...

MP Wollaston should watch her words lest the hate speech police cite her for inciting hate towards ethnic groups with her claim that they engage in misogyny.

Isn't it pretty stupid for these ethnic groups to abort females? How else will they carry on their lineage? Maybe what the MP is worried about is the ethnic men having to mate with the native English because there will be too few co-ethnic women around?

meerkat said...

exactly, it is a admirable when you abort foetuses without sex discrimination. but the moment you discrimate and abort girl foetuses selectively, then suddenly it is horrible and misogynistic. what about the right of asian women to decide what they like. dont they deserve to enjoy the fruits of feminism

Trust said...

I'm guessing if a mother with a son would kept aborting male babies trying to get a daughter, femnists would not care.

Gays better be grateful they were wrong about the gay gene. Their flip on their pro choice stance would be the fastest flip ever seen.

Anonymous said...

...keeping up the 'born that way' image...

The loonier elements of the left deny that women are "born that way."

Well, I guess there were 4,700 women in England and Wales who weren't "born that way." They weren't born at all.

Tommy Hass said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

A tweet that popped up on my feed that I'm paraphrasing: 40 years after roe v wade, does anyone really believe that women aren't hormonally driven id monsters?

Marissa said...

an analysis of the 2011 National Census has shown widespread discrepancies in the sex ratio of children in some immigrant families

Not that I think the natives refrain from it, but there's a key word.

insanitybytes22 said...

You should be quite pleased VD. Less slutty women and less immigrants in the world, right? Or are you concerned that if there are less women, they may increase in value, making the sexual competition too stiff for you? Or perhaps if there aren't enough immigrant women, you fear immigrant men will start coming after white women?
Regardless VD, you are the expert in both incoherence and male solipsism, so I guess you know what you're talking about.

Revelation Means Hope said...

Where we see GG clearly ignoring that Vox is anti-abortion, but that he loves to point out the illogic of the bloodthirsty abortionettes.

Anonymous said...

makes some sense.

I've met some uberbabe alpha chicks and they always end up having little girls, because they have a hard (if not impossible) time submitting to a man strong enough (read: High T) to offset their behavioral practical choices, and end up settling for the best looking man they can still control.

In almost every observable case, the man being "settled for" is a Low T male. Low T male and ultra feminine alpha chick = having girls. High T males and feminine girls = High T boys. It's the hormonal promulgation of estrogen vs. testosterone as opposed to a more dimorphic balance that would occur in an uninterrupted evolution of normal biology.

The net result IMO is these alpha babes raising very feminine little girls that turn into super feminine women, but its also an evolutionary dead end. The cycle persists and becomes more and more distilled as each female is presented the same choice yet with narrower and narrower parameters.

If the alpha babe wants to truly give her genetic gift to the world, then she has to learn to cooperate and in some cases submit to the strongest man she can find instead of laying up. In spite of the myriad of choices and message being foisted on her in our social and cultural structure that reinforces her very real power, the only way over is through (to quote Churchill). This lesson, in my observation, becomes a palpable desperation after the age of 35 when fertility has already been quartered.

I also think that this correlates closely with the concept that our American Civil War and the Industrial Revolution was disastrous from an evolutionary perspective, as it wiped out a thousand generations of constantly refined High T men (Google Civil War soldiers and look at their faces) and has allowed the males of today to not only pollute a normally self correcting evolutionary cycle (see the numerous articles on "Gay Face" or just observe 95% of American males), but create an environment where the schism of estrogen vs. testosterone is accelerating at the logarithmic pace that one should expect.

The net result is genetic dilution, or reversion to a genetic average, with the exception of those gifted and observant individuals at the fringes of social order that will need to better understand choice and the importance of good breeding, lest they see their own gifts wither in the generational sense.

I also believe there is a clear corollary to the whole 1%-99%-Occupy Wall Street engagement that has much less to do with money and more to do with status. Yet I digress.

Jason said...

That's really what it comes down to isn't it with the left in general.

You are free to make any choice I approve of.

bearspaw said...

It never ceases to amaze how obtuse people like the above mentioned MP are. They gladly import tens of thousands of third world people to populate their multicultural Eden, and are then amazed that they bring their preferences with them and actually practice them.

insanitybytes22 said...

"Where we see GG clearly ignoring that Vox is anti-abortion..."

Not at all. VD believes only men should have the right to kill in self defense.

VD said...

Shut up, GG.

Trust said...

" only men should have the right to kill in self defense"

The English language doesn't have the words to describe the depths of absurdity of such a comment.

I used to find GG amusing. Now she confuses and frightens me

APL said...

GG: "Why Vox?"

Because you are writing rubbish. In reply to another post; " .. Vox is anti-abortion..."

You write " VD believes only men should have the right to kill in self defense. "

Which I very much doubt is true. But in any case, aborting the content of your uterus because it is female, cannot in a million years be described as 'self defense'.

GG: " so weak even a moron like me can poke holes in it, "

No he is white knighting, trying to protect the feeble minded female from making a public idiot of herself.

VD said...

All right, GG is spammed. When I tell someone to shut up, they will shut up. If they can't manage it themselves, then I'll do it for them.

Trust said...


Oh my.

" You could have a violent husband that wants a male baby."

Self defense would be killing the husband.

"You could be unmarried in a culture where marriage is all that protects you from starvation."

Not self defense. Not even close.

" Or perhaps you already have girl children and you'd rather be dead than bring another girl into this world and watch her suffer."

This has got to be.the most insane rationalization ever. Self defense over...suicide?

