“I am acutely conscious of the fact that for the State to order a woman to have a termination where it appears that she doesn’t want it is an immense intrusion,” “I have to operate in [her] best interests, not on society’s views of termination.”
Right, so it’s in the best interests of the woman to force the abortion on her? I’ve only looked through a few articles about this story and am really curious as to what British law allows such an order? From the Fox News article:
“She has been described as being in her 20s and is in the care of an NHS trust, as part of the country’s National Health Service. The woman’s mother, a former midwife, opposes the abortion procedure and told the court that she could take care of the child with the support from the daughter, Sky News reported. A social worker who works with the woman also said the pregnancy should not be terminated.”
“She added that having a child would be more traumatic for the woman than aborting it, as she wouldn’t be able to take care of the child due to the risk posed by her mental health problems and it would have to be put in a foster care.”
So, an abortion at 22 weeks is going to be less traumatic to her than giving the child up for adoption/having family take care of the kid? All because of her mental capacity? Here are a few more quotes from our esteemed judge:
“Pregnancy, although real to her, doesn’t have a baby outside her body she can touch,”
“would suffer greater trauma from having a baby removed,”
“It would at that stage be a real baby.”
Wait, is she saying that the baby isn’t real until born? The pregnancy is “real to her” as if it could be something else other than what is growing in her body? Would this woman never be allowed to see her child while in foster care? Well, it seems that the child will actually be removed from this world now. Here’s some basic info on when Justice Nathalie Lieven achieved her position for anyone who is curious.
Mr. Allen claims that the study found “nearly no impact on general life satisfaction” and also quotes only a single part of the research article: “supporting the widely held notion from popular science that boys are more affected than girls by the absence of their fathers.” I did something that most people clicking on this clickbait article probably did not do and actually decided to read some of the study. Here’s the Abstract:
“Single parenthood is increasingly common in Western societies but only little is known about its long-term effects. We therefore studied life satisfaction among 641 individuals (ages 18±66 years) who spent their entire childhood with a single mother, 1539 individuals who spent part of their childhood with both parents but then experienced parental separation, and 21,943 individuals who grew up with both parents. Individuals who grew up with a single mother for their entire childhood and to a lesser degree also individuals who experienced parental separation showed a small but persistent decrease in life satisfaction into old age (emphasis mine) controlling childhood socio-economic status. This decrease was partly mediated by worse adulthood living conditions related to socio-economic and educational success, physical health, social integration, and romantic relationship outcomes. No moderation by age, gender, and societal system where the childhood was spent (i.e. western oriented FRG or socialist GDR) was found.”
It seems pretty apparent from the beginning that Mr. Allen misrepresents what the research article delves into but let’s through a little more of it. The study states that their are three main methods in which being raised by single mothers affects children in the long term: “less effective guardianship“, a “generally lower socioeconomic status“, and the “missing-father hypothesis. ” This study interestingly took data from families in the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) and the former German Democratic Republic (GDR) to account for vastly differing variables. The study goes onto describe how the data was sampled, variables considered, and how to analyze “life satisfaction.” The paper described how parents being divorced for the child’s entire life, separated part of the time, and how parents who never separated affected the future happiness of the child.
Here are a few good quotes from page 10:
“However, the differences in general life satisfaction between respondents who lived with both parents for their first 15 years of life and either group of respondents reared by a single mother remained significant in all models, even when all adulthood life circumstances were controlled for.”
“This is the first study to show that growing up with a single mother is related to a stable although modest reduction in general life satisfaction across the adult life-span until old age when adjusting for poor childhood SES”
From page 12:
“The reduction in adulthood life satisfaction was partially mediated by the individuals’ living conditions, including their lower socio-economic status and educational level, lower physical health status, and poor social integration and romantic success in adulthood.”
It seems that economic factors partially account for lower happiness, but I don’t really think that it adds to the argument that being a single parent is a better option.
The last tidbit that I’ll take from the study is on page 13:
“In conclusion, the present study shows that growing up with a single mother in particular if the father is absent for the entire childhood predicts a small but stable decrease in life satisfaction across adulthood that is partly explained by lower socio-economic status and educational achievement, inferior physical health, poor social integration, and lower likelihood of romantic relationship success in adulthood. Contrary to expectations this effect was not moderated by sex, age, or the societal system in which the childhood was spent.”
I wonder if Mr. Allen is intentionally lying and misrepresenting the report or if he didn’t read past the first few pages? The author at CNN goes on to cite another “study“, but this one isn’t really a study. From page 3 of 4 of this very colorful paper:
“Given the diversity of families within these groups, further analysis is needed before we can suggest that living in a single parent household has a positive impact on a child’s wellbeing.”
