The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Hating Babies, Hating Mothers

Posted on | May 18, 2015 | 179 Comments

“I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . .
“This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”

Amanda Marcotte, January 2014

“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
Simone de Beauvoir, 1975

“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women.”
Redstockings, 1969

Professor Glenn Reynolds is stunned by the condescending tone of a New York Times article on wealthy stay-at-home moms:

Okay, so the implication is that there’s something wrong with being married to a rich, powerful man? And there’s also something wrong with “intensive mothering,” which apparently means being intensively involved in your child’s upbringing? . . .
[I]f this is slavery — being married to a rich/powerful husband, being able to stay at home with one’s children, and having time to get involved with charitable causes — I think a lot of women would willingly sign up.
Only a hardcore feminist would think such a life is odd enough to pen an anthropological essay about it in the New York Times.

Ah, Professor, but in the elite media, “only a hardcore feminist” is ever allowed to write anything about women’s lives.

The goal of the Feminist-Industrial Complex is to indoctrinate all college students in feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual ideology, and this New York Times article is about trying to figure out how these women managed to resist. Too many Disney movies, maybe?

“The radical feminist argument is that men have forced women into heterosexuality in order to exploit them . . .”
Celia Kitzinger, The Social Construction of Lesbianism (1987)

Heterosexuality is oppression. Motherhood is slavery.

‘Could It Be Any More Obvious?’




179 Responses to “Hating Babies, Hating Mothers”

  1. JL
    May 20th, 2015 @ 10:47 am

    Maybe conservatives don’t like people being on Welfare because it makes them kowtow to the State, depriving them of independence and some fundamental measure of humanity, as opposed to some sort of bizarre, resentful hatred. Of course that would have to assume that conservatives are motivated by something other than greed and racism, and as John Stewart bravely proved, they’re not.

  2. JL
    May 20th, 2015 @ 10:59 am

    Of course, nobody discusses the most important reason to be pro-Life: THE NUWABIAN SEWER BABIES!!!eleventy!!

    But seriously, being a recovered Democrat, who, as a kid, used to believe what “Jones” was saying about mentally handicapped children, I am just shocked and horrified that I could have ever thought that way.

  3. DrGreatCham
    May 20th, 2015 @ 1:05 pm

    “One hundred million dead at Communism’s altar in the 20th century. Oh, but they meant well. No harm, no foul then.

    Oh, wait… massive harm.”

    Exactly, as the resident jackboot-loving collectivist shows.

  4. DrGreatCham
    May 20th, 2015 @ 1:05 pm

    The ones who aren’t apologists for tyrannical collectivism and/or historical ignorance and apathy about Communist mass murders and the Progressive apologias for them are the ones Skubinna is talking about. He’s not referring to the Nat Hentoffs and Henry Steele Commangers of the world.

  5. DrGreatCham
    May 20th, 2015 @ 1:06 pm

    The ones who aren’t apologists for tyrannical collectivism and/or
    historical ignorance and apathy about Communist mass murders and the
    Progressive apologias for them are not the ones Skubinna is talking about.
    He’s not referring to the Nat Hentoffs and Henry Steele Commagers of
    the world.

  6. DrGreatCham
    May 20th, 2015 @ 1:08 pm

    “Ironically, Jumonville says,
    those who write off Commager and his colleagues as a bunch of
    conservative, irrelevant, dead white males are actually far less
    politically active and probably less “liberal” than they were. Today’s
    political correctness, he says, has rejected their open marketplace of
    tough ideas. Deconstruction by experts and comprehensible only to the
    initiated has replaced narrative history and literature written for all
    to read. Ethnocentrism rules in place of common identity.”

    May 20th, 2015 @ 2:11 pm
  8. Alan Grayson Wants His Ex-Wife to Die Quickly | Regular Right Guy
    May 20th, 2015 @ 2:24 pm

    […] Hating Babies, Hating Mothers […]

  9. ????? seo
    May 20th, 2015 @ 3:48 pm

    ????? seo

    Hating Babies, Hating Mothers : The Other McCain

  10. RS
    May 20th, 2015 @ 4:01 pm

    It is the use of the word “compassion” coupled with the implication that those who believe differently are somehow morally deficient. Most of us go through it. What it takes is dispassionate analysis. What is this “thing” we’re destroying? Is it life? If so, is it human? If so, is it innocent, regardless of how it was conceived? If so, how is its destruction a “good?” How is it’s destruction not the raw exercise of power of the strong over the weak for mere personal expediency? Down that road lies the justification for every atrocity committed by Mankind during recorded history. Truly, it is the road to hell.

    May 20th, 2015 @ 4:25 pm

    Hating Babies, Hating Mothers : The Other McCain

  12. 21 day fix reviews
    May 20th, 2015 @ 4:36 pm

    21 day fix reviews

    Hating Babies, Hating Mothers : The Other McCain

  13. feeriker
    May 21st, 2015 @ 3:20 pm

    Which happens so rarely as to be really a non-issue. In practical terms there is NO medical justification for an abortion. Ever.

  14. feeriker
    May 21st, 2015 @ 3:22 pm

    This no doubt having been written by an ugly, obese, man-and-child-hating she-beast who dresses like she was raised inside of a Goodwill collection box.

