Canada Kicks Ass
Feminists Are Now Stupidly Promoting Shaming Pregnant Women

REPLY



N_Fiddledog @ Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:54 pm

Here's one you won't see the CBC covering:

$1:
Every now and again you come across something so stupid that you have trouble gathering your thoughts about it. The stupid that I’m currently trying to wrap my brain around came in the form of an opinion article from CBC News, which openly promoted shaming HGTV’s Chip and Joanna Gaines for — and this was not a joke — selfishly having children like any married couple would.

The article was written by self-proclaimed feminist Kristen Pyszczyk, who is of the mind that while the backlash the Gaines’ got for announcing their recent pregnancy was unfortunate, it’s necessary because bringing more children into the world is irresponsible and worthy of condemnation.

Why? Because apparently we’re overpopulated and babies are bad for the environment.

There’s no way I can physically relay the stupidity Pyszczk wrote accurately, so I’m just going to quote her verbatim:

In the global West, where the environmental footprint of one person is far larger than in developing nations, it’s crucial that we begin to present all people with alternatives to the traditional nuclear family. This inevitably involves calling out people who have kids like they’re going out of style.

Shame is a powerful tool for changing behaviour: it’s how we introduce new and existing social conventions. It’s unfortunate that Chip and Joanna bore the brunt of changing attitudes, but let’s learn from the reaction and examine our own actions.


In other words, our feminist friend here says that it sucks that the Gaineses got caught up in what Pyszczk believes is a cultural shift in the western world, but it’s necessary to shame soon-to-be parents for having children because it may make other prospective parents think twice about bringing life into the world together.

But it gets better. Pyszczk suddenly becomes the morality police and declares that having a big family is not okay unless you also consider adopting kids. Also, like any good radical leftist, we’re all going to die because more people means more pollution and climate change.

"It’s not OK to have five kids without once considering adoption. There are so many children in North America and beyond in need of loving homes, yet adoption rates in many areas are lagging.

I get that humankind’s theoretical demise is not enough to justify abstaining from what is for many the most meaningful experience of a lifetime. But it’s not theoretical. Climate change is getting measurably worse, populations are multiplying exponentially and economic inequality is not getting better. And to top it off, Prince is dead. Don’t bring a child into this."


Pyszczk then slathers some stupid icing on this stupid cake by declaring that creating life is a risk to public health.

"Procreation is becoming a global public health concern, rather than a personal decision. So when people do irresponsible things like having five children, we absolutely need to be calling them out."

Okay. Where to begin?

Firstly, I want to draw attention to the fact that our feminist friend here belongs to an ideology that likes to shout “my body, my choice” at every passerby that looks at them funny. They’re the ones who wear pink pussy hats — now deemed transphobic and racist — and tell people that the Republicans are going to bring about a real-life Handmaid’s Tale, where every aspect of women’s lives is controlled.

Then she has the gall to turn around and promote shaming women for practicing their choice to have a child. Holy wow! If you want a clue as to how insincere feminists are about how much they look after women, then here it is. They want to protect the rights of women, so long as those rights line up with exactly what they think is good. Step outside the plantation, and get ready for a whipping.

So if there actually is a social movement sweeping the west that promotes the shaming of women for being pregnant and bringing forth life — and I sincerely doubt there is one — then let it be known that feminists and the pro-abort crowd are really only supportive of the “my body, my choice” trope when that choice means terminating a life, not creating one.

Secondly, the environmental hysterics on which some of the points are based are not only inaccurate — in many cases, they’re flat out lies.

Recently, geoscientists found out that the oceans weren’t warming at the rate climate models used by alarmists said they were (due to heat eating gases) and thus the global warm-er, global cool-er, climate change we should all be terrified of isn’t anything to be terrified of. In fact, our contribution of carbon dioxide into the air is actually making the planet a greener place to be. This is likely due to the fact that trees eat carbon dioxide! It is food to them.

It also turns out that much of what we considered “settled science” from climate alarmists like Al Gore is actually propaganda pushed by people like political activist billionaire George Soros. Why? Because climate change hysteria is a great platform for leftists to screech doomsday prophecies from, and Soros is one of the biggest leftist radicals alive today.

