«

»

Feb 05 2006

May We Live Long And Die Out


Cute kids, now dead

I’m beginning to love IBTP commenter Christopher with a passion not entirely appropriate for a patriarchy-blaming blog. He disagrees with me just enough to spark my interest, otherwise frittered away watching corny BBC comedies, in scrawling vituperative essays that take unpopular positions. For instance, Christopher approves of pumpkin pie! This is a horror I will have to address soon.

Here he remarks that “good parenting doesn’t rest entirely on the parents,” and goes on to describe a common situation in which people have to work such gruelingly long hours just to make ends meet that it’s only reasonable to cut’em some slack if their kids can’t sit still.

To which I am duty-bound to respond, in the general zero-population-growth spirit of I Blame The Patriarchy, that if you don’t have the resources to raise kids, don’t have the damn kids.

Now I bet you think I’m about to rail on overextended parents whose backs are up against the wall for shunting their brats off on overworked public school teachers. Not that I wouldn’t enjoy that, but maybe later.

At the moment, I daresay that nobody has the resources to raise kids.

For I can never resist the opportunity to remind everybody that there are already 6.5 billion humans in the world (roughly half of whom live in Austin), and that all these comforting ideas of globalization and industry and free trade–”sustainable development”–turn out to be incompatible with the biophysical reality that the earth, a closed system with finite resources, can’t keep coughing up the goods indefinitely. “Renewable” energy is a crazy myth!

A study I read once on the Discovery channel website but can no longer find but I swear it really existed showed that in order to prevent apocalypse in the shape of disease and starvation, humanity will have to decrease its numbers by a factor of 1000, ay-ess-ay-pee. Other sources, such as this piece from AAAS, maintain that for H. sapiens to scuttle on unfettered by the threat of looming annihilation, only 4 of the 6 billion have got to go, a reduction of a mere 66 percent.

Either way, this means that reproduction, a thing many insouciant earthlings regard as a “human right”, is actually an act of violent self-interest and appalling hubris. Each cooing little bundle of joy brings the species that much closer to extinction. As the always-ebullient Voluntary Human Extinctionists say, “procreation today is like renting rooms in a burning building.”

It’s already happening. Apocalypses occur daily. According to the Rehydration Project, 40,000 kids under the age of 5 die every single day from malnutrition and vaccine preventable disease.

Just an F.Y.I. from your crackpot spinster aunt.

Carry on with your bad selves.

151 comments

6 pings

  1. B. Dagger Lee

    Yay! I love putting a harsh on babymaking!

    I direct you to the Church of Euthanasia which has a buttload (Sodomy Rocks!) of beautiful and savage screeds, including your very own referenced S.C.U.M. Manifesto—which for me is kind of like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, or Consumer Reports Best Pick–always fresh, always relevent. Under e-sermons or resources or something is “The Case Against Babies,” an enjoyable essay by Joy Williams.

    I don’t know how to do the linky thing, sorry, do a google on “Church of Euthanasia”.

    It is NOT for the literal-minded, so those who do not appreciate a good jeremiad, a good Dada-esque provocation should not click over, although it does seem like the literal-minded enjoy getting angry and righteous about all sorts of picayune issues: Hairdressers and gym teachers want to get married! It’s the End of the World! It says in the Bible! Forget war, starvation, despoiling etc. So in that case, click away.

    I do miss what I thought of as a “twistyism”–the segue between “getting along side” (is that the right phrase?) a particularly tasty taco and a particularly blameworthy patriarchal institution.

    Yours, etc. B. Dagger Lee

  2. Cass

    Don’t forget also- with the rate the earth is heating up, there’s going to be a massive migration in this century away from the equator to parts north and south, as well as away from flooding coastal areas… packing us all together even more uncomfortably. I used to get violently depressed at the thought of our species’looming die-off and possible extinction; but watching my grandmother decline recently I wondered why, if I can accept the fact that I and everyone I love is mortal, I demand of the universe that our species last forever. There’s going to be a lot of misery for those last few generations, of course, but the world has always been a miserable place for the majority of us anyway. And there’s also the satisfaction of imagining the last few fanatics trying to hold out in Jeruselem under a 130 degree sun, waiting for their Lord and Savior to pop out of the sky any day now, fulfill the prophecies, and save their asses.

  3. Chris Clarke

    I used to get violently depressed at the thought of our species’looming die-off and possible extinction; but watching my grandmother decline recently I wondered why, if I can accept the fact that I and everyone I love is mortal, I demand of the universe that our species last forever.

    I’m beginning to demand of the universe that our species encounter some nasty little incurable virus that sterilizes us before it kills us, preferably painlessly and with a minimum of fuss, perhaps by inflaming the pleasure centers of the brain to the point where we are unable to feed ourselves. It would be nice if this virus were communicated by way of credit rating or Fox News watching, but that might be asking too much.

    Barring that, a pathogen that caused men to die in childbirth might do the trick.

  4. Cass

    I’ve demanded all kinds of things from the universe, and even on occasion tried asking nicely… all in vain, of course. I’d love to blame the patriarchy, but the problem may go deeper…

  5. Ykcir

    I went to a party at Twisty’s house in my dream last night. Twisty was a really stylish dresser, I called her by the wrong “real” name, my mom screamed at the top of her lungs and embarrassed me, and in the back of her house, Twisty had dozens of keyboards and synthesizers set up like a music store.

  6. Ykcir

    Oh, and here was the weirdest part. Anticipating this post, I also dreamed Twisty had a baby.

  7. Twisty

    Well, you got the music store part right. I used to be a stylish dresser, but nowadays I consider it a strike for good taste if I manage to notice, before the day is over, that my sweatpants are on backwards.

  8. June

    I’m OK with this as long as no one gets to have kids.

    In practice, unfortunately, you wind up with situations where poor women of color, in third world countries, are forcibly sterilized – maybe given a bag of rice in exhange for the loss of bodily integrity – while the middle class consumers in countries such as ours, who consume a disproportionate chunk of the earth’s dwindling resources, are encouraged to breed away.

    But, perhaps I’m taking your modest proposal too literally.

    Your comment about your sweatpants almost made me spew beverage all over my computer. I think it was the phrasing “a strike for good taste” that did it.

  9. Twisty

    To be clear, I’m no eugenicist. Everyone just stops, right now, having kids. Even honkys, I tell ya! A fortunate side effect of this is that women would be liberated from incubation duty and household drudgery.

  10. Josef K

    But if everybody stops having kids right now, who’s going to change the soiled bedsheets of yesterday’s patriarchy-blamers, come 2060? Who’s going to wipe away our drool and listen to our ranting and bring us cocktails in the gazebo when we’re even wrinklier? And what’s a gazebo anyway? NURSE!

  11. Twisty

    Sooner or later, some generation or other is going to have to die in its own filth. It may as well be us. We’re the ones who made most of the mess.

  12. Chris Clarke

    Come peak oil, there will be no bedsheets anyway.

  13. antelope

    Just the other day I was reading Jared Diamond’s argument that the genocide in Rwanda had more than a little to do with people being aware that they had overpopulated & needed to reduce their numbers somehow. He neglected to mention that being severely overpopulated makes people batshit insane, but that case certainly counts as heavy evidence that it does.

    Having less babies, or no babies, is sure as hell more appealing than solving it that way.

  14. Josef K

    Come peak oil, there will be no bedsheets anyway.

    I’m going to miss the sen-syoo-us feeling of oil bedsheets against my skin. But it looks like I’ll be spending the period 2050-2070 (approx) covered in my own shit anyway, so that’ll be the least of my worries. Twisty, I hope you’re going to unveil Euthanasia The Patriarchy-Blaming Way at some point, and put us out of our misery.

  15. Dianne

    There is good evidence that people reproduce less often when they have more money and other resources. Send me $1 million now or I’ll breed!

  16. June

    So, it’s less “zero population growth” and more “zero population”…

  17. Alex

    …yet I’m called “selfish” because I don’t want any kids, now or ever.

  18. NancyMc


    Dianne:
    There is good evidence that people reproduce less often when they have more money and other resources. Send me $1 million now or I’ll breed!

    I’ve heard this is true of women. The more resources and opportunities women have, the fewer children they have.

    But there are some vested interests that don’t like the idea of women having resources and opportunities.

    Collectively, these vested interests are known as… but I know you know. Starts with a P.

    That’s why blaming the Patriarchy is good for the earth, and this blog is doing a great public service.

  19. Fran

    This is when good ole mother nature starts weeding us out with various plagues, natural disasters and the like.
    I give her so much credit as a living organism, this planet has a suvival instinct and the bottom line doesn’t include us humans. People are like bacteria crawling all over the planet and it will sooner or later have it’s immune system response and fight back.
    I too demand my million for not breeding.

  20. Will

    Our patriotic duty demands that we populate this country at a greater rate. Our birth rates are well below those of the Mongrol hordes that wait at our gates.

    More babies for Bush!!!

  21. Burrow

    I want my million for not breeding! Although if I don’t get it I won’t breed anyway, cuz I’m selfish and immature that way. Why does not wanting a screaming brat who defecates all over itself and who I have no patience for make me selfish? Not to mention the horrendous rates of sexual assault on women and kids, and the fact that there are too many of us all ready. Yeah, that’s it I’m the selfish one. Sure.

  22. LMYC

    Nancy, nail-hammer-BANG.

    Patriarchy will choke and kill the earth. When women are given education and opportunity, they have fewer kids. But patriarchy would rather send us all down the path to extinction than attempt to better women’s lives.

    The torture, deprivation, murder, and dehumanization of women is more important to the patriarchy (and to the living, breathing, flesh-and-blood fuckwads of whom it is composed) than the survival of the species. Put simply, our species (mostly the males that rule it like giant tantrum-throwing brats) would rather wallow in shit and starve than emancipate women. That’s how much their hatred of us matters to them.

    When you look at it that way, we really should wallow in our own shit and starve, and we can’t do it soon enough for this tired old earth.

  23. Lorenzo

    Sorry to have to rain on this parade a little, but I have to put on my Marxist/Gramscian hat for a second:

    Malnutrition and starvation today are not a product of their not being enough food or resources, they are a product of inequality and exploitation. There is enough food to feed everyone on Earth, those that cannot acquire food are not able to overwhelmingly because they cannot afford it not because there isn’t enough.

    This, however, doesn’t serve to invalidate the wider ecological concerns about the size of the human population, it’s just that w.r.t to food, the problem is capitalism not the human population.

  24. Betsy (the other Betsy)

    I’d settle for getting a Child Tax Credit for not breeding.

  25. Aussie Liz

    Think of all the tax money we’d save on schooling and doctoring* and jailing children if we didn’t have so many. We’d be able to spend it all on better teeth and hips for our senior citz, and have money left over for a big celebration each International Womens Day internatinal holiday (with added bonus of more women free to take part in it).

    All the shops dedicated to consumer goods for kids would become low-cost housing, or ripped down to create new urban food forest parks!

    Cars would be smaller. Cafes would be serene. Landfill would contain fewer “disposable” nappies. There would be no child slave labour.

    Gradually as the population decreased, the hole in the ozone layer would heal over, and the sea levels around small abandoned pacific islands would drop again, creating space on the sunblock displays at pharmacies, and valuable real-estate, respectively.

    George Bush and John Howard would grow old and live together in a faraway place, taking as their destination the furthest place from any of the dots on that map o’ world this website was playing with a few weeks back.

    *applies in countries with state-based health care.

  26. bitchphd

    Now, now Twisty. Having kids isn’t a choice–it’s what happens to us breeder types if we have sex. Not having ‘em is a choice, but b/c sometimes fails.

    Much longer rant on this subject here.

  27. NancyMc


    doesn’t serve to invalidate the wider ecological concerns about the size of the human population, it’s just that w.r.t to food, the problem is capitalism not the human population.

    Please explain how capitalism caused the Soviet famines of 1921 and 1932-33, and the Chinese famine of 1958-61.

    As anthropologist Marvin Harris pointed out, Marx’s ideas were hobbled by the Hegelian dialectic and his rejection of the insights of Malthus. So don’t go promoting Marxism as the solution to human hunger. The communists have not covered themselves in glory on that issue.

  28. Summer

    Not that there was ever any doubt, but this post certainly cements you, Twisty, as a spinster certifiable.

    Congrats.

  29. NancyMc

    I was wondering if pro-natalist Bitch PhD was going to get into this.

    I had a tubal ligation when I was 24. I never had to worry about pregnancy again.

    If you’re serious about not having children, you can do something about it. We breeders aren’t the hostages of nature anymore.

  30. Chris Clarke

    There is enough food to feed everyone on Earth, those that cannot acquire food are not able to overwhelmingly because they cannot afford it not because there isn’t enough.

    As long as you assume that current agricultural and marine species harvesting practices can be sustained, and that it is fit and pleasing to convert ecological productivity to those pursuits in order to feed ourselves, yes.

