A Woman's Worth

Further to this post about the G8 leaders' broken promises to save the 500,000 women a year who die of pregnancy-related causes, Alison @Creekside sent me a copy of the full-page ad she scanned. My dinky scanner was not up to the job.

More info here.

Here's what happened.

While the G8 failed to increase their aid for maternal and child health (which currently represents a miniscule 3% of total aid) they were persuaded to commission a new assessment of the finance that is needed to reach the millennium development goals (MDGs). Reportedly this line in the statement was hastily agreed as the meeting was breaking up and a number of leaders were impatient to leave for an earthquake tour.

There was also a welcome in the communique for "a global consensus on maternal, newborn and child health as a way to accelerate progress on the millennium development goals". This is a classic piece of "constructive ambiguity" as the G8 negotiators would call it.

Clearly, these people don't get it. The world will not be a better place -- either economically and environmentally -- unless women's lives are valued.

Comments

[deBeauxOs]

A beautiful and powerful plea for support to improve women's reproductive health and to reduce maternal mortality, brushed aside by G8 leaders.

Shameful.

[Are Women Persons?]

The political correctness that has served you so well has come back to bite you in the behind, I see. Looks good on you. Just to name one example, there are tens of millions of white males who are sickened by what is happening to the Palestinians in Gaza - we're not free to say that because we get called Nazis by your side. People are dying as a direct result of this.

War on women? For every woman incarcerated federally there are FIFTY men; provincially, it is a twenty to one ratio in Ontario.

If you told me that Jews, or blacks, or Greeks, or gays were being rounded up at a rate FIFTY times higher than the rest of the populations I would have spoken up, as white men have done for generations in Canada. Zerb, that's not a war on women, that's a war on men. You're literally above the law. There are countless other examples; more female than male university graduates, gender quotas in the workplace, 65% of new cars are sold to women, etc., etc. That, too, is not a war on women but a war on men.

As impressed as I am with the advances women are making I'll be *really* impressed if they take off the training wheels and compete on fair terms. It's never enough, is it Zerb? The more we give, the more you demand, the more you hate us. You're selling out the next generation of women for your own selfish short term gains, the status quo is unsustainable and you know it. I'd be embarrassed to cash my paycheque if I were a woman and you should be too.

Is this a cheering section or a comment section? My comment better make it through your filter or we'll agree that it's the former.

[mozo]

Bitter much? But hey, are non-white men persons? You screech about how white men speak up against bad things but seem to ignore obvious non-whites like Nelson Mandela and Ghandi...oops, I guess they were waging war on white men too. Taking away your obvious birthright to colonial possessions, the nerve!

[Keith]

Fight discrimination with discrimination, Hey, it's the Canadian Way!!!!

[Are Women Persons?]

"Bitter much?... You screech...your obvious birthright to colonial possessions"

This isn't an intelligent response.

Not that there is one: arguing with a feminist may be compared to walking into a Hell's Angels clubhouse, explaining to them that extortion, racketeering, selling hard drugs, and human trafficking are bad, and expecting them to nod their heads and close up shop. It's not that they are misguided, they know what they are doing is wrong, they don't care; same thing with feminists.

Therefore, debating a feminist is a tad futile, they'll just blurt out nonsense like mozo here; we must defeat them.

How? Won't even have to lift a finger, nobody expects the welfare state to be there 25 years from now, it will likely collapse under Obama's watch. That's 8 years ladies, max, tick tick tick, no pension, no quotas, no unfair divorce/custody laws, no free pass from the legal system, no goon squad police ready to arrest your man at the touch of 911, all of that will collapse, and it will be thanks to your efforts.

No man to protect you, no kids to support you, no family to turn to for support. You're screwed. Those white males you hate so much will be replaced as a majority by ethnic groups that - let's be honest here - care little about women's "rights". Me? I will have long since escaped to another country, and I'll enjoy watching the show.

Allow me to quote the great Anglo philosopher R. Plant from his seminal work "Led Zeppelin (1)":

"You been bad to me, woman, but it's comin' back home to you
Your time is gonna come"

[Antonia]

Um, to Mr. ''Are Women Persons?''

Interesting choice of handles there. Is that a rhetorical question?

Just FYI: This is a Canada-based blog. While I welcome readers and comments from all over, everybody knows we are a ''socialist'' country with subsidized university education for all and universal healthcare.

That's why we are almost always coloured pink on the maps.

So your ''welfare state'' thing is not quite relevant here.

Just saying.

But please, continue blaming the feminists for everything.

[Are Women Persons?]

"But please, continue blaming the feminists for everything."

This isn't an intelligent comment either.

"Interesting choice of handles there. Is that a rhetorical question?"

Yeah. Women cannot enter contracts - a prenup is often considered null and void because courts consider women not intelligent enough to understand them, even if they are signed in the presence of a lawyer.

That's one reason - a person, in the legal definition (Mandela wrote on this, incidentally) - is one who can enter a contract.

Second, women are above the law, as shown in my previous comment. We don't send them to jail or punish them for their actions meaningfully for much the same reasons we don't send children and the mentally invalid to jail. That's another reason.

And then there is employment equity. It's not that *I* don't think you are persons, it's that our (I'm Canadian btw, commenting under a proxy, wisely, because you are compromising my privacy) government thinks that. You should tell your government you don't need training wheels and that you can compete and handle the consequences of your actions - until then, yeah, it's debatable if you are persons - according to our government.

Welfare state and socialist are not mutually exclusive - I studied poli sci and worked in politics - you didn't, ink stained wretch, so I'm pulling rank here, pretty pink maps notwithstanding. Many would consider us not very socialist, our public spending as % of GDP is lower than many OECD countries and very close to the USA - and they're not socialist, right? Welfare state is a better description.

"with subsidized university education for all"

Really, for all? I thought there were entrance requirements? There are, actually, and they should be higher, so you're wrong about that too.

It's *higher* education, not primary school, and it should be reserved for the best and brightest as all other societies do, not dumbed down for the dumbest and with our tax dollars wasted on people who shouldn't be there.

Every point you made was false. And you violated the Star's privacy policy by menacingly hinting at my IP address origin - don't threaten me. Do you do an IP address check on all of your commenters? You should mention that.

What did I say about debating feminists? Debating them is futile, since they'll just blurt out anything, knowing that they're wrong. Thanks for proving my point Antonia. Hey, you spew hate against men daily, why not debate a pro-male person and see what happens? If no one else will do it, I will.

I see lots of feminists in the media, hows about letting one single, solitary pro-male voice respond in kind? Just kidding, you don't have the stones to debate a pro-male advocate, nor, frankly, the brains, judging by your comments. It's like you've never debated a pro-male advocate, and it really shows. Holes in your game from here to Amazonia.

Let's see if fragile porcelain doll Zerb lets this one through the filter or cries boo hoo. I say she cries uncle.

[Antonia]

I did not violate your privacy. I was talking about your references to Obama, not your IP.

Paranoid much?

[PaulR]

Antonia, you have hinted on more than one occassion that you'd love to out the IP addresses of some of your critics (I suspect, the potty-mouthed crazies, though you aren't particular about sifting them from your reasoned critics), but you have always said that you won't.

AWP, there are several regular pro-male advocates and pro-equality (as opposed to partisan gender advocacy) respondents in these boards, and I'm one of them. Admittedly, I rarely see much "debate" per se except for easy pitches- but it is not fair to suggest that she hasn't encountered the arguments. In particular, the infantalization of women practiced by feminists, and its consequences for women and equality, is a theme I've brought up several times.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"Um, to Mr. ''Are Women Persons?''

Interesting choice of handles there. Is that a rhetorical question?"

Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator, I'm surprised at you for not picking up on that one. Probably related to a famous court case. But if "Are Women Persons" had been in the Lords, how would he have answered it?

[mozo]

"...I studied poli sci and worked in politics - you didn't, ink stained wretch, so I'm pulling rank here..."

Politics is not a "science", regardless of university nomenclature. The possibility that you may have handed out flyers for Mike Harris does not equate to having "worked in politics", nor does it give you any special insight. For the record I handed out flyers for Frank Miller. I must therefore conclude that you have no rank to pull, just a bitter, tunnel-vision view of the world.

"Second, women are above the law, as shown in my previous comment." Now that is faultless empirical evidence, supported by peer reviewed statistics.

You make a pointed reference to "white men" being overwhlmed by those tinted folks. I have news for you, it's probably about 5 to 1 already worldwide, or more. I wonder which bastion of white male supremacy you might move to: the US, too many blacks and Mexicans; Bermuda, oops, lots of blacks there; England, watch out for all the Indians and Arabs; France, too many North Africans; Germany, Turks everywhere. Bummer.

You admire that "great Anglo philosopher R. Plant". As a recognized plagiarist I wonder which black bluesman he stole those lines from.

You don't seem to be helping your cause.

[PaulR]

You make a pointed reference to "white men" being overwhlmed by those tinted folks. --Mozo
--------
No, Mozo. What he said was this:
===
"there are tens of millions of white males who are sickened by what is happening to the Palestinians in Gaza - we're not free to say that because we get called Nazis by your side."
and
"War on women? For every woman incarcerated federally there are FIFTY men; provincially, it is a twenty to one ratio in Ontario.

If you told me that Jews, or blacks, or Greeks, or gays were being rounded up at a rate FIFTY times higher than the rest of the populations I would have spoken up, as white men have done for generations in Canada."
====
That's not even close to the way you've characterized it.

[PaulR]

arguing with a feminist may be compared to walking into a Hell's Angels clubhouse, explaining to them that extortion, [...]are bad, and expecting them to nod their heads and close up shop. It's not that they are misguided, they know what they are doing is wrong, they don't care; same thing with feminists.
--Are Women Persons?
-------
I tend to think it's more akin to a religious argument.There are other sects, such as Men's Rights dudes, which are a different branch of the same dogma. There are athiests, like myself, who think the whole lot is so focused on the ritual that they forget the big picture --ending up working against their stated goals.

