• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Punish the sluts!

These wackjobs are are a special variety of morality police. I'm calling them sex nazis.
 
BTW, that thin-faced woman is a British academician named Mary Harrington. Her first book is Feminism Against Progress (2023), which Regnery brought out a few months ago in the US. (Yep, Regnery, who give us Ann Coulter and the Politically Incorrect Guide...series. If it's from Regnery, I know I won't be able to get through the book.) Harrington does not have her own wikipedia page, so I had trouble googling anything about specific proposals she's made. Her book assails the feminist movement, and it has brought her a lot of air time on Christian/hard right video platforms. If anyone has either read her book or knows what specific policy proposals she's made, please post. From the little glimpses I had of her online, it seems like she's pining for a return to traditional sex roles, where women raise the young-un's and the husbands go out into the world of commerce -- you know, back to the days when one paycheck could set you up with a house, groceries, braces for Junior and a dog bed for Flopsy. If that's not her vision, I stand to be corrected. Clearly, Heritage Foundation is interested in her because she trashes feminism.
 
pood said:
It almost seems like that has to be satire, a parody … but it isn’t, is it? It’s actually real, right? :(

Returning “consequentiality” to sex … omg, these people live in the 19th century.
Click to expand...
Abortions were common during the times of the founding fathers. It wasn't called abortion but places where you could obtain one advertised in newspapers of the day.
 
If you read the comments to that tweet, most people think she's a loon. One of the supporters blamed birth control for women having babies out of wedlock. Not quite sure I understand that logic.
 
ZiprHead said:
pood said:
It almost seems like that has to be satire, a parody … but it isn’t, is it? It’s actually real, right? :(

Returning “consequentiality” to sex … omg, these people live in the 19th century.
Click to expand...
Abortions were common during the times of the founding fathers. It wasn't called abortion but places where you could obtain one advertised in newspapers of the day.
Click to expand...

Yep, that’s actually correct. So I guess they’re trying to return people to the 1950s rather than the 1850s. I’ve. also read, though have not really thoroughly studied the veracity of, that homosexuality was not that big a deal in the 19th century.
 
I watched that clip. I don’t know in what universe she lives in, but birth control pills do not reduce the intimacy of sex - people do.
 
There was a time when the chastity of young women was preserved by keeping a close eye on them, and when that wasn't possible, keeping them locked up. The industrial revolution and universal education made either of those methods inapplicable. We need to remember, it is women who are responsible for creating new heirs to the family fortune, so it's really an economic process. A child born out of wedlock is a mouth the father does not have to feed. A child born of adulterous sex is even worse. Again, family resources are used to feed someone else's child, but this time, you might not know you're doing it.

There has always been a sect of American puritanism which believes girls, and eventually women, are responsible for sexual control before marriage. "Before" is an important distinction. After marriage, she has no control. No such constraints are put on a boy and he is free to pursue a girl to the limits she will allow. If it goes too far, it's solely her fault.

As is happens, sexual intercourse usually leaves no permanent marks, at least easily observed marks, so a girl could have sex with a boy, given the time and the privacy. The complication is pregnancy. A pregnant girl cannot deny having sex, at least once. Anything that reduces the risk of pregnancy, reduces the level of control which can be exercised over women. This has always been the major motive of the anti-abortion crowds. They crow about saving innocent lives, but it's really about punishing guilty lives.

Sometimes they forget and say it out loud.
 
Bronzeage said:
There was a time when the chastity of young women was preserved by keeping a close eye on them, and when that wasn't possible, keeping them locked up. The industrial revolution and universal education made either of those methods inapplicable. We need to remember, it is women who are responsible for creating new heirs to the family fortune, so it's really an economic process. A child born out of wedlock is a mouth the father does not have to feed. A child born of adulterous sex is even worse. Again, family resources are used to feed someone else's child, but this time, you might not know you're doing it.

There has always been a sect of American puritanism which believes girls, and eventually women, are responsible for sexual control before marriage. "Before" is an important distinction. After marriage, she has no control. No such constraints are put on a boy and he is free to pursue a girl to the limits she will allow. If it goes too far, it's solely her fault.

