A good sign that you’re reading something spun out of whole cloth by a lying misogynist jerk (anti-abortion or MRA varieties) is when you Google the quote they’re waving around and every single site that pops up is an antichoice (or MRA) site which uses identical punctuation and provides identical – inaccurate – citations.
It’s almost like antichoicers (and MRAs) have no genuine arguments to make and just copy-paste each other’s lies.
Case in point: two quotes “from Margaret Sanger” circulated most recently by Right to Control Your Uterus.
First, a disclaimer: Margaret Sanger held a number of views which are abhorrent, about people with disabilities, about people of colour, about eugenics. There is a huge body of work about why views like hers contribute to a very well-founded distrust of the medical establishment by marginalized groups.
But let’s not kid ourselves. Antichoicers do not bring up Margaret Sanger’s racism and ableism because they actually care. They bring it up because they believe (a) that everyone has the same obsequious attitude towards authority that they do and (b) that this somehow discredits all arguments in favour of reproductive freedom (and (c) that if they just scream “YOU’RE A NAZI!!!” loudly enough they don’t have to worry about the complete baselessness of their own rhetoric).
Today I’m dealing with quote 1, which is the easiest, since it appears to be 100% bullshit.
Quote 1: Total world sexy domination
[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children
Usually cited as something like:
The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.
Well, unfortunately, I’ve read this scan of The Woman Rebel Volume 1, Number 1 a few times now, and wouldn’t you know it, it isn’t there. The word “gratification” doesn’t appear at all in Woman and the New Race according to the text on Project Gutenberg, and while “unlimited” and “sexual” do, they are not in any similar context.
I haven’t pored over these texts for days, of course, but that just goes to show you that lying scum like Ken Orr can’t even be bothered to take fifteen minutes to Google things before reproducing them.
Next time on QoT’s Amazing World of Fact-Checking Antichoice Lies: We ❤ Baby Murder!
As covered by marty mars, Councillor Bruce Wilson from the fine city of Palmerston North decided to crack “a joke” about sterilising Maaori women smokers so they wouldn’t be able to smoke in front of their kids.
Every single statement since then from him has been a bingo square: it was a joke, I wouldn’t have said it if I knew media were present, I’m sorry if you were offended, I should have thought harder.
Like marty says,
We let these people off too lightly – and trying to get out of it by using the ‘joke’ defence is as bad as using the ‘should have thought harder’ defence – they are not a defence they are just useless excuses.
The thing is, stories like this consistently get the “oh, oops” treatment, especially when it’s privileged white dudes accidentally letting us all know that they’re authoritarian racist (or misogynist) fucks.
This is bullshit.
There is no level of “hard thinking” involved in the idea that it’s not okay to:
- joking about forced sterilisation
- of minority women
- especially to punish them for behaviour you don’t like
- especially when you’re a white dude
- in a position of civic authority
- especially when you’re a white dude
- especially to punish them for behaviour you don’t like
- of minority women
That’s not something anyone in the 21st century should believe is some kind of grey area requiring intensive meditation. It’s an automatic Godwin-exemption because it’s something the Nazis actually did.
Councillor Bruce Wilson shouldn’t just resign because he’s racist. He should resign because he’s not competent to open his mouth and speak to other human beings.
If he can’t understand “I shouldn’t joke about forced sterilisation of Maaori” then how the fuck do you expect him to help run a city? What other basic concepts of human behaviour have to be explained to him? “Councillor, we can’t superglue all the doors shut on the buses to stop people getting on and off at traffic lights because then no one can get on the bus at all”? “Councillor, you shouldn’t advocate castrating people who put non-recyclables in the recycling bins”? “Councillor, shoes go on your feet“?
And a small thought to mull over: what does it say about someone who, when “frustrated” by the lack of impact of anti-smoking policies, will go to “sterilise women” before “ban tobacco”?
So, originally this was going to be a ranty post about how seriously grossed-out I am by repeated comments by lefties, in response to National’s prison labour proposals, which toss around the phrase “Arbeit macht frei” with little regard for either Godwin’s law or basic fucking proportionality.
Then I did a search for “arbeit” on The Standard and … well, the scale of the issue became very evident.
Forcing prisoners in New Zealand prisons to work is shitty. It’s oppressive. It’s an abuse of power. It’s capitalist scumthuggery.
It’s not a fucking Nazi death camp.
The phrase also gets thrown about casually in discussions about Paula Bennett’s vicious welfare reforms.
Forcing beneficiaries into low-paying, un-liveable jobs is shitty. It’s oppressive. It’s economic bullying. It pushes families into further deprivation.
It’s also not a fucking Nazi death camp.
Verbscape on Twitter summed it up pretty perfectly:
Q: What things are like deathcamps? A: Deathcamps.
Q: What things aren’t like deathcamps? A: Every-fucking-thing else.
You are not fucking clever because you can remember one single iconic piece of information from 5th form history, people. Can’t we just criticise this shit because it is wrong, and not so you can totally show off your awesome History Channel referencing abilities?
[Trigger warning: Holocaust, forced sterilisation]
Bernard Moran, new president of Voice for
Controlling Women Life, really understands the tough issues around getting wimminz back in the kitchen the abortion debate:
“I grew up in a time where blacks were called [redacted] and Jews were called [redacted] and people were treated as sub-human. “
Because as we all know that kind of thing never happens these days, right? Anyone?