    We’re in for a rude shock on that score, however, somewhere between 2010 and tomorrow morning.

  31. Chris Clarke

    Dr. B., if all we were talking about were kids born as a result of birth control failures, we’d be playing a whole different ballgame. And Pseudonymous Kid would be able to see Siberian tigers and polar bears in the wild when he’s 50. Which he will not be able to do at this rate.

    Nancy, every December we buy presents for a pill baby, an IUD baby, and an irreversible surgical sterilization baby, all of them in the same family. Nothing is failsafe.

    I just love disagreeing with both sides in a dispute.

  32. NancyMc

    But not the abortion baby.

    Some things are pretty failsafe.

    And plenty, if not all, of cultures throughout human history relied on infanticide – direct and indirect. If people are desperate enough they will find a way to avoid rearing children.

    Not that I’m advocating infanticide…

  33. Chris Clarke

    But not the abortion baby.

    The Fred Phelps joke thread is that way.

    er, I mean, good point.

  34. NancyMc

    Oh, and breeders can have sex without risking pregnancy.

    Just not vaginal intercourse.

    But I guess that when Bill Clinton said “I did not have sex with that woman” he was reflecting a not-uncommon hetero concept of exactly what “sex” is.

  35. ozma

    I just wanted to cheer you all up with the news that a current side effect of pesticides and other pollutants is male sterility. So maybe it’s all going to turn out alright after all.

  36. Frumious B.

    Does not having access to birth control count as a b/c failure?

  37. M

    “Please explain how capitalism caused the Soviet famines of 1921 and 1932-33, and the Chinese famine of 1958-61.”

    Can’t help you with the Soviet famine, but I was reading ‘Mao – the unknown story’ last night. This puts the 58-61 famine down to Mao initiating huge food exports to the USSR and Eastern European countries, basically for political and military capital. He gave the Soviets food – they gave him weapons. So, capitalism, in a communist sort of way.

    I have told my mother never to expect grandchildren. However much I love children, the idea of bringing another sentient being into this shithole of a world does not rest easy on my conscience.

    And just don’t get me started that you can get (limited) IVF on the NHS…

  38. Twisty

    “Does not having access to birth control count as a b/c failure?”

    Ha!

  39. Chris Clarke

    Does not having access to birth control count as a b/c failure?

    Yep. A political rather than technopharmacological one.

  40. Dianne

    Nancy: The blackmail attempt (give me money or I’ll breed) was, of course, a joke. But the evidence that wealth and education, especially wealth, education, and autonomy for women, leads to a decreased birth rate is dead serious and incontrovertable. If we really want to drop the birth rate, we need to increase the level of wealth, autonomy, and education for girls and women in the third world. And one of the best ways for doing that is, in fact, to make sure that they have access to birth control so that they don’t spend their whole lives sick from pregnancy and raising kids that they don’t want and therefore don’t treat well. Bush, of course, is into decreasing the availability of birth control to poor women, both in the US and abroad.

  41. Dianne

    “every December we buy presents for a pill baby, an IUD baby, and an irreversible surgical sterilization baby”

    I believe that there is at least one case report of a baby born to a couple in which the man had had a vasectomy and the woman a tubal ligation. Some people are just too fertile for their own good.

  42. Christopher

    Wow, a compliment!

    That actually means a lot coming from somebody whose intellect I admire so much.

    I can’t disagree with you about this one, though.

    Just to clarify, for this discussion, the VHEMT website is concious of the fact that in some societies there is a lot of pressure to breed, both socially and economically, which is why they talk about reproductive rights.

    Which is a continuation I’d make of my point above; even the choice to breed doesn’t happen in a vacuum; outside pressure is put on people to breed, and there’re some serious lack of education about birth control. Not to mention the stigma of abortion.

    So, while people need to take responsibility for their existing kids, or ideally, responsibility for not having kids, society also needs to take responsibility for having them take responsibility.

    I do wish the VHEMT website would address the problems of a society where all members are over 70. Call me an optimist, but I really do think we can find a way for humanity to end other then in pain and squalor.

  43. Ron Sullivan

    Christopher, I seriously don’t think there would be more pain and squalor in a society where everyone left was over 70 than there is now. It would just be distributed a little differently.

    It’s not necessary for the dying to be alone, unless they want to be. It’s not necessary to breed or fuck one’s loved ones and friends. When conditions get too unrewarding for anyone personally, one can check out painlessly; we certainly have the means. But it’s amazing how much the application of simple machines, on the level of pulley and lever, can do to make even the feeblest of caretakers capable of moving inert bodies enough to keep them clean. Of course, quis custodiet ipsos custodians? in their turn, but IME it’s more than age at work; everyone won’t collapse at once.

    Alzheimer’s is an interesting complication; a species-level vow of nonbreeding wouldn’t preclude more work toward a cure, but also I personally know/knew people who I’m pretty sure (from remarks reported to me by their next-of-kin) would’ve opted for suicide early in the course of the illness if there weren’t so many strictures against it — this is in spite of their having fairly comfortable surroundings now/when they died. Most don’t get violent, so mostly what it would take to keep them in relative comfort would be a circle of friends in shifts and a couple of locked doors anyway. And heavy tranks for the fearful stage.

    I’ve been dealing with rather a lot of elderly people lately, and thinking about how to do things otherwise. For one thing, Joe and I don’t have kids, and can’t quite bring ourselves to do to somerandombody else what his mother in particular did to us. And it’s only because I have a bunch of valiant siblings that we didn’t have to do that for my mother too. And I can;t say either of them, despite everyone’s efforts, had a happy ending.

  44. bitchphd

    Heh, I’m “pro-natalist.” Who knew?

    I’m actually entirely neutral on the having kids question: have ‘em, or don’t. You get my backing either way (I’m sure everyone feels much better now). And god knows I’m pro-abortion access and pro-birth control.

    I just don’t think that it’s consistently feminist to be anti-reproduction. Feminist gains, I think, result in women having fewer kids, which is surely good for society, the planet, and the women themselves: yay! And I’m certainly interested in talking about the problem of how to coordinate feminist gains, which in practice usually means moving women to a higher standard of living, with sustainability, which presumably means moving all of us (at least the industrialized world feminists who currently enjoy the highest standard of living of any women in the world and the lowest birth rate) to a lower standard of living. ‘Tis a complicated problem.

    But I think that a hard-line no-child argument is inevitably going to be unfeminist, in that it is women who have children. Arguing that women ought to be sterilized, or avoid p-v intercourse, is too much like eugenics or “abstinence-baesd sex education” for me to seriously consider either.

    On the other hand, a social policy that took seriously the needs of kids and their parents would, I think, go a long way towards a recognition of just how resource-intensive children are. The problem with the “if you can’t support ‘em, don’t have ‘em” argument is that it avoids a broader social recognition of that fact by pretending that individuals are solely responsible for the species’ young: if anything, the logical consequence of such an argument is that people should try to bogart *more* resources in order to ensure the survival of their offspring.

  45. Shalfalfa

    I agree with Dr. B and love the essay on her site. It describes my feelings and situation perfectly.

    I’ve tried everything besides complete and utter abstinence to NOT become pregnant. The pill could have killed me. After that, many condoms broke resulting in: 1. a Child, and; 2. an abortion. I then used the IUD which worked, by all accounts, unless you consider that I was constantly worried about punctures and strings and whether or not the little bugger was wandering around my middle unfettered.
    Now that I’m committed for the long haul, my partner has been snipped.

    What I want to say is this: The largest part of the zero-birth rate movement or the child-free movement or whatever you’d like to call it is a respect for nature. Sure, often it is dressed up in doom and gloom about Ma Nature’s ability to look after herself against this parasite we call the human race. The irony for me is, after she whooped my ass in the fertility vs. technology department, I gained a new understanding of her real power.

    Do we really think it’s possible to fool Mother Nature? It seems to me the Dr. B is correct. Our task is to fix society – not nature.

  46. Christopher

    I guess what I’m more concerned about is maintaining infrastructure. You know, power, food distribution, sanitation.

    It seems to me that as the population gets older and frailer that it wil be harder and harder to actually keep these kinds of things running. And things will be even worse in third world countries, where most of the population has to engage in manual labor.

    I guess it’s the manual labor that gets to me; There’s a point in most lives where you become too frail to exert yourself physically as much as you used to, and yet you may still have ten or twenty years left before you die.

    And if the VHEMT succeeds, at some point the vast majority of the populace is going to be at this stage in life. I’m simply not sure that the remaining fully able-bodied people will be able to support everybody else. And needless to say, it gets worse as the population gets older.

    Will a population where everybody is 90 have enough energy to farm sufficient food?

    Is the last generation going to have to commit suicide?

  47. NancyMc


    But I think that a hard-line no-child argument is inevitably going to be unfeminist, in that it is women who have children. Arguing that women ought to be sterilized, or avoid p-v intercourse, is too much like eugenics or “abstinence-baesd sex education” for me to seriously consider either.

    Is anybody here arguing that women ought to avoid vaginal intercourse? I was quibbling with your definition of sex. Your argument, that heteros don’t have a choice to have kids, only a choice to not have kids, when they have sex, only works if you define sex strictly as vaginal intercourse. But I’ve had my share of non-vaginal intercourse incidents wherein I could swear I was “having sex.”

    And who is arguing that women “ought to be sterlized”? If you don’t want to have (more) kids, why not avoid possible abortion and abortion scares by having a tubal ligation? It’s a perfectly sensible option.

    If you think that sounds like eugenics and abstinence-only sex education, well you sure lept over a series of gigantic hurdles to get to that conclusion.

  48. Iximche

    An infrequent poster humbly submits:

    Here in Guatemala, there´s a so-called ¨family planning law¨ that is currently being debated. The law says crazy things, like, everyone should have access to information about family planning.

    I am horrified to report how many women (Catholic and otherwise) here have told me that family planning is an absolute sin. When I ask how women should reduce the number of children they have, I´m told that they should just talk to their husbands about it.

    As if we somehow live in a world where women´s opinions, thoughts, feelings, and beings matter.

    I´m blaming the Patriarchy daily (and at times hourly) in this machismo culture.

  49. NancyMc

    Can’t help you with the Soviet famine, but I was reading ‘Mao – the unknown story’ last night. This puts the 58-61 famine down to Mao initiating huge food exports to the USSR and Eastern European countries, basically for political and military capital. He gave the Soviets food – they gave him weapons. So, capitalism, in a communist sort of

    So by your definition, it is impossible to be a communist and exchange goods. Swapping food for weapons equals capitalism. I don’t think there are many who agree with your definition of capitalism.

  50. NancyMc


    I´m blaming the Patriarchy daily (and at times hourly) in this machismo culture.

    You are on the front line in the fight against patriarchy – that must be very hard work much of the time.

  51. Mary

    Nancy, are you serious? Where on god’s green earth did you get a tubal at 24?? I’m 23 and my local PP clinic (in Indiana) just shrugs and tells me there’s no chance when I ask.

    Also, pumpkin pie is an abomination.

  52. Jezebella

    It’s a bit silly to suggest we stop breeding altogether, I think. We are biologically hardwired to perpetuate the species, and this is probably why birth control fails.

    Yeah, okay, I just lost my train of thought because a hyperactive 8-year-old is down the hall from my office hollering, as he does every day between 3 and 4. His mother just tunes him out and my head is about to explode. When I ask him to use his inside voice, he usually says, “Why?”

    Ironic, eh?

    Let me unequivocally recommend to you the IUD. I believe mine is called a Paragard. Insertion is a bitch, but it’s a one-time event, one expense, ten years of freedom, and no hormones. And my insurance covered most of it.

    I also had something to say about the Catholic church undermining all efforts at ZPG, and spreading their insidious teachings ever wider.

  53. Twisty

    Man, that “biological hardwire” is some hard-ass wire! I confess to being a little tired of it as an excuse for deportment that is insane (or destructive or violent). Men are “hardwired” to ogle boobies. Women are “hardwired” to come unglued at the sight of a pair of baby shoes. Faugh. I buy it not. But the fact that so many people do is all the data I need to predict the extinction of the species by gruesome die-off.

  54. NancyMc

    Nancy, are you serious? Where on god’s green earth did you get a tubal at 24?? I’m 23 and my local PP clinic (in Indiana) just shrugs and tells me there’s no chance when I ask.

    Why not? I’ve never regretted it.

    And there’s no reason why your PP clinic should withhold a tubal from you. Is that even legal?

  55. NancyMc

    We are biologically hardwired to perpetuate the species, and this is probably why birth control fails.

    That is probably why infanticide has been so popular throughout the ages.

    Being wired for sex in no way translates into being wired for child-rearing. That’s why wealthy women throughout the ages farmed out child-rearing to others.

  56. Mary

    “Why not? I’ve never regretted it.

    And there’s no reason why your PP clinic should withhold a tubal from you. Is that even legal?”

    No no, I would never insinuate that a woman should regret a tubal–just wistfully dreaming of a state in which I, too, could get one at such a young age.

