Comments on: The Great Russian Uterine Purchase Plan of 2006 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:18:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: tigtog http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19589 tigtog Fri, 19 May 2006 01:32:02 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19589 Yes CIB, once upon a time we Aussies laughed at the fact that our Federal Cabinet ministry included an Abbott and a Costello. Hahaheehee. But they've been running the reactionary routines for so long now, they aren't funny any more. Yes CIB, once upon a time we Aussies laughed at the fact that our Federal Cabinet ministry included an Abbott and a Costello. Hahaheehee.

But they’ve been running the reactionary routines for so long now, they aren’t funny any more.

]]> By: Cast Iron Balcony http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19539 Cast Iron Balcony Thu, 18 May 2006 21:33:41 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19539 Commenting-on-the-run, so sorry if someone else has already pointed this out: (Peter Costello is the Australian treasurer): it was Peter Costello who advised families during the Budget session this year that they should have three children - one for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country. http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1261874.htm Commenting-on-the-run, so sorry if someone else has already pointed this out: (Peter Costello is the Australian treasurer):

it was Peter Costello who advised families during the Budget session this year that they should have three children – one for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1261874.htm

]]> By: Ron Sullivan http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19313 Ron Sullivan Thu, 18 May 2006 03:16:20 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19313 Hell, Chris, those hands are as much the problem as the mouth even without the giant Excretomobile. The one thing we seem unable to do with the world around us is to leave it the fuck alone. Hell, Chris, those hands are as much the problem as the mouth even without the giant Excretomobile. The one thing we seem unable to do with the world around us is to leave it the fuck alone.

]]> By: Chris Clarke http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19217 Chris Clarke Wed, 17 May 2006 15:39:22 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19217 Every mouth brings with it two hands. Unfortunately, those hands are wrapped around the steering wheel of a Ford Excursion. Every mouth brings with it two hands. Unfortunately, those hands are wrapped around the steering wheel of a Ford Excursion.

]]> By: Mandos http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19212 Mandos Wed, 17 May 2006 14:15:17 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19212 <i>Would I wash my clothes on a goddamned flat rock if it meant the return of Tulare Lake? You bet. Would I give up the Blogosphere if it brought back the dusky seaside sparrow? Hell yeah, and I consider it to be one of the few actual advances of the last few decades, along with microbreweries and the general availability of “world” music. But the idea that either is a consequence of human population density, well, that looks like the confusion of correlation with causation. It all correlates with the spread of the mid-Atlantic seamount ridge, too; why not explain it that way?</i> Hmm. I have a wide techno-utopian and anthropocentric streak in me, so I'm really not sure I would. Would I wash my clothes on a goddamned flat rock if it meant the return of Tulare Lake? You bet. Would I give up the Blogosphere if it brought back the dusky seaside sparrow? Hell yeah, and I consider it to be one of the few actual advances of the last few decades, along with microbreweries and the general availability of “world” music. But the idea that either is a consequence of human population density, well, that looks like the confusion of correlation with causation. It all correlates with the spread of the mid-Atlantic seamount ridge, too; why not explain it that way?

Hmm. I have a wide techno-utopian and anthropocentric streak in me, so I’m really not sure I would.

]]> By: hkreader http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19201 hkreader Wed, 17 May 2006 09:32:17 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19201 Hi Hedonistic, You wrote: "hkreader: I know next-to-nothing about far-east culture, but I wonder if the push for more babies in Singapore has something to do with the backlash against career-women?" No, in S'pore I think it has a lot to do w/ Lee Kwan Yew's eugenistic program of wanting Singpaoreans (mostly ethnic Chinese) to keep up (or outbreed) the Malays and ethnic Indians (who are the other parts of the population). Of course, the givt. didn't state it quite so baldly. <a href="http://www.populationasia.org/Publications/RP/AMCRP12.pdf ">This paper</a> describes Singapore's reproductive policies as three stages: 1) Anti-natalist phase (1966-1982) 2) Eugenic phase (1983-1986) They quote Lee Kuan Yew as saying in 1983 "It is too late for us to reverse our policies and have our women go back to their primary roles as mothers, the crearors and protectors of the next generation. Our women will stand for it. And anyway, they have already become too important a factor in the economy" [Mr. Lee, the "Mentor Minister" is such a patriarch...] 3) Pro-natalist phase (1987- present) Hi Hedonistic,

You wrote:
“hkreader: I know next-to-nothing about far-east culture, but I wonder if the push for more babies in Singapore has something to do with the backlash against career-women?”

No, in S’pore I think it has a lot to do w/ Lee Kwan Yew’s eugenistic program of wanting Singpaoreans (mostly ethnic Chinese) to keep up (or outbreed) the Malays and ethnic Indians (who are the other parts of the population). Of course, the givt. didn’t state it quite so baldly.

This paper describes Singapore’s reproductive policies as three stages:
1) Anti-natalist phase (1966-1982)

2) Eugenic phase (1983-1986)
They quote Lee Kuan Yew as saying in 1983
“It is too late for us to reverse our policies and have our women go back to their primary roles as mothers, the crearors and protectors of the next generation. Our women will stand for it. And anyway, they have already become too important a factor in the economy”

[Mr. Lee, the "Mentor Minister" is such a patriarch...]