Bueller Mel Gibson/George Zimmerman?
There’s something so amazingly distasteful about the way pampered gentile antichoicers like to exploit the Holocaust to make their fight to lock up my uterus look somehow noble, part of a grand lineage of Fighting For What’s Right.
Of course the fact that the Nazis were down with removing people’s reproductive choices (whether through taking away their ability to have children or by applying immense pressure to have as many as possible, depending on one’s race/ethnicity) never seems to get much of a mention. The irony might provide some kind of personal insight, and we can’t have that.
(It’s not a Godwin if they bring up Nazis first.)
H/T the most excellent and helpful ALRANZ abortion news round-up, and minor kudos to the Taranaki Daily News for using “anti-abortion” and not “pro-life”.
Bob McCoskrie needs to give fellow basement-dweller Ken Orr some lessons in media release structure. But his latest one is such a perfect example of antichoice bullshit it’s hard to pass up (even if it gets downright offensive at the end).
Right to Life supports legislation that recognises the humanity and personhood of the unborn child as a member of the human family that is endowed with an inalienable right to life and is deserving of respect and protection.
Firstly, dude, employ some fucking commas. Is the unborn babby the thing which is endowed (phwoar) or the “human family”, whatever the fuck that means?
Second, foetus =/= person.* And even if it were, no person has the right to occupy another’s body and live off their organs.** No actual “right to life” codified in any law I know of actually permits enslaving other people via biological hookup.
Right to Life believes that the majority of New Zealanders support protecting the right to life of unborn children.
I believe in fairies.
The killing of unborn children the weakest and most defenceless members of the human family in the womb, is a violation of the human rights of unborn children.
That would be those rights we’ve established no human, born or
undead unborn, have, right? But let’s never let the facts get in the way of trying to play people’s emotions with a string of irrelevant adjectives – after all, if you have to remind people that ickle babby feeetusses are Vulnerable and Weak and Helpless, you may have just acknowledged you’re on the losing side of this battle.
It is also a violation of the human rights of women who deserve respect and protection for their child in the womb.
Let’s take this to its logical conclusion, folks: women deserve respect so much that we have to take away their ability to choose to undergo a medical procedure. And
Right to Life Ken Orr and his boner respect women so much they think stubby-limbed fish-beings pweshus babbies take precedence over those women’s lives and desires and bodies.
The” right to choose” is a cruel lie,there is no human right that permits us to choose to kill another human being.
Except … that pregnancy can and does kill women. Pregnancy is in fact nine times more likely to kill a woman in New Zealand than an abortion. But because Ken respects
incubators women so much he thinks they should die in order that stubby fish-beings might live.
So … Ken thinks “unborn children” do have a right to life which necessitates killing living, breathing, thinking human people. I mean, ambulatory uteri.
You might think that’s a bit extreme, surely the antichoice movement understands that sometimes pregnancy can be really dangerous to women’s health, even fatal. Surely they’re reasonable enough to allow that some abortions are necessary to save women’s lives.
Oops, no. Mind you, that was a Catholic case, they’re a totes minor voice in the antichoice movement.
ALRANZ, the spokesman for a culture of death, with a national membership of less than 200, does not represent the views of women and ordinary New Zealanders, its proposal to decriminalise abortion is a threat to the wellbeing of women.
- ALRANZ is a person (specifically, a man)*** with a really cool single name, like Cher or Prince
- Ken Orr can’t convince anyone to come down to his basement to proofread his press releases
- “Women” and “ordinary New Zealanders” are distinct, separate groups in Right to Life’s world.
ALRANZ knows that before we can decriminalise abortion we must first deny the humanity of unborn children.
Wait for it …
The decriminalising of abortion would be a denial of the humanity and personhood of the unborn child.
Wait for it ….
The denial of the humanity of Negroes gave us slavery.
That’s just the appetizer …
The denial of the humanity of Jews gave us the Holocaust.
BOOM! Godwinned it!
Yep, the all-time classic Abortion Is Just Like The Holocaust argument. Which for a start ignores some pretty complex political and social considerations around the situation in 1930s Germany/Western Europe (hint: Hitler was not the only person who wasn’t too keen on Semitic folk) but also just reveals the basic weakness of the antichoice side: they have to resort to absurd emotive “arguments” designed to make people flinch and say “oh no that’s terrible!” instead of actually relying on fact, or logic, or, well, anything.
It’s also kind of hilariously ironic that Judaism is pretty down with the abortion rights, given that whole “first breath” test for personhood. Hilarious that is if Right to Bonerlife weren’t exploiting genocide to shock people into not thinking.
See, when you have to actually rely on the horrors of the Holocaust to win people over, because the actual reality of abortion isn’t good enough … you and your boner are pretty screwed, right?
Let’s not forget the slippery slope argument for good measure:
If today we allow the denial of the human rights of unborn children by the decriminalisation of abortion, which vulnerable section of our community will be next?
I’m thinking hipsters, or maybe people who still subscribe to the Sunday Star-Times. Oh, wait, except they’re all born, autonomous beings who aren’t using a woman’s breath, blood and organs to survive. Damn.
*Any antichoicers who want to prove this is all about controlling women by commenting about how “women bring it on themselves when they have sex” should feel absolutely welcome to do so.
**And doesn’t that just tell you plenty about Right to Bodysnatch’s worldview?