    As to the PP clinic, as I understand it, they don’t do tubals themselves, and don’t know of any doctors/clinics around here that would give one to such a young woman anyway. So they’re just like “meh, try again in 10 years.” It is goddamn infuriating.

  57. thebewilderness

    Here is a stunning example of the patriarchy at work.

    http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2006/02/and-people-ask-why-im-feminist.html

  58. Kat

    Let me throw in my own situation in support of Bitch Phd and when b/c fails –

    When I was twenty, my boyfriend and I were having protected sex. Every time, repeat, EVERY TIME we had sex, we used both a condom and spermicide. I also tried to make sure that we weren’t having sex when I was ovulating. I did not want to have a baby. In fact, I’d decided that I never wanted to have children at all. I wasn’t taking the birth control pill because it made me sick and messed with medication I took for Graves Disease.

    YET – yet – there I was, 20, pregnant, and coming from a family where abortion was considered a mortal sin. Now, ten years later, I know in the same situation I would choose abortion, no matter how much I love my little girl now. Back then, I didn’t feel I had that option.

    After I was pregnant, my mother shrugged and said, “Women in our family are as fertile as rabbits! I thought you knew that.”

    I’m wiser now and lucky to only have one child, but I will never again believe that I can outwit my own biology.

  59. jezebella

    ah, “biological hardwiring” – I meant as a species, not as individuals. I don’t think being designed to breed (physically) means we should all do so, or that any single individual is designed to breed & nurture. Just that nature is a lot bigger than all of us and *all* species are hardwired to perpetuate their DNA.

    Obviously humans are more than capable of acting against their biological programming, and can and should do so as often as we wish.

    I just think that spending time planning the demise of the species is wasted, as evolution will take care of that eventually. Mother Nature can be a bitch and when she’s got a plan, no amount of weeny human planning is going to counteract it (whether it’s species-suicide or species-perpetuation).

  60. Sam

    Reproductive biology is part of why believe pro-choice women should also be anti-prostitution. Neither sterilization of prostitutes nor repeat abortions for prostitutes should be acceptable to defenders of reproductive rights, and with prostitution it’s one or the other.

  61. Lorenzo

    NancyMc,

    1) Please don’t confuse Marx and his writings with what was done in his name by figures such as Mao and Stalin. This is hardly the place for it, but there is a very long list of reasons that their views and policies diverged very widely from Marx’s views.

    2) My point was not that capitlaism was always and everywhere responsible for famine! My point was that, unlike earlier eras where famine was usually the product of there not being enough food, that since the 1980′s famine has been overwhelmingly a by-product of not being able to afford food rather than there not being enough. I was refering to the specific situation since ~1970 in this case and there is considerable evidence to support the contention that poverty has been the primary cause of malnutrition since then rather than scarcity. This is particularly true with the redefinitions and modifications of the concept of ‘food security’ in the global South that has been attendant with globalization. Food security used to be a policy of governments in the global South working to ensure that their citizens had enough to eat, however it has come to mean the marketization of food provision in the global South as part of a global market in agriculture and has served to price many in the global South out of the market. This has even been the case in many of the countries in the global South that grow the food yet, in many cases, those who work in argiculture have come to be unable to afford enough of the food that they grow. If you are interested I could point you in the direction of a couple of articles on this subject.

  62. Sin Monkey

    Dianne:
    “But the evidence that wealth and education, especially wealth, education, and autonomy for women, leads to a decreased birth rate is dead serious and incontrovertable. If we really want to drop the birth rate, we need to increase the level of wealth, autonomy, and education for girls and women in the third world.”

    Yeah, the problem of resource depletion and industrial pollution can be solved by enabling women to consume more! The first world with it’s liberated women and below replacement birth rate consumes three-quarters of world energy production.

    It’s interesting that none of you women criticize the techno-industrial system itself. Guess you know which side your bread is buttered.

  63. bitchphd

    Well, if no one is advocating that women be sterilized or refrain from p/v sex, then bringing those things up to counter the argument that sex, for straight chicks, leads to pregnancy is kind of silly. No, obviously it doesn’t and needn’t lead *inevitably* to pregnancy. But across populations, it does. Hence bringing in sterilization or non-p/v sex, in that context, is relevant only *if* we’re talking about doing it across populations, hence the eugenics/absitnence associations.

  64. Twisty

    Jezebella, if I thought for one second that humans would actually and voluntarily take any steps whatsoever to plan for a happy ending for our species, I’d do the butt-dance naked at the corner of 6th and Red River. This whole blog is an excercise in futility, isn’t it? Today I got a 2000-word email from some dipshit who mistakes me for Valerie Solanas and thinks that all women “exlude the male to perpetuate her disgustingly selfish female ideals” because “without the father she can reduce the impact that masculinity has on exposing her self-centered sadistic nature.”

    There is no hope. Really.

  65. LMYC

    Yeah, the problem of resource depletion and industrial pollution
    can be solved by enabling women to consume more! The first world
    with it’s liberated women and below replacement birth rate
    consumes three-quarters of world energy production.

    Sin Monkey, you ain’t thinking. The first world was made by MEN, men whose entire raison d’etre was shitting on women and keeping them down. I’m not an essentialist by any means, but if you seriously think that a society can TRULY empower women without changing the way it does things, you’re nuts.

    Empowering and educating women results in a lot more than just fewer births. Community awareness goes up, whether you want to admit it or not.

    In this country, we have individual empowered women but NO translation of that into the power structure. Let it percolate upward for a while. It’s preposterous to expect that the first world, which has been developing for CENTURIES along lines set out in history, will suddenly shift after fewer than a hundred years of female enfranchisement and far fewer of real civil rights.

  66. LMYC

    And just because I know this is going to come up:

    Don’t anyone try that canned crap about how Women Would Be Just As Bad As Men If … (some implausible thing that’s never happened in the entire history of humanity). It’s junk, and the older I get, the less willing I am to take on the blame for what MEN have done to this planet just in the interest of appearing fake-fair.

    There’s a wonderful little charity for girls’ literacy called “Room to Read,” for example. You know what they’ve foudn? And what I’ve seen in my whole life? When you educate a boy, he goes away and abandons his community. He sees it as something given to HIM for HIM ALONE that HE-HE-HE gets to benefit from. When you educate a girl, you find that she goes home, educates others, builds things, and takes care of her community. Sometimes I think this happens in all oppressed communities, because we dont’ expect the world to wipe out asses for us. Successful minority men will also take special pains to benefit their community — but overwhelmingly, WOMEN AND GIRLS are like this.

    They found this for other primates, and other animals as well. There was the old story of monkeys on a Japanese island at whom tourists would toss wrapped treats. If a male found one, he unwrapped it, ate it, and moved on. If a female found one, somehow it was communicated to the rest of the community. Teaching and benefiting women BENEFITS EVERYONE. Even in my own life, as someone with a genetic disability, I’ve noticed a funny thing — that most of the web sites for this illness are made by women, including mine.

    I’m not for the whole “women HAVE TO BE perfect angels” thing — but neither am I going to refuse to acknowledge what seems to be the plain fucknig truth: WE’RE BETTER. We think of others, whether it’s because we do the childcare or whatever. “Fight or Flight” versus “Tend and Befriend.” I dislike essentialism that paints me as a perfect little Angel of the Harth, but if you look at the world, there is NO WAY you can avoid coming to the conclusion that entire communities benefot when women AS A WHOLE are empowered. Not a few embedded in a matrix of male privilege. But WOMEN AS A WHOLE.
    Sure, maybe we “might” be “just as bad,” but if that’s the case — point it out, on a big scale that matches the shit men have pulled. Where’s our Bergen-Belsen? Where’s our Dzerzhinsk? It just bugs the snot out of me that I’m expected to take half the blame for shit that we do not do.

  67. LMYC

    And don’t give me counterexamples like Margaret Thatcher, either. If anything, the rarity of women in positions of male-defined power can be used to demonstrate that we are far less likely to be willing to be such tyrannical shitheads.

    There are ZILLIONS of men who have been monsters in power. Saying “women would do it too” is like saying, “Well, the KKK could have theoretically lunched white people, too!!!!!!!!!”

    Yeah. ONLY THEY DIDN’T.

    We could theoretically be “just as bad.” BUT WE’RE NOT. Educating women benefits the entire world, to the point where we are not mere hangers-on to a male-defined environmentally destructive culture.

    Sorry, but this topic sickens me at this point. I’m SICK of people acting like women have half of the blame for the SHIT that’s been done by male-defined and male-controlled structures. We don’t.

  68. Sola

    I find it hard to understand how a progressive North American woman could intentionally make a baby, and especially make more than one. One American kid uses FAR more resources than, say, one Burmese kid. Increasing the number of Americans just increases the burden on people who are already getting screwed.

    From an ecological standpoint, American parenthood is self-indulgent. I realize how much work a kid is and how much parents sacrifice. In fact, parents around me and online seem to complain quite a bit about how much they’re sacrificing. What they fail to see is how much people around the world will be sacrificing as this kid grows up to shop shop shop and drive drive drive. No matter how enlightened the parents are, this new human will need to consume resources.

    The only parenthood I’ve ever considered is adopting a kid who’s already made. There are plenty of them out there, and they need parents more than the world needs new consumers.

  69. NancyMc

    Well, if no one is advocating that women be sterilized or refrain from p/v sex, then bringing those things up to counter the argument that sex, for straight chicks, leads to pregnancy is kind of silly. No, obviously it doesn’t and needn’t lead *inevitably* to pregnancy. But across populations, it does. Hence bringing in sterilization or non-p/v sex, in that context, is relevant only *if* we’re talking about doing it across populations, hence the eugenics/absitnence associations.

    Nobody is advocating that women BE sterlized – but I recommend women (and men) have themselves sterlized.

    What has that to do with eugenics?

    And abstinence associations are anti-sex. Recommending non-vaginal intercourse sex is not anti-sex. In fact, non-vaginal intercourse is consider by many still to be a naughtier form of sex than intercourse.

    So we’re not talking about abstinence.

    So why did you mention eugenics and abstinence?

    And what do you mean by “across populations?”

  70. NancyMc

    Please don’t confuse Marx and his writings with what was done in his name by figures such as Mao and Stalin. This is hardly the place for it, but there is a very long list of reasons that their views and policies diverged very widely from Marx’s views.

    How many times have I heard that? Well capitalism isn’t pure Adam Smith either. In any case, the issue at hand isn’t whether pure Marxism was subverted by dictators, the issue is that capitalism isn’t the only problem in food distribution.


    2) My point was not that capitlaism was always and everywhere responsible for famine! My point was that, unlike earlier eras where famine was usually the product of there not being enough food,

    I certainly don’t think that capitalism is perfect, or even necessarily the best economic system. But to say that the problem isn’t the Earth’s resources, it’s just a case of bad distribution over-simplifies the situation. And that’s what I thought you were doing in your first post.

  71. Lily

    I find your “cute” and “ironic” captioning use of that photograph racist, unethical, and repulsive. Sign me an ex-fan of your blog.

  72. Lorenzo

    NancyMc,

    I certainly don’t think that capitalism is perfect, or even necessarily the best economic system. But to say that the problem isn’t the Earth’s resources, it’s just a case of bad distribution over-simplifies the situation. And that’s what I thought you were doing in your first post.

    I understand. Yeah, I was making a much narrower point, which I should have made more clear in my initial post, that specifically food distribution specifically since ~1970 has primarily been a problem of distribution rather than scarcity. I’d emphasize that this point is not more widely applicable to other resources.

  73. Courtney Brady

    I have three young children and I am a stay at home mom. I can’t imagine anything that I would want to do more…the only occupation that comes close in an illustrator. I see some comments stating that parents who can’t take the time to get their kids to behave probably shouldn’t be parents to begin with (not in those exact words, but hinted at…especially in the blog article). Well, just because a child misbehaves in public doesn’t mean that they have a parent that is lax with discipline and teaching. It takes time to raise a child to be a civilized adult (probably about 15-18 years) and it takes time for a child to learn to be well behaved.

    Futhermore some children that you may see acting out or throwing tantrums in the store or restaurant may be disabled. I have a five year old son with autism. Mostly he is well behaved at home and in public, but sometimes he is not. Little things that wouldn’t bother you or I can set him off. When he yells, cries, or screams I don’t even look at other people because I know they are giving me dirty looks (probably thinking I am a horrible parent that doesn’t discipline him), I just concentrate on calming him down. Now some people probably would say that I shouldn’t take him out in public, because seeing him makes them uncomfortable. Yet I don’t want to return to the days when we kept our disabled people hidden away at home or in institutions. Mostly I just want to say don’t be too quick to judge that mother at the store with the screaming child. I use to judge her too before I had children, but now I look at her with empathy.

    ~Courtney

  74. Twisty

    Hey Courtney,

    I don’t know how familiar you are with this blog, but I recommend not taking it too personally, or expecting too much in the way of decency or human compassion. After all, according to Lily in #71, I am an unethical repulsive racist.

