In all these Progressive social engineering projects, and many others, women have been leading proponents. They're against drinking because drunk men are violent. They're against smoking because cigarettes and cigars resemble male penises, a source of male violence. They're against guns because they see guns as symbols of male violence.
Then, of course there's reality:
- MADD is opposed to people driving drunk. Period. Why? Because drunk drivers tend to end up killing people.
- Smoking - well, sorry it's not the Freudian symbology Frank thinks it is - it's because tobacco smoke is lethal.
- Guns - well - about all I'll say there is that it does seem to disproportionately be young males who use guns to commit crimes. But the issue of gun control has more to do with being able to walk the streets relatively safely - and streets where a gunfight breaks out are not safe.
But our writer's insanity doesn't end there - no, he goes on to try and describe the very normal dating dance between men and women in these same terms:
The fact is that women today continue to marry men they feel have the power and beauty to make beautiful children. They add up the physical and financial advantages of a particular mate and make their choice. Once married, and pregnant, they have ultrasound and other tests to determine if the fetus, is healthy. If not, an abortion is performed. Where the poor are breeding, the modern female is very much in favour of abortion clinics to keep the underclasses in check.
What is the difference between this and the Nazi notion of breeding a better Aryan race? Boys are selected for strength, girls for beauty and the gypsies and darker races are given abortions or sterilization.
The leaps of illogic here are amazing. Not only has our intrepid author managed to link maternal (and fetal) health monitoring during pregnancy to "social engineering", but at the same time, he claims that abortion clinics are about "keeping the underclasses in check". If groups of "underclass" women were being rounded up and herded to the abortion clinic, he might have a point. But that isn't what is happening. I suspect that the author is one of those clods who figures that once a woman is pregnant she essentially gives up any right to decide her own destiny.
Abortion clinics, along with contraception and other bits and pieces are ultimately about a woman's right to control her life, and in particular her reproductive life. No more, no less. To infer anything else is plain stupid.
Is that why the Liberal Party and its large female support base is in favour of native Canadians getting a third order of government, one that will create an almost perfect Canadian copy of apartheid? That would certainly appeal to the Nazis; separation of peoples on racial lines and legal enclosures for them to live in.
Uh? How do you get to here from there? Whatever. Apparently Frank hasn't heard of the concept of addressing past wrongs. Somehow, equating native self-government to eugenics is just a little bit of a stretch. Especially given the ugly history that has led Canada's indigenous peoples to the place they find themselves in now.
Is there a Canadian woman anywhere who will admit to these repulsive facts?
No, Frank - there isn't - mostly because they aren't facts. At best they are inferences that you've made that make no sense to people who are actually thinking rationally.
p.s. You might want to take a remedial course on feminism at some point. It's pretty clear you have no idea what you are ranting about.
H/T: Lulu @ Canadian Cynic