"In case nobody ever got the memo, the world is not always a nice place for girls. "

And the deadliest place in the world for a child - especially a girl - is in the womb of a woman as idiotic as you.

Trust said...

Screw you, GG. How dare you accuse me of being happy innocent children are murdered for political or ethnic reasons. I wouldn't even advocate aborting Osama bin Ladens child. The unborn are innocnet regardless of the sins of their parents. Don't project your.hate onto me.

subject by design said...

Self defense is a legal term. A person using lethal force against someone who is presenting an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to that person is exercising self defense. The threat has to be imminent and has to be based upon intentional acts, not just existence.

Obviously if we all use our own personal and subjective definitions of self defense, I could kill GG and it would ok. After all, her ideas could have consequences that could ultimately hurt my feelings.

SarahsDaughter said...

The idiot should be on scroll by, I know, then I wouldn't be so annoyed saying "fewer" "the word is fewer" in my head so many times.

Bob Loblaw said...

They can't have it both ways. Either the fetus is a baby and should be protected under the law (in which case this sex selection is a non-issue), or the fetus is a clump of cells entirely part of the woman's body and the state has no business telling her she can't get rid of that clump. Which is it, Ms Wollaston?

Doom said...

Feminists, I have come to fully believe, simply don't understand... pretty much anything.

The value of females, by islam, is low for a simple reason. With few females, and multiple marriages, the low man on the totem pole has few options. Suicide, of course, but that is a rarity, and one shunned (unless it involves murder as well). They are rather cowardly. With too many men for two few women, men are weaponized. They can't be kept in country, and so are sent out to find women, or sex, or... whatever. And they are set up to do so using violence or whatever means they see fit. They aren't judged within their false religion for... anything, so long as it expands islam.

Female children are merely pawns by islam. Removing them in large enough numbers is one of the prime engines of that so-called faith. They don't care what a woman thinks, they don't hate or love them particularly, they just see them as tools. Urhm, which they are. For good or ill depends on the man using them and how they are used. A tool can't use itself, thus the self-loathing and internecine hate between women, even or especially feminists. Feminists really ought to see just who is pulling their strings. But, as I mentioned, they really don't understand much. Certainly not themselves.

It's nothing personal, just... business, for islam. Bloody business but it's all they have. And it does work if allowed.

VD said...

Ms Guthrie aka GG, you have been banned. Please be advised that if you persist in attempting to troll this blog, you will not appreciate the consequences.

mmaier2112 said...

We evidently need a few more moderators to delete idiotic statements. May I volunteer?

mmaier2112 said...

Oops. That was quick! :D

Anonymous said...

The idiot should be on scroll by, I know, then I wouldn't be so annoyed saying "fewer" "the word is fewer" in my head so many times.

Heh. "Less" in place of "fewer" should be bannable in itself, to my mind. (See also: amount/number.) It's really not that complicated: if you can count them, use fewer. Fewer women, less pudding. Is that so hard?

Jeff said...

Tilikum, are you saying that testosterone/estrogen levels have some impact on the gender of a baby? Never heard of such a thing before, so call me skeptical. What do those hormone levels have to do with whether the baby gets the X or Y from the sperm?

Anonymous said...

Why would any feminist care about sex-selected abortion favoring boys? If you reduce the supply of women, then women gain value. Its in every woman's individual best interest for there to be less women. In the new world order there will be less competition for alpha males, betas waiting in the wing, and more gammas and delta taxpayers funding the safety net.

tz said...

Chromosomically speaking, Y ... not!

I do have to find a hardcopy of the Heinlein audiobook featuring Wyoming Knott, which I assume is the original spelling.

Anonymous said...

tz, the name of that Heinlein book is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. You do have Wyoming Knott's name spelled correctly.

Sarah Wollaston, a Tory MP and GP: "said she is a strong supporter of women’s right to choose but that this practice reinforces a very misogynistic view that girls are less valuable than boys."

In other words, the parliamentarian is a strong supporter of women's right to choose, so long as women's choices meet with her approval.

At least based on the cited passage, it looks to me like Wollaston disapproves of gender-based abortion, but still supports a woman's right to make that choice. Something along the lines of "I disagree with what you say but will defend your right to say it."

Retrenched said...

Wherein we are reminded that the hysterical female never has a consistent or coherent position on anything, other than that whoever refuses to give her everything she wants, when she wants it is wrong and evil and worse than HItler.

Revelation Means Hope said...

so very sad to see another annoying troll be banished to trollvania.

She reminded me of the extreme logic disconnect I find displayed by some people in Kalifornia, from both the right and left side of the spectrum. Like the crazy kid in class, just grown up and somehow staying out of jail, mental hospital, and morgue.

Anonymous said...

So how, exactly, does one enforce a ban on sex selective abortion? A polygraph?

While Mens Rea is an important part of criminal law, this boils down to criminalization not of the act itself, but of the reason for the act. Hate Crime enhancements are bad enough; this is on a whole different level.

So in England, I take it abortions because you don't want to lose your girlish figure or pregnancy will negatively impact your Saturday night recreation are perfectly legal, but watch out! it better not be because you want a boy or girl.

Anonymous said...

Upon further review, it may not be exactly groundbreaking, considering in the States it is technically illegal to not hire or sell a house to someone on account of race or other "protected group" status.

Still a good example of cognitive dissonance. Either it's a clump of cells and it doesn't matter what happens to it, or it's a human and abortion isn't moral for any reason short of possibly a medical emergency.

Post a Comment