As is happens, sexual intercourse usually leaves no permanent marks, at least easily observed marks, so a girl could have sex with a boy, given the time and the privacy. The complication is pregnancy. A pregnant girl cannot deny having sex, at least once. Anything that reduces the risk of pregnancy, reduces the level of control which can be exercised over women. This has always been the major motive of the anti-abortion crowds. They crow about saving innocent lives, but it's really about punishing guilty lives.

Sometimes they forget and say it out loud.
Click to expand...
Malthus feared that giving women freedom would lead to overpopulation. Women would just fuck and reproduce geometrically and food production wouldn’t resulting in massive starvation. Gotta control those women!

I bet if you dig real hard this bitch opposes the Civil Rights Act and even a women’s right to vote. I suspect the heritage foundation would love to repeal the 19th Amendment, but they just dare not say that. Return to white male Christian patriarchy like it’s supposed to be.
 
SLD said:
Malthus feared that giving women freedom would lead to overpopulation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, funny thing that. Right up until the pill actually gave women reproductive freedom, it was the consensus wisdom amongst learned men, that women wanted large families, and that it was their choices to breed at far in excess of the replacement rate that were driving population growth.

Then women actually got reproductive freedom, and in each place where they did, the net fertility rate fell rapidly below the replacement level, and has remained there.

Turns out, it wasn't women at fault at all.

It's now the consensus amongst learned men that it was nobody's fault. Because there is no thinkable alternative to the dichotomy of blaming women, or blaming nobody.

Apparently.
 
^
And when you give girls a chance to stay in school, they delay having babies.
It's like they get this crazy idea that they could do something besides having a lot of babies.
 
ZiprHead said:
If you read the comments to that tweet, most people think she's a loon. One of the supporters blamed birth control for women having babies out of wedlock. Not quite sure I understand that logic.
Click to expand...
Presumably the logic would go something like this:

If women think they can have protected sex they are more likely to have premarital sex. Since no protection is 100% this means that some women who have premarital sex will end up pregnant.

If, on the other hand, they thought that they couldn’t have sex without having babies then they would wait until they are married to have sex.

Therefore, contraception is causing babies out of wedlock.

Do I get a cookie?
 
bilby said:
SLD said:
Malthus feared that giving women freedom would lead to overpopulation.
Click to expand...
Yeah, funny thing that. Right up until the pill actually gave women reproductive freedom, it was the consensus wisdom amongst learned men, that women wanted large families, and that it was their choices to breed at far in excess of the replacement rate that were driving population growth.

Then women actually got reproductive freedom, and in each place where they did, the net fertility rate fell rapidly below the replacement level, and has remained there.

Turns out, it wasn't women at fault at all.

It's now the consensus amongst learned men that it was nobody's fault. Because there is no thinkable alternative to the dichotomy of blaming women, or blaming nobody.

Apparently.
Click to expand...
Well, it’s a little more complicated than that. As education level rises, most women/couples have fewer children because the opportunity cost of having a child is greater. This is true irrespective of costs of raising a child. A basic aspect of family size/economics is that for most of human history, people were agrarian and more babies increased the capacity of a family to support itself and its members. More free labor. During this time frame infant mortality was much higher. A woman might give birth to a dozen children and have fewer than half survive. When women and men both have hid access to earn wages, they are able to thrive with fewer children. Specifically, it is easier for a woman with opportunities for paid employment to support herself without providing more children. As educational levels of women have increased world wide, so does the survival rate of children she bears just as the birth rate decreases. Usually, maternal survival rates increase but something wise seems to be going on in the US that has increased maternal morbidity and mortality rates.
 
ZiprHead said:
If you read the comments to that tweet, most people think she's a loon. One of the supporters blamed birth control for women having babies out of wedlock. Not quite sure I understand that logic.
Click to expand...
Because they didn't wait for marriage.

Never mind they didn't do very well at that in the old days, either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom