The Other Heartbeat Isn’t Yours
I am not interested in where a human life starts to exist.
In the video linked above, feminist “theorist” Sophie Lewis informs us that the foetus, a nascent human being, is “violent,” does violence to “gestators,” and that abortion is a corrective killing, an “unmaking,” a means of “going on strike against gestational work.” “We need to move away from… arguments around when human life begins,” says she.
So far as I can tell, and despite Ms Lewis’ theorising, mothers-to-be don’t generally feel a need to parse their pregnancy in terms of “abolishing the private nuclear household” and “global regimes of colonial and commodity exploitation.” Or indeed to champion abortion, via drugs or dismemberment, as a form of “anti-violence.” But that’s probably because – to borrow a phrase from Joan – they haven’t been tugging on the intersectional crack pipe.
Ms Lewis is the author of Full Surrogacy Now: Feminism Against Family. When not arguing for the destruction of the unborn, and the “abolition” of the family – which is to be replaced by comradeliness, apparently – she “participates in the Out Of The Woods anti-capitalist ecological writing collective.”
Update, via the comments:
In this laughably pretentious review of Ms Lewis’ laughably pretentious book, we learn that the author wishes us to embrace the disintegration of the family – our families, all families – “until they dissolve into a classless commune on the basis of the best available care for all.” As if the “best available care” would somehow be an obvious result of family disintegration, despite decades of real-world evidence to the contrary. Supposedly, we would learn to love the “plural womb,” “radical disinheritance,” and “a world beyond propertarian kinship and work alienation.” The children we have will no longer be ours, it seems, and this will apparently make us happy. It’s a “queer, communist, speculative future.” A narcissist’s experiment. And we are to be the guinea pigs.
Via Mr Muldoon. Somewhat related.
On the other hand, the women had established a Human Resources department by the end of the first day.
the women had established a Human Resources department by the end of the first day
I used to work for a major multinational that was absolutely ruled by its all-female HR department. I never figured out why the all-male sr. management had allowed it to happen but it was like a sanitized version of Soviet political commissars.
A year before I left, the COO decided to outsource benefits administration – the bulk of what HR ostensibly did – to an employee self-service portal. Perhaps not coincidentally, this resulted in an utter savaging of the HR department down to 20% of its former size and the end of HR as a power bloc within the organization.
I’m so old I can remember being warned never to work for a company that called its Personnel department Human Resources.
It would still be good advice except, if followed, everyone but the self-employed would starve to death.
Ms Lewis’ fantasies – of “comradeliness” and non-specific parenting – would seem to invite the same problems, among others.
She acts like she’s never met any actual humans.
Meanwhile, in West Yorkshire, Miss Lewis finds an ally.
The account’s tweets are now protected.
Why am I not surprised?
She acts like she’s never met any actual humans.
It’s a practised unrealism, pretty much a signature of Marxoid thinking, and for which she’s been rewarded. I suppose the appeal is that it’s much easier to “theorise” if you can merrily disregard things like basic economics, human nature, decades of real-world evidence to the contrary, and so forth.
The account’s tweets are now protected.
There is always a screenshot or something…
Meanwhile, ladies, are you a HOP, use slave paint or oppression smear ? ShoeOnHead introduces us to a fetching young lady who can answer those questions and more for you. (Caution, Achtung, Опасность ! Major league language warning – also you can skip to about 3:30 to avoid pitch for sponsor after intro)
a fetching young lady
Deep, man.
My lawyer advises that we should itemise it as “corkage”.
My lawyer advises that we should itemise it as “corkage”.
Stain removal.
Fully Automated Luxury Communism, what could possibly go wrong ?
The Morlocks were unavailable for comment.
Peace through submission.
That is their idea of peace.
Remember when all those Wise, Honest, and Benevolent Liberals™ were telling us that “Islam” means “peace” when in fact it means “submission”?
Remember when all those Wise…
Perhaps it’s just me but more and more when I see the word “wise” when used in the context of not taking any action, I find that one could easily substitute the words “cowardly” or “lazy” and the sentence, especially when viewed from a larger time perspective, makes a lot more sense.
This is my new favourite phrase for the subject.
I am reminded, as I so often am, of one of my favourite passages of the late, lamented Sir Perry’s writing:
Imagine she’s in a black uniform talking about killing Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals because it’s a German right to live in pure world.
Imagine she’s in a black uniform talking about killing Jews, gypsies, and homosexuals because it’s a German right to live in pure world.
There were a number of feminist utopia science fiction stories, back in the 70’s, which involved the extermination of men. Those who pointed out that this reeked of Nazism were denounced by Moderate Reasonable Feminists™ as male chauvinists who wanted to Keep Women In Their Place.
the late, lamented Sir Perry’s writing
Yes, well. Pratchett was an unapologetic statist; this is most obvious in the Lipwig books, every one of which is an apologia for state control of some large sector of society.
the Lipwig books, every one of which is an apologia for state control of some large sector of society.
I think you are overstating this: In Going Postal wasn’t the Clacks Company returned to its original rightful owners rather than being taken over by the State?
wasn’t the Clacks Company returned to its original rightful owners rather than being taken over by the State
That’s not my recollection; what I do recall was the clear moral tone that the Clacks being under the control of private enterprise was Bad, whereas the nationalized postal service was Good, as demonstrated by the fact that the postal service essentially puts the Clacks out of business and then ultimately takes them over. Unless you want to argue that the only place a government-run physical mail delivery service beats out the Internet is in comedic fantasy is the point, I suppose.
Making Money is a completely unvarnished apologetic for fiat currency over the gold standard. Pratchett’s not even trying to hide it.
(Disclaimer: I’ve never found Pratchett that entertaining. I like Lipwig as a character, but Pratchett’s smug pedantry pervades the series.)
“the clear moral tone that the Clacks being under the control of private enterprise was Bad”
As personified/represented by villain Reacher Gilt. But the original owners/creators were portrayed as ethical and idealistic of Gilt’s swindle.
If the Clacks system
a fetching young lady
So you throw a ball and she brings it back?
So you throw a ball and she brings it back?
Not that well trained, chasing cars, OTOH…
Feminists, to the sewers!
I’m all for equality and parity. I believe the vast majority of sewer workers (you know, the ones who keep the turds floating free) are disgustingly male. This of course is an outrage; women are ready to take their place in equal numbers to wade through poo and make our toileting experiences equal.
David wrote: “sending wildly irrelevant crap to a presumably extensive list of people, about whom they clearly know nothing whatsoever.”
I routinely get e-mail ‘news’ from a theatre (make that theater) in Toronto telling me of their great productions in the coming months. I emailed their people to say, thanks, but no thanks: I live several thousand miles away and though it is 23 years since I went to Toronto I have no plans to go back. This didn’t work as I kept getting more of these less-than-useful emails. So I asked them how they got my e-mail address.
They said it was ‘intercepted’ in transit between me and another person by what they claim is a legal system and thus have my address, which apparently they are unwilling to relinquish. And still I get informed of shows and plays I will never see.
I can only presume the senders of these emails are paid by the quantity so me getting an email from them means another few cents in their coffers. I suppose I am glad to help oil the wheels of Canadian commerce and keep businesses alive and kicking, but I wish they wouldn’t.
And still I get informed of shows and plays I will never see.
The ones from supposedly reputable organisations but which don’t include an automatic ‘unsubscribe’ option annoy me to an almost irrational degree. I find them… offensive.
It’s rather like how online advertising is generally much more annoying and resented than, say, print ads or TV ads. Auto-play videos and interstitial pop-ups that interrupt your reading being obvious examples. The fact that it’s happening on your computer amplifies the irritation quite a lot. It feels more intrusive.
This page from The Truth always resonated and rather contraindicates to much of a statist attitude:
Pratchett’s writing is far too humane to be pigeonholed as statist. And I think he had a better understanding of micro-reflected-sounds-of-underground-spirits[1] to believe in directed economies in the way you’re trying to characterise Going Postal (which, after all, starts with a public service so inefficient as to be irrelevant); just look at how Reg Shoe is portrayed in the build up to the Battle of Treacle Mine Road, as extremely quoted here.
[1] Now there’s a reference for long-time Pratchett fans.
“If the Clacks system”
Not sure what went wrong. I meant to write:
If the Clacks system was not returned to its original owners but was permanently seized by the government then I’d love to know, ideally with a cite.