    Please note that, as much as I wish they’d keep them out of my yard, I don’t blame individual parents for having individual kids. I blame the dominant culture for inventing the nuclear family, an unworkable and inefficient system that cannot help but result in neuroses all around.

    I also don’t judge women in grocery stores with screaming kids, although when I put my fingers in my ears and move away, they always give me the stinkeye, like I’m some sort of race-traitor for coddling my tinnitus.

    Autism, of course, is a whole nother can of worms. But surely you are not suggesting that, in callling for a moratorium on reproduction, I am somehow advocating keeping autistic kids locked up. That’s a bit of a stretch, even for the stretchy readers of this blog.

  75. Chris Clarke

    After all, according to Lily in #71, I am an unethical repulsive racist.

    Hey, that’s nothing. According to comment number ten to this post, you hate the Jews too. Stop denying the Holocaust, Twisty! JUST STOP IT!

  76. Twisty

    “Hey, that’s nothing. According to comment number ten to this post, you hate the Jews too. Stop denying the Holocaust, Twisty! JUST STOP IT!”

    So, do you think Meryl would so not make out with me?

  77. Jezebella

    I sure hope this whole blog isn’t an exercise in futility, Twisty! Not that we’re taking down the patriarchy this week, but every little bit of defiance helps.

    Righteous indignation can be quite satisfying, and my recent visits to this blog actually inspired me only last week to tell an old man, to his face, that he was condescending and sexist when he called me a “girl” (in a condescending and sexist manner). I usually let that shit slide, seeing as I’m living in Mississippi, but he was patronizing me and I had the temerity to disagree with his asinine pronouncements, so I didn’t let it slide. I know it ain’t much, but hell, it’s something.

    Imagine my dismay when the 50-ish woman we were talking with said she wasn’t offended by being called a girl, since it made her feel young. Ugh.

  78. Lily

    Well the problem is, there’s a lot of people who want to dismantle the patriarchy as much as you do who get a little bit frustrated when people can’t get it through their heads that being a racist and an elitist is only going to reinforce the same hierarchies you supposedly hate so much. This isn’t a case of you being attacked by some horrible antifeminist, this is a case of you alienating a lot of women who are just as feminist as you are. I find the fact that you cannot address this head-on, but instead resort to more idiotic hipster sarcastic fluff pretty telling. You don’t take accusations of racism seriously, even coming from another feminist. If you took it seriously, you could explain to me why the hell you’re justified in using depictions of violence against people of color as a form of “ironic” commentary for your blog.

    If the world is so horribly overpopulated, why does no one suggest that the “baby boomers” just commit hara kiri before they start overtaxing our social services? You know, quit while they’re ahead. Rather than yet AGAIN trying to put the weight of the world on women’s ovaries, why not tell all the old geezers in the world to off themselves after they reach the age where they can collect social security? Oh, that might be MEAN! Yeah, because it involves telling men what to do with their bodies. For the record, I don’t think anyone committing mass suicide would be a great idea or a solution. But it’s funny that no one ever suggests it, even as they suggest yet again that those damn women need to keep their legs shut.

    Any and all screeds against reproduction will be antifeminist and antiwoman as long as reproduction is regarded as “women’s work.”

  79. funnie

    You know, twisty, this: reproduction, a thing many insouciant earthlings regard as a “human right”, is actually an act of violent self-interest and appalling hubris. doesn’t gel at all with your next sentence, does it: Each cooing little bundle of joy brings the species that much closer to extinction.

    Believing reproduction is a human right is actually a lot more reasonable than believing humans have the right to keep existing in perpetuity. Yet our appalling hubris leads us to think we should. Why? I suspect it’s tied to one of the reasons people have kids: it’s personally gratifying to believe you’re personally involved in continuing the line, as you’d like it to be continued. So, six of one.

    Until those patriarchal labrats find out how to make baby-having into a clean test-tube proposition that has nothing at all to do with us dirty, flawed, stupid cow women, it will be antifeminist to badmouth baby-having, in aggregate or no.

    The baseline of choice is that women aren’t stupid.

    I have no idea why it wouldn’t be enough for you to focus your ire and efforts on making sure ALL women have REAL options to procreation, REAL opportunities for education, REAL fiscal solvency apart from having to live with impregnators, REAL control over whether or not a man puts his penis in them, REAL control over whether or not a welcomed penis makes a baby.

    What viewpoint of yours does that unduly neglect…What need of yours would it not satisfy?

    Your urge to be cool and have fun, to take things less than seriously and poke holes in them? Well, I like that aspect of your writing, but not when you do it at the expense of women’s reality, at which point it puts you in the company of pornhounds and a whole assortment of other blamable types. Ick.

  80. Chris Clarke

    Any and all screeds against reproduction will be antifeminist and antiwoman as long as reproduction is regarded as “women’s work.”

    Hey Lily: Can I have your stereo after Ron Sullivan eviscerates you?

  81. Lily

    Well, Chris, I can’t tell from your name if you’re a man, but I think there are more male Chrises than female ones, and Ron Sullivan certainly is a guy, so I feel it’s definitely appropriate for me to say that threats of male violence against a woman with whom you personally disagree are pretty damn distasteful. I mean, are we here to dismantle the patriarchy, or are we here to “eviscerate” women with whom one personally disagrees?

    Ron Sullivan was a name I had to google, and I’m getting several hits, none of them explaining to me why it is at all appropriate that you suggest he “eviscerate” a woman with whom you are barely acquainted.

  82. WookieMonster

    Lily, BS. Asking people to be responsible, and think of not only their own life, but the condition of the world in general before they reproduce is “put[ting] the weight of the world on women’s ovaries”? Again BS. Let me let you in on a little secret. Men reproduce too! AND men can choose not to reproduce JUST LIKE WOMEN!

    And encouraging people not to breed is exactly morally equivalent to asking millions of people to just die already, yeah, right. Wait a minute, how is that not ageist? Oh, so we have to be sensitive about everything else, but the old can just go fuck themselves? How incredibly non-elitist of you.

  83. funnie

    Hey there…is my post being held? Or have things just not caught up yet? Let me know if I need to re-send. Thx.

  84. Twisty

    Quoth Lily in #78: “why the hell you’re justified in using depictions of violence against people of color as a form of “ironic” commentary for your blog.”

    And now maybe you could tell me what the hell you’re talking about. The picture is of some kids playing in the street with a hoop. I can’t tell what “color” they are and don’t know how you can, either. If you click the picture it will take you to the Rehydration Project’s website, which is devoted to saving the lives of–that’s right–children.

    And I wonder where you get the idea that I’m blaming imminent human extinction on women. Have you even read this blog? If not, I suggest glancing at the title for the executive summary. I blame the patriarchy. Not ovaries.

    Although, frankly, I may start blaming you for hurting my feelings.

  85. Lily

    Oh come on, the “personal responsibility” shtick is straight out of the Ronald Reagan playbook. Did I click the wrong link this morning and wind up on “I blame the stupid breeder cow women” instead of “I blame the patriarchy”? And yeah, you give more lipservice to the role of men than the conservatives do, but that doesn’t make your position make any damn sense in the real world. The facts of life in the world we live in is that the burdens of reproduction rest on the shoulders of women. Men CAN choose to be responsible, but they don’t and when they don’t it all lands on women. Men choose to rape, men choose to whine about using condoms, men choose to coerce women, men choose to control finances, men choose to withhold information on reproduction from young people, etc. Just *pretending* like everything is equal doesn’t make it so.

    Read the comments, Wookie Monster. People are talking about how there need to be plagues to “weed people out.” Whether it was meant as one or not, that’s an allusion to AIDS, amongst other things. Such a comment definitely implies that we need to stop trying to cure people and just let ‘em die and “reduce the surplus population” as Scrooge might say. Other people on this thread certainly ARE suggesting that millions of people just die and get out of the way. The people they want to die and stop polluting their precious hipster air may not be the All-American 50 Moms and Dads, but they’re still people.

  86. Chris Clarke

    Ron Sullivan certainly is a guy

    So much for reading comprehension.

  87. Ron Sullivan

    Hope you don’t mind if I delay the evisceration by a day, Chris. I’m still tired from last night, and Joe and I are miraculously deadline-free for a day so we’re going out to frolic amongst the wildflowers. He wants pix of fetid adder’s-tongue. I wonder what our inventive interlocutor will say about that.

    Wow, though. I’m living the James Tiptree, Jr. dream without even investing in blue typwriter ribbon!

  88. Courtney Brady

    Dear Twisty,

    I found this blog about a week ago and I think it is great! I don’t expect readers to respond compassionately to my posts, I just wanted to get my opinion out there. I would never give anyone walking away from my screaming child a dirty look, I understand totally. Also about keeping kids out of your yard, I’m totally feeling you there! One of the things I really stress to my kids is not to enter other people’s property or use other’s things without permission. I have a big pet peeve about mothers who think every water toy at the kiddie pool is community property. I also use to have neighbor kids that would just come on to my porch and play with the toys out there. It use to drive me insane!

    I also wasn’t trying to suggest that anyone on this blog wanted autistic children locked away. It is just a gerneral feeling I sometimes get out in public. Other times people are really supportive about my son. There is more of the latter actually and that is a good thing. I am glad that some people are getting more comfortable with disabled people being out in public with them.

    I also don’t begrudge anyone their decision to reproduce or not. I think it is fine is someone doesn’t want children…some days I actually envy you and wish I had made the same decision. Yet I also think it is fine if someone wants children and I don’t want any type or race of person to kill themselves or die of disease. I don’t wish that on anyone!

    ~Courtney

  89. Chris Clarke

    On reflection, the “evisceration” remark, while intended only metaphorically (and I trust regular readers here knew that), was inappropriate as my intent was too easily misinterpreted. I apologize, and assure Lily that I intended no physical threat whatsoever.

    All I meant to say was that her sloppily constructed and ill-founded argument is of the sort that women such as Ron regularly tear to shreds without batting an eyelash, seeing as it defines feminism to exclude them.

    Sorry for the ill-considered choice of words.

  90. NancyMc


    All I meant to say was that her sloppily constructed and ill-founded argument is of the sort that women such as Ron regularly tear to shreds without batting an eyelash, seeing as it defines feminism to exclude them.

    Sorry for the ill-considered choice of words.

    Chris, nobody in their right mind thought that by using the word “eviscerate” you were advocating the physical removal of anybody’s entrails.

    Lily is on the prowl for any excuse to be offended. To a degree that makes me question what Lily is about.

  91. Lily

    Well gosh, I don’t know all your goddamn friends by name. I’m sorry, but I have no idea who the hell Ron Sullivan is, so I did a google search, the first result was a director of “adult films” and the next few were various academics. All male, so far as I could tell. Maybe I should be eviscerated for not being able to read your mind?

  92. Lisa

    I’m sorry, but I have no idea who the hell Ron Sullivan is, so I did a google search.

    How about reading her comments in this very thread?

    In #43, written by Ron Sullivan:

    For one thing, Joe and I don’t have kids, and can’t quite bring ourselves to do to somerandombody else what his mother in particular did to us.

    That sentence clearly indicates that either Ron is female, or is a homosexual male. Occam’s Razor would indicate the former, if one was prone to reading for comprehension.

  93. Lily

    Twisty, yes, I’ve read your blog for a while and up until now it has been one of my favorites. What I meant with the violence remark is that your captioning implies violence. Here’s some cute kids, they’re all dead now, ho hum, hahaha on about my merry cynical way. You may not have intended it that way, but that is how it reads.

    When someone uses images of children of color as part of a screed on “overpopulation,” they are aligning themselves, purposely or not, with a preexisting agenda and set of images, arguments, and biases. Even if the person’s actual words differ severely from that agenda, the symbol still contains meaning by itself. Sort of like if I post a huge image of a thin, blonde naked woman doing something sexual on my blog for “shock value” in a post on sexuality even though I am personally anti-objectification. I have to think about the preconcieved notions I am playing into when I use that kind of image.

    If I post an image of a naked, sexed-up blonde woman on the top of an entry on rape, for instance, and say “here’s a pretty woman, now she’s dead” and follow it up with a post full of cynical wit and banter about rape and some glib suggestions on how it could be so easily “prevented” by simply saying “stop getting raped,” I’m not treating the topic with the seriousness it deserves and I shouldn’t be surprised if people mistake me for an antifeminist.

    I’m hurting your feelings? Frankly in light of the comments people here have been making in this thread I find it pretty funny that you’d think that’s something to take into consideration. No one else’s feelings seem to be considered, here, what with all the light-hearted banter about “euthanasia” and “weeding out” and so forth. Ill-aimed cynicism and satire hurts people’s feelings too, and worse.

  94. Lily

    Lisa, I read this blog for the topics Twisty covers, not to become intimately acquainted with the lives and loves of her fans, with or without the use of Occam’s razor.