Is the planet changing because man is causing it to? Probably? But the extent to which that’s occurring isn’t “settled science,” and too many studies point to the fact that we’re not all going to die the day after tomorrow, or this decade, or this century. By the way, “settled science” is a very unscientific phrase to utter.

All this to say that shaming people into not having children for the sake of the environment reeks of misinformed panic and/or a faux-morality driven by stubborn ignorance.

Thirdly, and I feel this is pure logic, how are we supposed to advance our understanding of science and environmental conservation if we’re not birthing forth and raising scientists who will solve these problems when the old ones die out? From what I’ve seen of the social justice movement from which feminists belong, the majority of their concern involves identity politics, man-hating, anti-white racism, and believing anything leftist activists or politicians say. All of it falls under the umbrella of willful ignorance, and none of it advances society or helps the planet. Their outlook on STEM is purely that there aren’t enough women there, and balancing the sex scales is far more important than scientific discovery.

Why would I, or anyone for that matter, trust any advice on child rearing or the propagation of our very species from a social group composed entirely of ideological clowns?

Have babies. Have a lot.


https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/ ... te-change/

   



Zipperfish @ Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:40 pm

Pyszczk is whacked. First of all, as a feminist, where does she get off telling other women whether or not to have children? That's her choice. She says in her article that "it concerns the rest of the world." No. No it doesn't. It's a personal decision by a woman. She says that "women are groomed" to have children, but I just don't see it. I know tons of women with no kids living happy lives. And to raise this issue in Canada, with it's globally-leading low birthrate and it's globally-low population density? Maybe you could make your case in India or Afghanistan or something, but not Canada.

Another example of someone who appears to have educated herself beyond all possible usefulness.

   



BartSimpson @ Tue Jan 16, 2018 3:46 pm

Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Pyszczk is whacked. First of all, as a feminist, where does she get off telling other women whether or not to have children? That's her choice. She says in her article that "it concerns the rest of the world." No. No it doesn't. It's a personal decision by a woman. She says that "women are groomed" to have children, but I just don't see it. I know tons of women with no kids living happy lives. And to raise this issue in Canada, with it's globally-leading low birthrate and it's globally-low population density? Maybe you could make your case in India or Afghanistan or something, but not Canada.

Another example of someone who appears to have educated herself beyond all possible usefulness.


What you said x2. R=UP

(It's far nicer than what I was going to say.)

   



Thanos @ Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:01 pm

There should be much less people on the globe. But the only way to do it is through massive implementation of birth control in the poorly-developed countries. And by making life in those places safe and healthy enough for children that they can survive to adulthood, and their parents no longer have to have nine kids just to ensure a couple of them will live that long. There is no other humane way to do it, certainly not via any of this ridiculous feminist/Stalinist guilt-scolding parts of the hardcore environmental left are in love with.

   



BartSimpson @ Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:09 pm

Thanos Thanos:
There should be much less people on the globe. But the only way to do it is through massive implementation of birth control in the poorly-developed countries. And by making life in those places safe and healthy enough for children that they can survive to adulthood, and their parents no longer have to have nine kids just to ensure a couple of them will live that long. There is no other humane way to do it, certainly not via any of this ridiculous feminist/Stalinist guilt-scolding parts of the hardcore environmental left are in love with.


You should read Tom Clancy's book Rainbow Six. I think you'd like it.

   



2Cdo @ Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:17 pm

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Thanos Thanos:
There should be much less people on the globe. But the only way to do it is through massive implementation of birth control in the poorly-developed countries. And by making life in those places safe and healthy enough for children that they can survive to adulthood, and their parents no longer have to have nine kids just to ensure a couple of them will live that long. There is no other humane way to do it, certainly not via any of this ridiculous feminist/Stalinist guilt-scolding parts of the hardcore environmental left are in love with.


You should read Tom Clancy's book Rainbow Six. I think you'd like it.


Very entertaining book.

   



Thanos @ Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:19 pm

Maybe. I remember reading one short sci-fi story (I think it was in one of Jerry Pournelle's old There Will Be War anthologies) where the situation had gotten so bad the UN was militarized and were blockading entire countries to starve the populations to death because of resource depletion combined with the refusal of religion-dominated national governments to implement radical birth control and population reduction. I kinda/sorta remember it having some kind of global environmental collapse where the rich countries couldn't come to the rescue anymore because their own food supplies had also been devastated, like in some kind of Soylent Green catastrophe.