But the feminists, despite their changing goalposts and lack of consistency in these arguments do, indeed think they are doing good. The believe it as fervently as any Born Again Christian, and will seek to avoid or dismiss anything that would challenge that faith, rather than meet it head on and account for the parts of the picture that just don't fit. I used to debate Creationists online, and I'm often struck by the similarities in rhetorical habits.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Mozo de Beaux Yeux,

Most Turks, Arabs, and North Africans are "white" to all intents and purposes. Its the kulture that's the problem .........

[mozo]

PaulR, this is the line I was referring to: "...white males you hate so much will be replaced as a majority by ethnic groups that - let's be honest here - care little about women's "rights"." He does seem to stress "white" men through his posts here.

Styggie, try telling that to the white supremacist folks. Besides, there really is no white race, just as there is no African/black race or Asian race.

[PaulR]

Mozo, it is axiom within this blog and throughout this kind of advocacy, that males - white males in particular - are the target of the ire because they are the source of the alleged patriarchal hegemony bent on keeping everyone else down. You can't possibly be saying this isn't the thrust of the criticism.

With regard to that context, AWP's post is responding to the distinctions made throughout this blog by feminist advocates, rather than drawing his own distinctions. Indeed, his posts regarding Palestinians and his stance toward the incarceration of various ethnic groups indicates a statement of commonality, not difference. And right on cue, you charge the defence as being racist on the face of it.

I note, as a small recent example, the I Don't Hate Men entry, just prior to Father's Day, where I made a point about domestic violence with male targets - that there's only a 1% difference in the rates between men and women based on the survey that was cited on this blog in support of feminist arguments (The recent Family Violence Study)

The response was that "Maybe men should get their own act together to create some advocacy." I was dismayed, but not surprised - men do indeed donate time and money to fund for violence against women advocacy, and are urged to action for them -- but for men suffering the same problems at about the same rate - they are told by these supposed feminist advocates for equality and victims, that they are on their own.

The notion of white males being replaced as the most numerous ethnicity in Canada is fact. The idea that feminism is in general critical of white male hegemony is hardly disputable, I'm sure, by the even most disagreeable feminists. And while I would generally prefer the term "socio-cultural" groups rather than "ethnic" groups (how one identifies or thinks, rather than biological groupings and traits), such language is more than common within feminist circles - in particular when attacking men (as opposed to rapists and abusers) - so at least the standards are even there. So what's the problem here? Simply that he offers a supportable defence of white men from the regular stream of criticism levelled at them? Is that the standard for charging racism these days?

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Mozo de Beaux Yeux,

"Besides, there really is no white race, just as there is no African/black race or Asian race."

In that case why do we keep discussing it? And why all the "visible minorities" stuff? And if "race" doesn't exist, how can one be either "racist" or "anti-racist"?

There's a recent article by Jay Nordlinger "States of Mind — Some notes on Sotomayor, race, and nagging questions of identity" in the June 22 issue of the National Review (not available online), where he argues quite convincingly that "race" is simply a state of mind. People can change their own self-identification on the flimsiest of grounds. It was said of Labour MP Keith Vaz "He was popular on the Cambridge University Conservative Association, and his friends from that time are fond of saying that they knew him when he was white." (Private Eye, No. 673, 2 October 1987) Similar, E&BM, Joe Klein (Primary Colours), who used to cover Massachusetts politics, used to say he knew Michael Dukakis before he was a Greek. There are even examples from South Africa: some British soldiers on encountering aspects of Boer society, saw the bossing and enslaving of blacks by some swarthy commandos who were themselves as dark as their agterryers ... and reflected "It would be interesting to know ... on what basis some of these Boers assemble their fancy notions as to being European overlords."

And apparently if Winston Churchill himself were to turn up on these shores he could argue for aboriginal status, with all the advantages that that brings.

Two recent cases, one from Tyenindaga and one from Sweden, show that this whole "race" thing is jumping the shark:

http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1647512

"An interesting element of the situation, the judge said, was the fact that two out-of-town men who aren't aboriginal were protesting in support of native issues - only to injure two aboriginal men - the police officers - in the process."

http://www.thelocal.se/20630/20090713/

"At the hospital [in Sweden!!!!!], they encountered a foreign doctor whom the woman was unable to understand. She asked to see a Swedish-speaking doctor, and her request was granted.

When she recently requested her son's medical journal, she read that she and her husband had were described as racists in the notations. "

[littlemisssunshine]

Geez, I take a holiday & another misogynist sicko pops up and wants to take us back to the dark ages. Why is it that women can't stand up for themselves without being called man-haters? Why can't I demand equal rights & freedoms without it being assumed that I'm trying to take those same rights & freedoms away from men? Are you that insecure? What exactly are you afraid of? That women will rise up against you & start treating you the way we've been treated for centuries? Get a grip. We aren't going to nod our heads in agreement & go away just because you think we should.
"I do not wish them to have power over men, but over themselves." ~Mary Wollstonecraft