  95. NancyMc

    Well gosh, I don’t know all your goddamn friends by name. I’m sorry, but I have no idea who the hell Ron Sullivan is, so I did a google search, the first result was a director of “adult films” and the next few were various academics. All male, so far as I could tell. Maybe I should be eviscerated for not being able to read your mind?

    “Ron Sullivan” is a common name, and many who post online don’t use their real names. Do you?

    You can’t possibly believe that you’ll learn anything about the person who posts here under that name by doing a Google search. Either you’re full of it, or you’re completely clueless.

  96. Erin

    I’m still unclear on the offense that the picture’s causing. It links directly to information from UNICEF, an organization not particularly known for its kid-hating ways. There are children of color in the picture, yes; is it racist to state that most child refugees are children of color? That more infants and children of color die of preventable disease than white, western children? That more women of color die in childbirth due to inadequate medical care (or no care at all)? Would blond kids from Winnetka or Tulsa be a more accurate or less racist depiction of international child poverty?

    Saying that there are too many people in the world, and that those who bear the brunt of this are poor and non-white and often women and children doesn’t seem to be a controversial statement to make, so I’m puzzled by the reaction to it.

  97. Chris Clarke

    Chris, nobody in their right mind

    I know, Nancy, but a careful writer writes for all of his or her readers.

  98. WookieMonster

    Lily, either you are amazingly stupid or just looking to pick a fight.

    BTW, the fundie idea of “personal responsiblity” (basically take responsiblity for the good things, but anything bad is someone else’s fault) is bunk, but the idea of people actually taking responsiblity for their own actions and how they effect society is a pretty damn good idea. I can (and want to) take responsibilty for my own reproduction if I have the freedom to do so. But aparently according to you I’m supposed to hand over the choice of whether or not to have children to some man, becuase men aren’t always responsible about their breeding. Fuck that, I’m going to do what I need to do to ensure that I don’t have children regardless of what any men in the vecinity do, because it’s my life and I have to live it, so yeah, I’m going to take responsibility for my own reproductive future not matter how easy some dude may get off, because I’m going to take care of me. Sorry if you see that as, “blam[ing] the stupid breeder cow women” but I think you’re full of shit.

  99. Lily

    Nancy, someone I have never spoken to before says something about a person named Ron Sullivan eviscerating me. What do I make of this? My thoughts are, “who the hell is that?” since I don’t have the name of every single computer-literate individual who comments in “the blogosphere” down by memory. I figure since he’s referencing this person is such a cocky way, perhaps it’s the name of some kind of well-known figure. Now, you have definitely proven that I am not an “insider” in this blog, if I were I would probably have recognized the name. By “insider” I mean someone who comments with regularity and is well known. I mostly read the main body of the posts here, I don’t always come to the comment section. You have proven that I tend to read the content of the comments on blogs first, and go back and look at names later, if ever, since it’s not usually something I keep close track of–the blogger herself is the main attraction, not the people who argue in the comments. But you have not proven that I am “full of it.” You also haven’t proven that references to “evisceration” are a coherent, logical, convincing, or even appropriate response to a comment one disagrees with in a discussion.

    Erin, the problem is, as I said before, whether she intends to or not, by framing the issue the way she framed it, including the photo and especially including the caption she added, Twisty (and a number of her commenters, whose names, incidentally, I still don’t have memorized or sorted by gender and marital status) referenced a pre-existing racist, misogynist agenda about “overpopulation.” It’s like the example I gave of sexualized images of women. Those images really do speak “a thousand words.” If you use one, it’s hard to see past the image to any kind of “irony” or different opinion you might be voicing. What speaks is the picture and the oppression it references. By posting a picture of a bunch of poor brown kids and a caption that says essentially oh well they’re dead now, it’s referencing the idea that people in the third world breed like bunnies and die like flies. If you don’t mean to say something as racist and insensitive as that, then you should find a different way to approach the subject in the first place rather than falling back on a heavily loaded cliche.

  100. Rice Pilaf

    Ah, Lilly. I wondered when pregnancy/birth was going to become your soapbox de jour. I do like your use of “screeds” however. Are you worried, perhaps, that someone might suggest to *you* that your current reproduction is selfish?

  101. NancyMc


    But you have not proven that I am “full of it.”

    No. So far you’ve shown evidence more on the clueless side. But if I see any evidence that I think proves you’re full of it, I’ll be sure to point it out.


    You also haven’t proven that references to “evisceration” are a coherent, logical, convincing, or even appropriate response to a comment one disagrees with in a discussion.

    The term “eviscerate” is used, fairly often, to describe one person severely besting another in rhetorical discourse. I understood that’s what Chris meant. I doubt anybody but you didn’t know what he meant.

    It’s a colorful word choice that, in the present context, was extremely and manifestly appropriate.

    You either don’t get that because you’re clueless, or you do get it, but are pretending you don’t because you’re full of it, and for whatever reason want to pick on any trivial point you possibly can.

    So which is it?

  102. Cass

    Lily:
    The name of this blog is “I Blame the Patriarchy”, not “I Cause Idiotic Rifts Between People Whom I’m In Agreement With 95% Of The Time, Through Moral Exhibitionism And Childish One-Upmanship”. There’s of course plenty of that on the Left if you’re looking for it, which (even more than hurt feelings) is a major reason why the political Right has been routing us these past few decades.
    I wasn’t offended by the photo for the same reasons Erin mentioned: third-world children happen to be the ones dying off right now, and a photo of white kids in suburban Portland would have been weird. If your discomfort is with the concept of black humor altogether, though, I’d suggest you find a different pastime than blaming the patriarchy. Those of us on the front lines need every sanity-preserving tool at our disposal.

  103. Dim Undercellar

    Hold up a minute, folks. I see exactly what Lily is saying, and I agree with her to a very real extent. The flippant brush-off she’s been getting, accompanied by language that is pretty threatening (seriously; if some big fatcat CEO said something about “eviscerating” a woman in any contest, verbal or otherwise, that would be pretty goddamned misogynistic. At what point did word usage become “harmless” rather than “society-influencing”? When a feminist started talking?).

    The “eviscerate” comment, regardless of context, is pretty disgusting. I was glad to see an apology for it, but the folks defending it seem kind of hypocritical, given the attention tis blog in particular and radical feminism in general has paid to the use of language as a tool of oppression and societal change.

    As for the rest, I see exactly what she’s saying with racism. When we’re talking about overpopulation, why show pictures of BLACK kids? Aren’t ALL kids the problem? Why not show a picture of WHITE kids playing Nintendo, rather than black kids from a third-world country? Doesn’t anyone get how that implicitly blames the problem of overpopulation on the group in the image, when you put the image up then bitch about overpopulation?

    I know Twisty didn’t mean it that way, and I don’t peg Twisty as a racist.

    I would like to point out, however, that in a community that is busy promoting the idea that even innocuous-seeming symbols can be sexist/misogynistic and detrimental, assuming that principle just “stops working” at the gates to the blog is sort of silly.

    If I post a picture of a black male, with the caption “Scary man, now in jail” and then write about how many men are in prison for rape, even if I didn’t MEAN to be racist, is it so inconcievable that someone might take it as such? Would a person who took it as such just be some brand of hysterical, or “looking to pick a fight”? I don’t think so.

    Now, this opinion and $3.50 will get you a tall latte, but I don’t think Lily is being so far out of whack to deserve the treatment she’s getting. I was MORE out of whack on the BDSM thread, for crying out loud. I also don’t think Twisty is racist or the picture is necessarily racist, but I think calling people names who see it as such, when it can EASILY be seen as such through the right lens, is a petty and dismissive.

    As for the “women are the ones reproducing, therefore women are being blamed here for overdone reproduction”… sorry, Lily, can’t help ya. But I also don’t think you’re “clueless” or “looking for a fight” in bringing it up, either. It’s worthy of discussion, at the very least in the abstract, and CERTAINLY not worthy threats of “verbal evisceration” over.

  104. Twisty

    Funnie in #79:”I have no idea why it wouldn’t be enough for you to focus your ire and efforts on making sure ALL women have REAL options to procreation, REAL opportunities for education, REAL fiscal solvency apart from having to live with impregnators, REAL control over whether or not a man puts his penis in them, REAL control over whether or not a welcomed penis makes a baby.

    What viewpoint of yours does that unduly neglect…What need of yours would it not satisfy?

    Your urge to be cool and have fun, to take things less than seriously and poke holes in them? Well, I like that aspect of your writing, but not when you do it at the expense of women’s reality, at which point it puts you in the company of pornhounds and a whole assortment of other blamable types. Ick. ”

    A banner day. According to many of you, I am a racist, a fascist, a Jew-hater, and now–it was, I suppose, inevitable– an icky pornhound. Not only that, my essay appears to have inadvertently given the impression that I hold women responsible for the demise of the human race.

    Whoa there, Trigger! I suggest merely that reproduction–a behavior generally associated with both sexes—is, perhaps counterintuitively, but doin’ it all the same, putting the species at risk. I make no claims that H. sapiens ought to inherit the earth. I only point out that there is no way that it will. There is nothing in that position that is inherently at odds with a feminist position. Environmental concerns are women’s concerns.

    You know, I am hardly making this shit up up. An enormous body of research supports my views.

    As for your suggestion that I advocate the human die-off over women’s liberation, well, that’s just silly. There are 400 posts on this blog that say otherwise.

  105. funnie

    Twisty, I’m sorry, but you’re smarter than this. Much smarter. If your analysis of the reality of reproduction in the real world boils down to “it takes two to tango,” then yes, that is the kind of inappropriately-genderblind faux-rationality that I would call sexist.

    I’m an environmentalist too, and I too would like to see the human population sharply decline. In part because what we’re doing to the earth is a specifically feminist issue, since women are disproportionately negatively affected by pollution and lack of resources. And that’s WHY I think this “just harshin’ on reproduction, man, not the ladies” stance is beneath you, and needs some more analysis.

  106. Twisty

    Great Scott, Funnie, if, after all the humorless hairlyegged man-hating crap I’ve written, you believe my argument boils down to “it takes two to tango” then I got nothin left for ya. Cut the tired old spinster aunt a little slack and read between the lines. I can’t be fucking HL Mencken-meets-Germaine Greer every goddam day, you know.

  107. Jodie

    I agree that we are absolutely using up every bit of every thing so that future children will have no clean water, little food, and few resources. In the meantime, we not only produce more humans (I’m guilty, too; and I’d have had more if things had worked out), we use more stuff, throw away good stuff, waste food, waste resources, foul our last remaining shared open spaces with overuse and inappropriate use.

    That’s my take on Twisty’s essay. Both by being poor stewards of our incredibly wonderful planet and by producing too many children, we are dooming all children later (and some RIGHT NOW). And a lot of that is fueled by the Patriarchy.

  108. Chris Clarke

    (seriously; if some big fatcat CEO said something about “eviscerating” a woman in any contest, verbal or otherwise, that would be pretty goddamned misogynistic.

    This has been an instructive thread for me, in a sort of depressing way. Because I was reading Dim Undercellar’s post and noticing once again how odd and inappropriate it seemed to me to see a man who seems to go from blog to blog lecturing women on how to be feminists, and – only being mildly stupid – it took about four milliseconds for me to realize I’d done exactly the same thing.

    The odd thing is that I’m usually the one making Lily’s argument. There is racism and sexism in the “population activist” sector. I find blaming women for reproduction to be profoundly insulting. Not only do I not think feminism and environmental protection are at odds, I suspect that furthering the cause of women’s rights – education, access to health care, and so forth – is essential to any reduction in the world’s population. And still, Lily’s argument struck me as not only out of some defensive left field but weirdly essentialist to boot. I realized too late that I’m not the person to say so, especially by way of a vague quip.

    I regret having turned up the heat without a concommitant increase in light.

    It’s been fun, Twisty.

  109. Twisty

    What say we all kiss and make up and put this one to bed?

    Love, Twisty

  110. k

    strange how you can take a completely normal, wonderful subject and have civilized folks chew it to pieces. and odd how your blog is your insight, your view, your analysis and yet you end up getting critiqued for having it in the first place. well, I for one have thoroughly enjoyed my visits and just want you to hang in there, that’s all.

  111. Luckynkl

    For those that would like women to take responsbility for their reproductive choices, all I have to say is, what planet do you live on? Hello? Perhaps some of you lapsed into a temporary state of amnesia and forgot that we live under patriarchy?

    On quite a few occasions now, I’ve seen this blog refer to the patriarchs wanting to control uteruses. How does one go from that to ignoring that elephant standing in the middle of our livingrooms and do a 180 degree turn-around and blame women for overpopulation? This is woman blaming if ever I saw it. Not patriarchy blaming.

    We live in a world in which women are coerced and forced into hetero relations and marriage, are denied contraceptives and the morning after pill, are threatened, battered (every 9 seconds in the U.S.) and raped regularly (every 60 seconds the last time I looked at the statistics), are denied access to abortions, and are forced to go to term and bear children. It’s not just happening to brown people living in some far off land. It’s happening right here in the U.S. to not only people of color, but *gasp* white women. For the unenlightened, most of the U.S. might as well be a third world country and the vast majority of Americans are only one paycheck away from the welfare lines. Perhaps if y’all turned off your tvs once in awhile and lived in a reality other than your own self-centered one and that oozing out of Planet Hollywood, you’d be aware of this?

    Did you know that the entire population of the U.S. could live in a single county in Michigan? So what’s this nonsense about there not being not enough to go around? There’s plenty to go around. The problem is not overpopulation. The problem is that 1% of the population exploit and hog 90% of the resources. In short, so many are suffering so that a few may live well. At the expense of the planet and 99% of the population. 3 guesses, the first 2 don’t count, what sex and color these kings are, and what religion and sexual preference they have?

    While I’m at it, since when did women have babies all by themselves? So why are ovaries being blamed instead of sperm? Especially when one considers that sperm and testerone have been in charge of this world and made all the “rules” and “laws” about sex and reproduction for milleniums now.

    It’s a much less invasive, more safe, and a much simpler procedure to sterilize a male than it is to sterilize a female. But goddess forbid we even think about infringing on the “freedom” and “rights” of the almighty, sacred penis. That would be way too scawy. It’s soooo much more acceptable and more safe and politically correct to blame women and slice and dice them up.

    In short, it is downight white honky patriarchy-allying to act as if we’re all playing on the same level playing field and all have the same opportunities and choices and all play by the same rules. If that were so, patriarchy wouldn’t even exist. Because patriarchy is dependent on these hierarchies and power gaps to begin with. And is, in fact, the very backbone of it.

    Now please do us all a favor, and stop being such a tool.

  112. Twisty

    Those of you who consider me a tool are certainly welcome to that view, but looky here: for the last time, “overpopulation” is not the equivalent of “it’s all women’s fault.” Nobody is blaming ovaries. I cordially invite everyone who’s bustin’ my hump about this to READ THE FUCKING POST. What I have written is not “I Blame The Ovaries,” but merely a theoretical blurb on the myth of sustainable growth. Pull yourselves together and observe that my little argument assumes a preexisting condemnation of patriarchy and is in no way inconsistent with radical feminist ideology. For my views on how male dominance fucks women over every second of every day, up to and including robbing us of ownership of our personal uteruses, I refer you to the REST OF THE FUCKING BLOG.

  113. Char

    “I suggest merely that reproduction–a behavior generally associated with both sexes—is … putting the species at risk. I make no claims that H. sapiens ought to inherit the earth. I only point out that there is no way that it will. There is nothing in that position that is inherently at odds with a feminist position. Environmental concerns are women’s concerns.”

    I think Funnie’s point is that writing a post about overpopulation which fails to take into account that one of the reasons for overpopulation is women’s inequality is a problem.

    Well, it’s my point, anyway, so I shouldn’t put words in Funnie’s mouth. So, I’ll say what I mean.

    Writing a post about overpopulation that speaks to and about men and women as if we are equal partners in sex and reproduction *is* “inherently at odds with a feminist position.” Because, you know, we’re not. We’re all in it together, i.e. reproduction, but we’re not all in it equally. If you get my drift. I’d suggest that it’s not just “reproduction”, full stop, putting the species at risk — it’s reproduction as it is practiced, i.e., forced on women, under patriarchy.

    And I don’t think all us upper class, North American, white women are exempt from that “forced on” definition, either. Social control = force no matter what guise it comes in. Like you, Twisty, I don’t think “baby lust” is biological and inevitable. But women get it. Women feel it. It’s real to the women who feel it. And how many sex education programs are co-opted by government funded abstinence cabals? And how many abortion providers are there in North Dakota? And how many women are raped?

    Do I think this is your position, too? (Or something close to it, maybe.) I don’t know. I don’t expect you to be Mencken/Greer everyday. But I also don’t see how that post clues me in as to your position other than “reproduction is bad, everybody who does it is going to be responsible for the death of the species — stop doin’ it now!”

  114. Twisty

    You know what, Char, i agree with you. Reproduction is consistently viewed by the whole of civilization as a women’s issue, and this is bogus. I should have thought, given that the entire body of my blogular work focuses on little else, that my views on the egregious misogynist aspects of the matter were obvious, but obviously I was mistaken. When I wrote (hastily, and in comments) about both sexes being required for reproduction, I was alluding specifically to the biological mechanics involved, not giving the Twisty seal of approval to the prevailing social order.

    OK?

  115. NancyMc

    OK, Twisty, this thread is a little played out.

    But…

    Must. Defend. Honor.

    But I also don’t think you’re “clueless” or “looking for a fight” in bringing it up, either. It’s worthy of discussion, at the very least in the abstract, and CERTAINLY not worthy threats of “verbal evisceration” over.

    Lily Googled a common name, and a blog poster’s handle to boot, and seriously expected to get a search result that included a definitive identification of that blog poster, plus biographical details. That’s clueless. And I was being polite. What I was really thinking was “what a fucking moron!” So now you know.

    And Lily makes a bunch of silly, unfounded complaints, including the use of the word eviscerate. Either Lily is a troll or the most crotchety, touchy, fussy person who ever posted to a blog. That’s why I say she’s looking for a fight.

    But I thought my reasoning was clear in my original comments. Did you bother to read them?

    The “eviscerate” comment, regardless of context, is pretty disgusting. I was glad to see an apology for it, but the folks defending it seem kind of hypocritical, given the attention tis blog in particular and radical feminism in general has paid to the use of language as a tool of oppression and societal change.

    How is the word “eviscerate” used in this or ANY context “hypocritical????” It does not matter at all WHO is using it. It’s a perfectly good word. Chris could have said that he felt that Ron Sullivan would “kick your ass”, but eviscerate has a nicer ring, and kick your ass is overused.

    So come on, let’s have it. What is wrong with using the word “eviscerate?”

  116. Mary Sunshine

    ((( Twisty !! )))

    Watching this topic, now at comment # 114, and I just want to say:

    Twisty, you’re right. About all of it. Your original post, all your answers to this thread, and all of your luminescent patriarchy-blaming blog.

    Thanks for you!

  117. NancyMc

    Because I was reading Dim Undercellar’s post and noticing once again how odd and inappropriate it seemed to me to see a man who seems to go from blog to blog lecturing women on how to be feminists, and – only being mildly stupid – it took about four milliseconds for me to realize I’d done exactly the same thing.

    You guys need to stop focusing on people’s proclaimed gender on blog posts. Only in a very few cases do you know for a certainty the gender of the person who is doing the posting.

    You’re better off basing your opinion of a blog poster not on the assumed shape of their genitals, but on the content of their character, to paraphrase a great line.

  118. Twisty

    Have at it, Nancy. We must have a permanent record!

  119. Ron Sullivan

    Ahhhhh, back from the big wet woods and feelin’ all jolly. Got lots of nice pictures of blooming fetid adder’s-tongue, and a few of trillium too. And rather an X-rated one, of blooming pipevine. I wonder what agenda that references, uh-oh.

    OK, Twisty, I’ll resist pointing out that rolling the cursor over my name reveals a link to my blog — which is also the third thing that Google pops out when I put myself into it as into a warm bath, the second being a link to the Website where my blog resides — that the only “Lily” I personally know is a Saint Bernard, which fact nevertheless did not induce me to holler “Sit! Stay!” though I admit I was tempted, and that it’s a good idea to learn about things before one starts telling other people alllllll about them.

    Or that “evisceration” via the Internet would pretty much have to be metaphorical. But yeah, Chris, maybe disemvoweling would be better, though I think only the proprietor can do that.

    And let me add by way of coda that I agree with Twisty about human reproduction. Way overrated.

  120. Ron Sullivan

    Oh yeah — that other “Ron Sullivan”? The one who comes up first? Putney Swope and all? That’s not his real name.

  121. Char

    “You know what, Char, i agree with you. Reproduction is consistently viewed by the whole of civilization as a women’s issue, and this is bogus. I should have thought, given that the entire body of my blogular work focuses on little else, that my views on the egregious misogynist aspects of the matter were obvious, but obviously I was mistaken. When I wrote (hastily, and in comments) about both sexes being required for reproduction, I was alluding specifically to the biological mechanics involved, not giving the Twisty seal of approval to the prevailing social order.

    OK?”

    Let me say, first, that this was a bad time and place for me to try to say what I said. I know it becomes a pile-up in these situations, regardless of the intent of commenters. It wasn’t my intent to join a pile-up.

    I never thought you were giving the seal of approval to inequality. And it’s a fair point that your posts here should be read in the context of the rest of your blog.

    OTOH, it’s also a fair point that even the best of feminists can sometimes lose sight of gender when something really riles them.

    I thought I was seeking clarification, “this is what could be going on, your post itself isn’t clear, and it seems to be that you’re making a very uncharacteristic assumption.” I didn’t say that in the best way possible. In fact, that last bit I didn’t say at all, on reflection.

    So, in any event, thanks for the clarification.

  122. Joanna

    Good night, Twisty
    Love ya.

  123. ae

    God. Damn. Where to begin! First of all, those few confused as to Twisty’s Essential Twistosophy should, you know, READ THE BLOG. Have at it. The archives’ll learn ya something, I promise. And newsflash! Twisty does not need to lead every delicate flower here by the hand through every syllable of radical feminist thought in every post. Did she neglect to note in literal terms in this post that women are the sex class? Consider it implied, people. The entirety of the rest of the blog stands as ready reference. She shouldn’t have to do all the heavy-lifting around here. Damn.

    There is real work to be done, and getting one’s preach on — no matter how satisfying it is to one’s inner aggrieved moral high horse — is a little precious. I do wish that those who feel the need to lecture Twisty again on the myriad ways women suffer would please tear their eyes away from their tender treatises and refer to the name of the blog and the vast body of work supporting its declaration.

  124. tigtog

    Wow, did some weird reading incomprehension virus strike the Interwebs today?

  125. Famous Soviet Athlete

    I’m just happy that Lorenzo mentioned Marx.

    PS: Why do I always seem to enter these threads after everyone else has moved on?

  126. Dim Undercellar

    Nancy: I’ll ask AGAIN. At what point did word usage become “harmless” rather than “society-influencing”?

    If I said “Hold on a sec while I rape you over that argument. Hey, it was just metaphorical!” or “When so and so gets back, you’re gonna get your tits METAPHORICALLY cut off for that!” or “I’m a feminist, but I’ll still pull a metaphorical Bobby Brown and verbally wife-beat you!” or… well, I think by now you get my point.

    There are a million ways that same sentiment could have been expressed without violent death imagry directed by a man at a woman. He could have said “Ron Sullivan will demolish your argument” or “destroy your argument” (note that, while the imagry is still violent, it is directed at the ARGUMENT rather than the PERSON) or “will show you how stupid that claim is” or “can take care of that without even trying” or “show that your logic is full of holes” or ANYTHING. There’s not a shortage of non-violent words available to anyone here.

    But he got pissed, and chose THAT WORD. That violent death image. Why does Lily deserve even a METAPHORICAL violent death just for pissing off some random internet man?

    And for the love of tuna, I can’t BELIEVE that you’re calling her “clueless” because she’s just started reading the blog and had no fucking idea who “Ron Sullivan” was (fuck, I didn’t even know who Run Sullivan was – I read the comments, I only refer to the names when there’s something I want to quote) and TRYING TO FIND OUT.

    You’re being defensive, dismissive, and reacting in a knee-jerk fashion, and quite frankly, it’s indefensible. Lily’s arguments were abrasive and “bitchy”, but frankly that’s the LAST reason anyone should be using to try and shut her up without actually addressing her concerns with anything other than “STFU, bitch… metaphorically.”

  127. Dim Undercellar

    Shit, y’all may as well have just called her “churlish” or “shrill”.

  128. NancyMc


    And for the love of tuna, I can’t BELIEVE that you’re calling her “clueless” because she’s just started reading the blog and had no fucking idea who “Ron Sullivan” was (fuck, I didn’t even know who Run Sullivan was – I read the comments, I only refer to the names when there’s something I want to quote) and TRYING TO FIND OUT.

    *sigh*

    I explained why I said she was clueless. TWICE now. Go back and read what I said and reference my words, not what your imagination tells you I said.

    Or don’t, actually I don’t care. I don’t expect any well-reasoned rhetorical discourse from you, only logophobic hissyfits.

    But he got pissed, and chose THAT WORD. That violent death image. Why does Lily deserve even a METAPHORICAL violent death just for pissing off some random internet man?

    It was unremarkable, common word usage. The problem here is basically your sensitivities are too delicate and refined for the rough and tumble world of blog thread metaphorical combat. Perhaps you should take some smelling salts.