Pretty fucking grim all around. Hopefully nothing like that ever comes to pass but the way this planet is being treated it's entirely plausible that some generation in the near future might have to face a dilemma of that type. :|

   



BartSimpson @ Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:20 pm

2Cdo 2Cdo:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
You should read Tom Clancy's book Rainbow Six. I think you'd like it.


Very entertaining book.


It was. But his ideas on how to spread a virus have left me permanently leery of those misting devices you see all over California in the summer. 8O

   



BartSimpson @ Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:24 pm

Thanos Thanos:
Maybe. I remember reading one short sci-fi story (I think it was in one of Jerry Pournelle's old There Will Be War anthologies) where the situation had gotten so bad the UN was militarized and were blockading entire countries to starve the populations to death because of resource depletion combined with the refusal of religion-dominated national governments to implement radical birth control and population reduction. I kinda/sorta remember it having some kind of global environmental collapse where the rich countries couldn't come to the rescue anymore because their own food supplies had also been devastated, like in some kind of Soylent Green catastrophe.

Pretty fucking grim all around. Hopefully nothing like that ever comes to pass but the way this planet is being treated it's entirely plausible that some generation in the near future might have to face a dilemma of that type. :|


About ten years ago when the fashionable left-wing crisis du jour concerned the rainforests I asked if anyone on CKA was willing to go to war against the tropical countries to prevent them from cutting down the 'delicate ecosystems' of the rainforests.

Seems I should have asked if anyone wanted to force those countries to abort their children.

That would have enjoyed a much warmer reception. :|

   



Thanos @ Tue Jan 16, 2018 4:30 pm

Some day in the future, most likely just after the mid-point of this century, the overall situation might be so bad that humanity will no longer be able to influence or ward off what's going to happen on it's own. The first sign will be with the final collapse of the fishing stocks past the point where they'll be able to recover even if commercial and industrial fishing are halted. That will signal a massive collapse in the planetary food chain that will affect life on land as much as it does in the oceans. When that happens everything afterward will merely be inevitable and unstoppable.

   



Strutz @ Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:42 pm

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
2Cdo 2Cdo:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
You should read Tom Clancy's book Rainbow Six. I think you'd like it.


Very entertaining book.


It was. But his ideas on how to spread a virus have left me permanently leery of those misting devices you see all over California in the summer. 8O

That reminds me how many years ago, after seeing the movie Outbreak, I remember feeling a bit creepy when in a crowd situation and hearing someone coughing. 8O

   



Tricks @ Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:11 pm

Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Pyszczk is whacked. First of all, as a feminist, where does she get off telling other women whether or not to have children? That's her choice. She says in her article that "it concerns the rest of the world." No. No it doesn't. It's a personal decision by a woman. She says that "women are groomed" to have children, but I just don't see it. I know tons of women with no kids living happy lives. And to raise this issue in Canada, with it's globally-leading low birthrate and it's globally-low population density? Maybe you could make your case in India or Afghanistan or something, but not Canada.

Another example of someone who appears to have educated herself beyond all possible usefulness.

R=UP 100% this.

   



Tricks @ Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:11 pm

BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Thanos Thanos:
There should be much less people on the globe. But the only way to do it is through massive implementation of birth control in the poorly-developed countries. And by making life in those places safe and healthy enough for children that they can survive to adulthood, and their parents no longer have to have nine kids just to ensure a couple of them will live that long. There is no other humane way to do it, certainly not via any of this ridiculous feminist/Stalinist guilt-scolding parts of the hardcore environmental left are in love with.


You should read Tom Clancy's book Rainbow Six. I think you'd like it.

Great book.

   



herbie @ Tue Jan 16, 2018 6:38 pm

Only in simple minds does a single article indicate that "feminists are now supporting it"

   



martin14 @ Wed Jan 17, 2018 12:03 am

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:
Kristen Pyszczyk


I'm sure she loves open mass immigration though.

   



REPLY