3) Pro-natalist phase (1987- present)

]]> By: Ron Sullivan http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19193 Ron Sullivan Wed, 17 May 2006 06:30:28 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19193 SaltyC, with all due respect, you might want to reconsider mind-reading as a discussion technique. You blew it on the bet about Clinton's welfare "reform" crap -- you're talking to at least one person who went to some trouble to oppose that when it was happening, and who still exerts her waning strength against the War on Poor People -- and that one about what hunters feel is a bit suspect too. I myself have little sympathy for the usual rationales of hunters, but I also know from direct experience that they're not The Enemy when it comes to keeping whole species and ecosystems alive. Know what the enemy is? Generally, in the past century or so, "development." Which means building, paving, farming, flushing, storing, changing, diverting, exterminating, clearing, herding, to accommodate more human beings. You know how, at some point, "Support the Troops" gets annoying because it actually means "Support the War"? At a similar point, "Support Mothers" starts to sound like "Support Breeding More and More Humans." And as "Support the Troops --Bring The Home" gets spread, so should "Support WOMEN by not drafting them to be mothers." And that includes the economic draft, same as wrt the US "all-volunteer" army. And as the war will be over when the troops refuse to fight it, the human population tsunami will be dissipated only when people stop adding more people. Would I wash my clothes on a goddamned flat rock if it meant the return of Tulare Lake? You bet. Would I give up the Blogosphere if it brought back the dusky seaside sparrow? Hell yeah, and I consider it to be one of the few actual advances of the last few decades, along with microbreweries and the general availability of "world" music. But the idea that either is a consequence of human population density, well, that looks like the confusion of correlation with causation. It all correlates with the spread of the mid-Atlantic seamount ridge, too; why not explain it that way? If caring for children is altruistic, better give me a medal, because I've changed more shitty diapers than anyone here, and some of them were <i>scary</i> shitty diapers. I've been up to my elbows in infectious green babyshit, and that was a mere incidental. I've saved kids' lives, and they weren't even "my" kids. Wow, imagine, not a speck of "my" DNA and no hint of an obligation for them to take care of me when I'm old and feeble, not so much as a card on Mother's Day. No tax breaks either. Yeah I got paid for it. Want to trade places? Break your heart and hand them back, half the time to the saintly mothers who screwed them up in the first place. Mothers have it hard. <i>Women</i> have it hard, to precisely the same degree. What's the correlation there? Oh yeah. SaltyC, with all due respect, you might want to reconsider mind-reading as a discussion technique. You blew it on the bet about Clinton’s welfare “reform” crap — you’re talking to at least one person who went to some trouble to oppose that when it was happening, and who still exerts her waning strength against the War on Poor People — and that one about what hunters feel is a bit suspect too. I myself have little sympathy for the usual rationales of hunters, but I also know from direct experience that they’re not The Enemy when it comes to keeping whole species and ecosystems alive.

Know what the enemy is? Generally, in the past century or so, “development.” Which means building, paving, farming, flushing, storing, changing, diverting, exterminating, clearing, herding, to accommodate more human beings.

You know how, at some point, “Support the Troops” gets annoying because it actually means “Support the War”? At a similar point, “Support Mothers” starts to sound like “Support Breeding More and More Humans.” And as “Support the Troops –Bring The Home” gets spread, so should “Support WOMEN by not drafting them to be mothers.” And that includes the economic draft, same as wrt the US “all-volunteer” army. And as the war will be over when the troops refuse to fight it, the human population tsunami will be dissipated only when people stop adding more people.

Would I wash my clothes on a goddamned flat rock if it meant the return of Tulare Lake? You bet. Would I give up the Blogosphere if it brought back the dusky seaside sparrow? Hell yeah, and I consider it to be one of the few actual advances of the last few decades, along with microbreweries and the general availability of “world” music. But the idea that either is a consequence of human population density, well, that looks like the confusion of correlation with causation. It all correlates with the spread of the mid-Atlantic seamount ridge, too; why not explain it that way?

If caring for children is altruistic, better give me a medal, because I’ve changed more shitty diapers than anyone here, and some of them were scary shitty diapers. I’ve been up to my elbows in infectious green babyshit, and that was a mere incidental. I’ve saved kids’ lives, and they weren’t even “my” kids. Wow, imagine, not a speck of “my” DNA and no hint of an obligation for them to take care of me when I’m old and feeble, not so much as a card on Mother’s Day. No tax breaks either. Yeah I got paid for it. Want to trade places? Break your heart and hand them back, half the time to the saintly mothers who screwed them up in the first place.

Mothers have it hard. Women have it hard, to precisely the same degree. What’s the correlation there? Oh yeah.

]]> By: Keeshond http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19187 Keeshond Wed, 17 May 2006 00:39:47 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19187 While I agree that the things the WaPo article suggests -- not smoking, weight management, etc. -- are good ideas, it pisses me off that the suggestions are made only for the benefit of some nebulous, would-be fetus and not for the benefit of women, who might enjoy a better quality of life by taking better care of themselves. Once again women are reduced by the patriarchy to fetal containers. While I agree that the things the WaPo article suggests — not smoking, weight management, etc. — are good ideas, it pisses me off that the suggestions are made only for the benefit of some nebulous, would-be fetus and not for the benefit of women, who might enjoy a better quality of life by taking better care of themselves. Once again women are reduced by the patriarchy to fetal containers.

]]> By: thebewilderness http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19175 thebewilderness Tue, 16 May 2006 21:57:08 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19175 Here's a little eye opener from our federal govt. Women of childbearing years are to be considered pre-pregnant. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875_pf.html Here’s a little eye opener from our federal govt. Women of childbearing years are to be considered pre-pregnant.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875_pf.html

]]> By: winna http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19174 winna Tue, 16 May 2006 21:49:35 +0000 http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/05/15/the-russian-uterine-purchase-plan-of-2006/#comment-19174 That money that is intended to 'help women'? It's a drop in the bucket. One child costs around 250,000 dollars from birth to age seventeen. That money is less than four percent of what would be required to raise a kid. It's an ugly publicity stunt. That money that is intended to ‘help women’? It’s a drop in the bucket. One child costs around 250,000 dollars from birth to age seventeen. That money is less than four percent of what would be required to raise a kid.

It’s an ugly publicity stunt.

]]>