  129. Dim Undercellar

    And now you’re telling us that the only reason we’re offended is because we’re “too sensitive”. Next you’ll probably be saying we “can’t take a joke”, or we just “can’t possibly understand” or something else suitably MRA-ish.

  130. Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff

    You know, I came over here yesterday to check this thread out, and I reacted pretty negatively to it. The photo of the children with that particular caption, and then, within a couple of paragraphs, the “if you can’t afford kids, don’t have them,” felt outrageous to me on a bunch of levels. What I thought was being communicated was that women in the Global South, among other places, were to blame for having had kids like the ones in the photo who were, “cute and now dead.” I didn’t realize at first that the children were smiling and playing (need new glasses) — I thought that was a war scene at first with smoke from bombs and guns or something, it was evocative to me of that horrible shot from the cover of Time Magazine from the war in Cambodia and Vietnam with the children running, arms outstretched. So it felt like this overload of just a bunch of wrong things, i.e., in no particular order, who was most likely responsible for whatever war it was depicted in that photo? And then, how could marginalized mothers somewhere like Guatemala (because those children appear to be South or Central American) be blamed or held responsible for much of anything, including having had the kids? Right now there is this big intrigue going on over birth control in Guatemala, with the President having vetoed a reproductive rights bill, even though something like 40 percent of the women in that country have two children by the time they are 18 and hardly anybody uses birth control (because they are all faithful Roman Catholics, mostly, and it isn’t even generally available I don’t think.) So that was on my mind. Then, I so disagree that the problem is too many people exhausting and depleting the earth’s resources. I think the problem is globalism, the problem is subsidies to agribiz multinationals and their subsequent practice of “dumping” , which lowers the price of market produce so much that local small farmers can’t sell what they have grown, or can’t afford to grow it in the first place. The problem is transporting all of this food that IS grown by multinationals all over the world so, for example, we in the U.S. can count on grapes and strawberries from Chile in December, because the transportation of all of this stuff requires fossil fuels, the use of which is destroying the environment. The problem is poor women spending all of their time and energy in pursuits like searching for clean water because companies like the American company Dasani have bought up all the local wells, so they could bottle the water and sell it to Americans for a buck, fifty a litre, meaning women then can’t get the water from their local water supply for their families. The problem is women, mostly, so beaten and battered down by all of these and a million other oppressive regimens under patriarchy that they cannot see clear to even begin to help themselves, women who need a Wangari Maathai to show up on the scene and say, “Come on, just plant some trees,” as Maathai did 40 years ago, and under this one woman’s influence millions of trees have been planted in African countries, the whole Green Belt revolution proceeds apace, a revolution that has changed and will continue to change the lives of the poor, and particularly women and children, will change all of our lives because you have to have trees to hold the earth’s water, and you have to have trees to protect against global warming. Anyway, the problem is just *not* the children or the women having them, the problem is free trade, so-called, is WTO, is struggling nations in unconscionable debt and paying horrendous interest so they are not able to use what money and resources they have to take care of their own people. It isn’t, in other words, a scarcity of food or resources that is the issue, it is a scarcity of democracy, it is a scarcity of *voice* for the world’s most marginalized people.

    So, in light of all of this, to suggest people having kids is the problem is, I think, wrong, on so many levels.

    But after I chilled for a bit, I spent some time reading your blog, Twisty, and I re-read your initial post a couple of times. I saw that I had misunderstood the photo and I saw that you didn’t say people who couldn’t afford it shouldn’t have kids without *also* saying that nobody could afford it, your point being a point about, as you also said, overpopulation (and I disagree with you but still).

    So anyway, I do think there was a lot of misunderstanding here and I sort of made it worse (elsewhere) because I also misunderstood, and for that I feel bad and apologize. I should have taken the time to read more carefully, not only here, but all over this blog. I’ve done that now, and I’m glad I did, you are pretty cool, Twisty, and you are kickass writer.

    Having said all of that, Dim, you are way way *way* out of line here. Why are you, a 20-something white man, here talking to feminist women about “raping” them or “cutting their ‘tits’” off? I don’t care what point you’re trying to make, buddy, you are WAY over the top. I thought your example up there of posting a photo of a black guy and then using a caption about prison was good (because, like you, I misunderstood the photo of the children), but you’ve done the same thing yourself now by invoking “Bobby Brown’s” name in the context of wife-battering. You’re a white man. White guys batter, too, all of the time. How about invoking the name of a battering white guy if you want to talk about batterers.

    And you know, there is no reason I can fathom for you to be in here accusing feminist women in order to protect feminist women from feminist women. Men inserting themselves between feminist women is a problem, it causes problems, it makes messes that do not need to be made, and *especially* as you’ve done it in this totally over the top way. I found your comments here this morning both offensive and triggering– that stuff coming from any man in the direction of any women, this talk of raping and mayhem, is *going* to be violating. I think when feminist women are arguing, the thing for you to do is *butt severely out*. I am only speaking for myself, obviously, but I *am* speaking for myself. Men inserting themselves into conflicts between feminist women is not a woman-friendly thing to do, is not the behavior a friend or an ally.

    Heart

  131. WookieMonster

    Right on ae. That was really my main point that I stated badly becuase it made me angry that people were jumping on Twisty, ironically for not blaming the patriarchy. I, and I think most if not all regulars, read this post as Twisty arguing basically those that can control their reproduction should think about what effect reproducing has on our world. Because really, who would ever think that she means that women with no control over their lives and reproduction are single handedly responsible for the world overpopulation? No one who has followed her blog for any length of time or read the archives, that’s who.

    I think that anyone who didn’t get it needs to spend some time going through the archives and realize that there is a history and assumed knowledge behind Twisty’s words and people who just jump in might not get it dispite the title of the blog pretty much saying it all, which means you need to do your homework before yelling at our hostess and the regulars here for not putting enought blame on the patriarchy (I always thought the partriarchy being at fault was a automatic assumption of every single post here, which didn’t need to be explicitly stated). But hey, I’m not the proprietress of this joint (although she does provide an explanation and a link at the top of the blog explaining this) so who am I to say.

    [sarcasm]Perhaps Twisty you need to foot note every single post with the title of your blog, that way there can be no misunderstandings as to who you really blame. [/sarcasm]

  132. Chris Clarke

    But he got pissed, and chose THAT WORD.

    BZZZT. Wrong. I was nowhere near pissed off. Your powers of divining the inner states of others seem to be as well developed as… hmmm. I can’t think of a simile with the right punch.

    Side note to Dim Undercellar: That was NOT a veiled threat to punch you.

    You see, Dim, I have only limited anger reserves, and so many worthy targets for anger, that I find I must rigorously conserve my pissedoffedness for those people who matter. People who have a chance in hell of enacting change I disagree with, for instance. Which generally means they must be, to some degree, competent. Which implies an ability to read for content. Which disqualified Lily. I do regret my choice of words, if only because they suddenly became the issue, rather than the rather stunning abuse aimed at Twisty. But angry? I don’t get angry at mosquitoes, even if they bite me.

    Though I do kill them. And the ones that bite are uniformly female. Have fun with that.

    A further example: I am not mad at YOU. On the contrary! Reading your comments, exhibiting as they do your disregard for pesky, distracting nuance, and the careful thought you put into WHICH words should be CAPITALIZED so as to have the MAXIMUM IMPACT because the writer is CONVINCED that there is NO way his readers will GRASP his INTENT otherwise… it brings me a little frisson of nostalgia.

    (Again, Dim Undercellar, let me note that the word “impact” above was in no way intended as a physical threat.)

    Nostalgia, because I in fact remember what it was like to be 24, to be so utterly assured of my righteousness that I was willing to blast away in public based on my assumptions about other people’s inner states. Well, actually, I was 14 when I acted that way. When I was 24, I was trying to wrap my head around losing my lover in a car accident, which kinda sucks the righteousness out of one. But I was a bright boy, which due to the law of averages not every boy can be. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying you’re at the right end of the developmental bell curve, not at all. We all mature at the rate that’s right for us. I’m sure you’re exactly where you’re supposed to be.

    And personally, I will happily confess I find your youthful, self-intoxicated arrogance a delightful breath of fresh air. I can just imagine the outrage, the purity of heart with which you’re kicking me in the back after I’m down and have apologized for my choice of words. How your wispy little downy boy-mustache must absolutely quiver as your upper lip curls with contempt for me! Ah, the glorious fury with which you berate Nancy, who was likely blaming the patriarchy while you were teething, for bing insufficiently feminist! It is a lovely, sublime thing.

    And it passes, for most of us. The rosebud is perhaps most beautiful just before it bursts open, before the nuance of the elements can erode its purity. But do not mourn, for the more enduring, less obnoxious commitment that occasionally bursts from that metaphorically mixed spent cocoon is an enduring thing, perhaps of more muted colors, but far more enduring, and less likely to be regretted in twenty years when you re-read it, killing time sitting in your office as you bemoan where you will probably wind up, Executive Vice President of Urban Foreclosures at some soulless bank.

    Which won’t mean you’re a bad person. Not at all! I promise you you will get that same little feeling of frisson as I have, reading your words here today and being far more embarrassed at them than is likely justified, wondering how you could have been so self-righteous a little martinet. Let me tell you now: you’re being too hard on yourself. We all go through this, and we mostly all grow out of it.

    Oh, and that “mixed metaphor” comment two paragraphs up? Nothing to worry about.

  133. Twisty

    My dear blamers: “Eviscerate” is a fine word. Use it, and use it often.

  134. piny

    If the world is so horribly overpopulated, why does no one suggest that the “baby boomers” just commit hara kiri before they start overtaxing our social services? You know, quit while they’re ahead. Rather than yet AGAIN trying to put the weight of the world on women’s ovaries, why not tell all the old geezers in the world to off themselves after they reach the age where they can collect social security? Oh, that might be MEAN! Yeah, because it involves telling men what to do with their bodies. For the record, I don’t think anyone committing mass suicide would be a great idea or a solution. But it’s funny that no one ever suggests it, even as they suggest yet again that those damn women need to keep their legs shut.

    Ha ha ha ha!

    Oh, dear. You clearly haven’t been reading the blog for very long, have you?

  135. Dim Undercellar

    Chris: Well, I guess you win, then. Words can not, in fact, be used in ways that are oppressive. You and Nancy have convinced me that the next time someone says “If that bitch tries to upstage me in tomorrow’s meeting, I’ll fucking rape her,” that he’s being metaphorical and anyone who is annoyed is just “too sensitive”.

    I apologize for being shrill and churlish.

  136. Chris Clarke

    Chris: Well, I guess you win, then. Words can not, in fact, be used in ways that are oppressive.

    It’s a straw man! It’s a non-sequitur!

    It’s… a non-strawquitur!

  137. Luckynkl

    Posted by Twisty:
    Those of you who consider me a tool are certainly welcome to that view….

    I was referring to the general “you,” not you specifically. I already know that you get it. And get it better than most. You’re hardly what I’d consider a tool.

    My bad tho. I should’ve been more clear.

    Posted by NancyMc:
    And who is arguing that women “ought to be sterlized”? If you don’t want to have (more) kids, why not avoid possible abortion and abortion scares by having a tubal ligation? It’s a perfectly sensible option.

    Birth control is being denied to many women these days, let alone abortion and tubal ligation. Surely you’re aware of that? It’s nothing new. It’s been going on since time on end.

    The criteria that use to be imposed on many women, in many states across Amerika, was that if they wanted a tubal ligation, they had to be at least 23, have 2 children, and also needed the written permission of their husband. A friend of mine has informed me that in recent times, that criteria has now been upped. In her state, it is now required that women be at least 25, have 3 children, and the written permission of their husbands. The same goes for abortion. If one is fortunate enough to even have a provider in their state, let alone one within distance of them.

    I’ve come to learn that this criteria seemed to be only required of patriarchally desired white women. People of color, on the other hand, are pressured and urged to have abortions and tubal ligations.

    Is any of this legal? According to a Supreme Court ruling, no. Especially that bit about needing one’s husband’s written permission. But rape and murder are illegal too but that doesn’t seem to stop anyone from doing it. Laws are only as good as they’re enforced.

    Posted by Dimwitted under something or other in the cellar:
    If I said “Hold on a sec while I rape you over that argument. Hey, it was just metaphorical!” or “When so and so gets back, you’re gonna get your tits METAPHORICALLY cut off for that!” or “I’m a feminist, but I’ll still pull a metaphorical Bobby Brown and verbally wife-beat you!” or… well, I think by now you get my point.

    WTF?

    What exactly was your point in bringing up this violent and misogynist and racist imagery? Were we suppose to mistake this drivel for feminism? Under some false pretense and faux chivalrous notion that you were just “making a point” and “helping out” some damsel in distress?

    And now you’re telling us that the only reason we’re offended is because we’re “too sensitive”. Next you’ll probably be saying we “can’t take a joke”, or we just “can’t possibly understand” or something else suitably MRA-ish.