  15. feeriker
    May 21st, 2015 @ 3:32 pm

    All institutions that serve as counterweights to the heft of the almighty state must be destroyed.

    This. This is the primary motivation behind EVERY SINGLE assault, obstacle, impediment, and act of persecution against not only men in general, but against intact, male-headed families with children. For intact families, especially extended clans headed by strong, patriarchal men represent the greatest existential threat to the power of the Almighty State and must be destroyed.

  16. feeriker
    May 21st, 2015 @ 3:41 pm

    I doubt that. Most of your ilk are wordwarriors in venues like this one, but are complete chickenshits when dealing with other flesh-and-blood humans in the real world.

  17. MGTOW-man
    May 22nd, 2015 @ 10:34 pm

    Their feelings have overwhelmed them to the point of skewing their perspectives on reality. They will go their entire lives in this oblivion.

  18. MGTOW-man
    May 22nd, 2015 @ 10:41 pm

    The growing human inside her is NOT her body. Not opinion, but scientific fact. The two bloods can’t even mix; if they do, both can die. If she prevents pregnancy, fine. But once one is conceived, it should be too late.

  19. MGTOW-man
    May 22nd, 2015 @ 10:49 pm

    A fool at AVfM tried to be taken seriously when he spouted his opinion that unborn humans are not babies yet, people yet, humans yet, offspring yet, worthy yet, totally ignoring the irrefutable, objective science that should end the quibbling once and for all. There is no reason for men’s activists to be divided by this issue because science–objective arbitrator—clears it up. Opinions and feelings mean nothing compared to genuine science but they get hung up on their feelings, thinking they trump science…SCIENCE!

    Abortion is violent. For activists to claim they hate violence, it sure doesn’t look like it.

    People can be so oblivious.

  20. MGTOW-man
    May 22nd, 2015 @ 10:53 pm

    They are too busy feeling for them to bother paying attention.

  21. MGTOW-man
    May 22nd, 2015 @ 10:59 pm

    Have you been living in a cave? If she isn’t able to raise a child perhaps the biological father might be. Wouldn’t women resent—deeply resent—not even being asked, if the tables were turned?

    And you know what else? She didn’t have to get pregnant. But killing it just because she can or only because she is poor, is not a substitute.

    Responsibility and accountability are supposed to be reticulated into equality and that of being equal adults, but no, that is too equal, right?

  22. MGTOW-man
    May 22nd, 2015 @ 11:07 pm

    She could give the child up for adoption, or to the father. For the unborn child to be such a nuisance for her, she sure does cling to it no matter what once she let it live. Why would she keep something she didn’t want in the first place. She doesn’t have to be financially tethered to her offspring: such is for men only… Even if they didn’t want the child either.

  23. MGTOW-man
    May 22nd, 2015 @ 11:09 pm

    Right on sister. It is scientific fact, not opinion. Opinions and feelings are all they have…refusing to see the irrefutable science.

  24. MGTOW-man
    May 22nd, 2015 @ 11:17 pm

    The ability to save drastically premature babies has dramatically improved. How would women like it if men treated them the way women are selfish over procreation? This is the only procreation system we have; it must belong to both contributors. 100-0 her favor is no where being as fair as 50-50, even if it “takes” something from the bearer. If reversed, in which men gave birth but all other things about female minds remained the same, women would demand 50-50…and should, because it is cruelty to shut the other offspring owner out.

  25. MGTOW-man
    May 22nd, 2015 @ 11:19 pm

    No mention of the father might want his baby. You just told us your true colors.

  26. MGTOW-man
    May 22nd, 2015 @ 11:21 pm

    It isn’t just a choice! It is a child. You act as if it is just politics only, women only, feelings only, no caring attitude, just empty bimbo-ism.

  27. MGTOW-man
    May 22nd, 2015 @ 11:25 pm

    I disagree. Reverse it. If a man thought his own life was more important than was the life dwelling inside him he would be deemed the most selfish evil bastard that ever was. Why apply double standards? How dare him think his plans and his life is more important than offspring! Think about this now.

  28. Kelly Flock Bair
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 3:24 pm

    Are you pro-life, or just pro-birth? There is a huge difference. If all you care about is making sure the life is born but then vote against every social service that might help feed the child born to a poor person, and you vote against every initiative that would give the child an “equal” chance in life despite the circumstances in which he or she were born, and you don’t give a rats ass about what happens to that child after they get here, then you are only pro-birth. And what of the debate about rape or incest? What if you have a 12 year old daughter, and she is raped? Does that change your view? Would you force her to carry the child of her rapist, go through the trauma of giving birth, and then what? give up the baby she was forced to carry for adoption or raise the child of her rapist? both of which are traumatic choices, just as much as the traumatic choice of ending the pregnancy. There is no “one-size” fits all to the discussion about abortion or life and the person who is the vessel that must carry the life and go through the experience of giving birth should most definitely have much more say than the sperm-donor.

  29. Finrod Felagund
    May 23rd, 2015 @ 4:40 pm

    I don’t think you’ve thought the situation all the way through. Except for late in the term (where there are likely other options), if the mother dies, so does the baby. Better one death than two.