    What’s this “we” and “us” shit, white boy? Last I looked, you were a card carrying member of the patriarchy. Aren’t there any more small countries available for you to co-opt and take over?

  138. funnie

    Twisty, there appears (eponymous) to be some confusion over whether I did or did not call you a pornhound, so let me make it clear that I did not. And if I actually thought you were someone whose need hierarchy placed getting her jollies ahead of patriarchy-blaming, I would think your blog was incredibly boring and never read it. But I don’t, and I do.

  139. piny

    Nancy said:And who is arguing that women “ought to be sterlized”? If you don’t want to have (more) kids, why not avoid possible abortion and abortion scares by having a tubal ligation? It’s a perfectly sensible option.

    Then Lucky said: Birth control is being denied to many women these days, let alone abortion and tubal ligation. Surely you’re aware of that? It’s nothing new. It’s been going on since time on end.

    Wow, really? Twisty’s never blogged about reproductive rights and racism before. Or about how women’s control over their bodies is null and void under patriarchy. In fact, I don’t recall her mentioning the patriarchy before, either. Nor have any of the feminist bloggers loosely affiliated with her. I had no idea.

    I think Nancy meant something more along the lines of, “Who HERE is saying that women ought to be sterilized?” In other words, “Why are you arguing against a position no one here has either stated or implied, especially since it’s a position the blog host has vociferously argued against many times? This is how I happen to feel about tubal ligations, and this is when I think they might be a reasonable reproductive choice.”

  140. Luckynkl

    LOL, Piny. I’ll bet you thought yourself clever and witty. But don’t quit your day job. Because Twisty you’re not. Save the sacrcasm for the patriarchs, ok? You know, like Dimwitted up there?

    Now unless I’m mistaken, Twisty and Nancy are not the same people. I was addressing Nancy, not Twisty. So what’s your point about what Twisty has posted? I already know Twisty gets it. But does Nancy? I’m pretty sure she does. But how ’bout you? Do you get it? Obviously not if you find it more productive to get all pissy with other feminists instead of blaming the patriarchy. But I don’t blame you. The penis people are very scary people and it’s so much safer to take your frustrations out on women.

    That said, I already know that Nancy said “who’s arguing that women ought to be sterilized?” I certainly wasn’t arguing it either. What I was talking about was choice. And how women are being denied that choice. So that even if one wants to be sterilized, they are denied the option of making that choice.

    Now what was so awful about what I said that got your panties all up in bunch? Did you not agree with what I said? If not, then what was the purpose of your post?

    Now kindly chill out, woman. I’m on your side. Ok?

    Peace.

  141. Ron Sullivan

    And for the love of tuna, I can’t BELIEVE that you’re calling her “clueless” because she’s just started reading the blog and had no fucking idea who “Ron Sullivan” was (fuck, I didn’t even know who Run Sullivan was…

    You still don’t. And as Nancy said, that’s not why anyone’s calling Lily “clueless.” (Lily herself seems to have left the building.) The only part of that “why” that has anything do do weth me is this one: She, not knowing the fuck who I am, proceeded to say something about who I am, and it was patently false. Then she added a number of weird speculations about how I am or am not “famous” or whether knowing what — not even who — I am had something to do with being part of an “in crowd.” Those just made things sillier.

    But I’ve alluded to that, and Chris has certainly given you a dose, and I’ll just add this, not about you:

    Seems to me that the reasonable comeback to what one perceives as a threat on-line by someone one complains about never having met involving someone one doesn’t recognize would be, “Sir and/or madam, I don’t believe we’ve been properly introduced.” That can also reasonably be expressed as, “Who the fuck are you and who the fuck is this Sullivan person and what the fuck are you talking about?”

  142. antelope

    Wow! This turned into quite the thread!!

    Since it’s still going strong – I’m going to throw a related question out to y’all & see if anyone wants to go off on this particular tangent.

    I have an upcoming job where I will be evaluating a project whose aim was to provide teen fathers with parenting skills, relating skills & job-hunting skills that will help them do a better job of playing an ongoing role in their kid’s lives, regardless of whether or not they are still dating/co-habiting with the mom (amazingly enough, most of them aren’t).

    Most of the questions I’ll be asking these young men will, of course, have to do with the program itself, whether it was useful, etc., but I’m tempted to throw in one or two non-blaming questions about how they got where they are today in the first place – mainly for my own interest. Something kind of like, “What were your expectations about when and how you would start a family, if any, before this happened?”

    Any other suggestions for how to learn a thing or two about how an American boy in a small city ends up in this situation, and how he reasons his way through to some kind of peaceful & responsible way of dealing with it, without laying blame on the individual. (And unfortunately, also without teaching him to blame the patriarchy, b/c that’s not what I’m being hired to do here.)

  143. NancyMc

    Dim Undercellar on Feb 8th, 2006 at 12:33 pm
    And now you’re telling us that the only reason we’re offended is because we’re “too sensitive”. Next you’ll probably be saying we “can’t take a joke”, or we just “can’t possibly understand” or something else suitably MRA-ish.

    Who do you mean by “us” and “we”? I’m talking to YOU and only YOU Dim Undercellar. Do you have multiple personalities? Or are you the Pope?

    Very disturbing either way.

  144. Dim

    How quickly you forget about the person who was originally offended in the first place.

    Last time I step in to defend someone from this pack.

  145. Twisty

    Antelope, sadly I can be of no help where patriarchy-blaming is disallowed.

  146. ae

    Right back atcha, WookieMonster. You were v. clear in your arguments, and I just tagged along on your comet trail. Not sure how folks can miss the point of “I Blame the Patriarchy,” but the universe if full of mysteries (and soapboxiousness)!

    And, Chris Clarke, where does the line form to make out w/ you? Y’all remember when it was all about love, and blaming (the patriarchy, not our host), and making out at Chez Twisty’s? Ahhh.

    P.S. Mean to comment on this before:

    I can’t be fucking HL Mencken-meets-Germaine Greer every goddam day, you know.

    Dude, Henry and Germaine wish they could be you on a bad day. I’m not hearing it.

  147. piny

    LOL, Piny. I’ll bet you thought yourself clever and witty. But don’t quit your day job. Because Twisty you’re not. Save the sacrcasm for the patriarchs, ok? You know, like Dimwitted up there?

    You, on the other hand, should definitely take your show on the road. Why don’t you have a book deal yet?

    Now unless I’m mistaken, Twisty and Nancy are not the same people. I was addressing Nancy, not Twisty. So what’s your point about what Twisty has posted? I already know Twisty gets it. But does Nancy? I’m pretty sure she does. But how ’bout you? Do you get it?

    This is the running gag that just won’t die. You are a comic genius–you’re an Eric Idle character in a lost episode of The Flying Circus! Look: we blame the patriarchy. Okay? We blame the patriarchy all the time. I blamed the patriarchy on my (group) blog yesterday–and the day before that. I’m gonna do it again today. Nancy blames the patriarchy in comments every chance she gets. Anyone who’d encountered her would know that.

    Even if you’re a total stranger, it’s only reasonable not to assume that a woman hanging out on I Blame the Patriarchy would not be interested in blaming the patriarchy. The post that caused so much furor, which happens not to have bothered to blame the patriarchy in as many words, takes place in a context of extensive, explicit patriarchy-blaming. Everything Twisty says (not counting the recipes) is about the systemic, all-encompassing nature of misogyny. The commenters here are commenting in that context. That includes Nancy. She didn’t deserve to be patronized, particularly not based on such an off-kilter reading of her comment.

    Obviously not if you find it more productive to get all pissy with other feminists instead of blaming the patriarchy. But I don’t blame you. The penis people are very scary people and it’s so much safer to take your frustrations out on women.

    …You mean, like Lily and the other women who came here and got all pissy with Twisty Faster, feminist extraordinaire? Like you, when you took your frustration out on Nancy? There’s nothing intrinsically anti-feminist about complaining when someone says something unfair and wrong, and it’s nothing but a dodge to insist otherwise.

  148. piny

    That said, I already know that Nancy said “who’s arguing that women ought to be sterilized?” I certainly wasn’t arguing it either. What I was talking about was choice. And how women are being denied that choice. So that even if one wants to be sterilized, they are denied the option of making that choice.

    Now what was so awful about what I said that got your panties all up in bunch? Did you not agree with what I said? If not, then what was the purpose of your post?

    Because you acted as though she needed to be told–and now you’re acting as though I need to be told. “Surely you’re aware of that?” It was extremely condescending. That’s why. And you still don’t understand what I’m saying: it makes no sense to assume that feminist commenters here on this feminist blog with a focus on evaluating reproductive rights from a feminist standpoint are not arguing with the above information in mind. When you do that, you insult us.

    Now kindly chill out, woman. I’m on your side. Ok?

    Don’t make me out to be a sister-punisher, or make my comments out to be anti-feminist, and then tell me you’re on my side. With friends like you, who needs my last ex? And don’t insult me for a full paragraph–”I bet you thought yourself clever and witty”–because I was sarcastic in a comment on a blog thread and then tell me to chill out.

  149. Luckynkl

    So much for peace….

    I guess you sure told me off, huh Piny? Feel all better now? Good. Cuz the patriarchy is laughing their asses off at us right now. Why the patriarchs count on feminism not having a snowball’s chance in hell of succeeding, they tell me, is because women cannot get along. They can bet the farm that women in any group will turn on each other. I hate it when they’re right. Don’t you?

    Now this is trivial, pissy ass shit you’re going off about. Is it really all that important to you? To power trip other women? I’m not impressed. What will impress me is when you keep your focus where it needs to be and you start taking the patriarchy on.

    And no, I wasn’t being condescending to Nancy. I find her rather bright. Thus my remark, “Surely you’re aware of this?” Do not project what you would mean by it if you said it onto me. You’ll make an ass out of yourself.

    Now I’ve been trying really, really hard to be patient with you. As I’m sure more than a few people who I’m sure are watching this thread and holding their breath right now can testify to. Now stop trying to get into a pissing contest with me. I’m out of your league.

    Now take your meds and go take a nap. High blood pressure isn’t good for you. And maybe when you wake up tomorrow, you’ll feel better, and put your focus where it needs to be. Not on me. But on the patriarchy.

    I won’t be responding to you on this thread again. I’ve got better things to do with my time than to deal with this stupid middle school crap. How’s that for condescending?

  150. piny

    Hee.

  151. Chris Clarke

    Oh, piny, how you do go on.

  1. I Just Love Babies! at I Blame The Patriarchy

    [...] In light of my recent declamation on human reproduction, and just so there are no misunderstandings concerning my views on cute, pudgy infants, the fact that I appear to be flipping the bird in this photo is an unfortunate trick of the light. // Used for showing and hiding user information in the comment form function ShowUtils() { document.getElementById(“authorinfo”).style.display = “”; document.getElementById(“showinfo”).style.display = “none”; document.getElementById(“hideinfo”).style.display = “”; } function HideUtils() { document.getElementById(“authorinfo”).style.display = “none”; document.getElementById(“showinfo”).style.display = “”; document.getElementById(“hideinfo”).style.display = “none”; } [...]

  2. e p o n y m o u s » Malthus Rides Again

    [...] Perhaps a little Malthusian for my taste, Twisty Faster (of the “I Blame the Patriarchy” Blog) has penned a thought-provoking and interesting post on overpopulation and the future of the human species: Either way, this means that reproduction, a thing many insouciant earthlings regard as a “human right”, is actually an act of violent self-interest and appalling hubris. Each cooing little bundle of joy brings the species that much closer to extinction. As the always-ebullient Voluntary Human Extinctionists say, “procreation today is like renting rooms in a burning building.” [...]

  3. BlogHer [beta]

    No pink ribbons for Twisty.

    I did not catch on to the sheer brilliance that is I Blame the Patriarchy until my dear friend Janeen Armstrong of destinations journey of a restless mind spent a half hour last year at BlogHer singing the praises of I Blame the Patriarchy’s anonymous…

  4. We’d know a significantly larger number of people who had FUCKED A PANDA BEAR! at Pandagon

    [...] They have some funny jokes going at Wonkette, but my only thought was, “I wish people could give birth to pandas instead of babies, because babies, unlike pandas, aren’t an endangered species. In fact, the opposite.” [...]

  5. Sign me up for the war on Easter at Pandagon

    [...] I don’t begrudge our ancestors who were both ignorant of science and who suffered realistic fears that the human race could die out their right to have a little fertility worship. But luckily, we don’t live like that–in fact, the opposite. Science has demystified reproduction and human beings crossed a line a long time ago where there are way too fucking many of us and we’re both destroying the enviroment and straining the resources we need to survive. Like Twisty says, “May we live long and die out.” [...]

  6. pharmacy

    pharmacy…

    pharmacy
    It is easy to find fault, if one has that disposition. There was once a man
    who, not being able to find any other fault with his coal, complained that
    there were too many prehistoric toads in it.
    – Mark Twain, “Pudd’nhead Wilson’s Calen…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>