OK then, so it’s not a study but rather just a regurgitation of a dataset with no analysis. It has lots of graphs though…
Our low-testosterone author goes on to state how being raised by a single mother made him the adult that he is today though. Mr. Allen received an “Emersonian amount of self-reliance”, figured out how to apply to a college, and some other stuff that lots of people figure out how to do on their own as well. I suppose that I’m not as “class-conscious” as our male feminist author. I don’t think that I’m going to take Mr. Allen’s lead and praise all single mothers; he makes them all sound like their heroes who never, ever do anything wrong to their children (or their ex). If you want to get one last laugh out of this guy, be sure to read his article on “Why Jeanette Rankin should be on the $10 bill.” Just for reference, she was the only member of Congress to vote against the declaration of war against Japan in 1941.
I recently stumbled across two very insightful videos that she some light on where Western Civilization is at and where it may end up in the near future. The two videos that I’m embedding in this post are simply amazing and as with many such posts there is very little that I could add to the commentary. How should I even feel about what is displayed in the following videos? Sad? Angry? Confused? Maybe I should just get a good laugh out of this…
The first video is rather short:
The second video has a very unexpected ending. This one is worth watching all of the way through:
The previous channel that hosted the video was deleted but I managed to find another copy:
“Jonathan Yaniv (born 12 June 1987) is a man from Surrey, BC, who says he is a tranny but makes no effort to look like anything other than a fat incel.
When incel Jonathan was studying CompSci at Kwantlen Polytechnic University he tried to create a ‘National Sex Day 2008‘ (archive). Jonathan’s idea was that with 1 million people taking part he could at last lose his sperginity.
Jonathan trooned out around 2017 by changing his name to Jonathan ‘Jessica’ Yaniv.
He says he joined a women’s gym to get away from the filthy immigrants, and is apparently racist as fuck, despite being a minority (Jew) himself.”
“Jonathan Yaniv is a trans-identified male involved in the tech industry and has been on a litigious campaign against women in BC. He currently has sixteen open lawsuits against women for refusing to wax his testicles on the basis of “gender discrimination”.
On December 10, Yaniv told Langley Township Council he was personally responsible for the suspension of prominent Canadian feminist blogger Meghan Murphy from Twitter, as well as being responsible for new policy changes on Twitter and WordPress, which have banned women and deleted entire blogs on the basis of punitive action for “misgendering” (correctly identifying sex).”
Without further ado, let’s take a look at what this brilliant man/woman/xe/zir has posted publicly on the Internet:
It’s common for women to take selfies while in a public restroom right?
Yeah, those were perfectly normal questions for a woman to ask right? Maybe there needs to be a wall on the northern U.S. border? Perhaps Yaniv will attempt to strike down my puny little blog as well. Yaniv seems to be craving for attention so I figure why not give him just a little bit more, right?
I don’t feel much of a need to elaborate on this video about South Africa. It’s interesting that even if you’re logged onto your Google account YouTube still asks if you want to view the video (and will not allow you to share it).
“‘Shouldn’t you have transsexual in the show? No. No, I don’t think we should,’ Razek said. ‘Well, why not? Because the show is a fantasy. It’s a 42-minute entertainment special. That’s what it is,’ he said.”
The Twitter remarks apologizing to leftists did not appease the progressives though. There is no purpose in apologizing to such individuals.
I just love reading what passes for news stories as I go through Yahoo! and its various clickbait articles. The first one is by Ja’han Jones of the Puffington Host entitled: “After Brett Kavanaugh’s Confirmation, One Word Ignited A Massive Debate About Feminism.” The article is about a poem called “Scream” (what an apt description of how progressives deal with politics) which someone edited after the left smeared Justice Kavanaugh with accusations that have no corroborating evidence or basis. Here’s the wonderful poem:
From the PuffHost article:
“Kaur’s followers alerted her to the alteration, which ignited a debate about how those with privilege adapt the language of resistance to their preferred narrative.
Kaur told HuffPost this week that the very invisibility her poem was intended to combat ended up being reinforced when her work was repurposed and popularized.”
I’m not really certain what is meant by “invisibility” but does it really matter what a straight, white male like myself thinks to the denizens of the Puffington Host? Let’s get some more context from the author of the poem, Jasmin Kaur:
“When you write specifically to counter your feelings of invisibility and smallness within a white supremacist society,“
“it’s disconcerting to see white people change your words to suit their own immediate needs.”
“I understand the sentiment of people needing to vote within the current political climate,”
“I also recognize all the ways that voting has been (and still is) inaccessible to many communities of colour.”
I wonder how voting is inaccessible to “communities of color“? The article never specifies and no evidence is presented. Perhaps the author or Ms. Kaur think that non-citizens should be able to vote? Anyway, back to the article:
“In giving Sikh women permission to scream, Kaur was acknowledging the righteousness of their anger without demanding they find a solution for it. She was affirming their entitlement to anger for their own purpose — intimate, painful, perhaps cathartic anger, rather than anger used solely in service of others.
The appropriation of Kaur’s words, then, invigorated conversation about allyship, political responsibility and who ought to be tasked with reversing America’s racist and sexist history.”
Who took away Ms. Kaur’s permission to talk? Who said that Mr. Kaur couldn’t be angry? What in the hell is “allyship“? I suppose that I’m just too logical damn racist to understand and properly answer any of my foolish questions. Let’s read some more hilarity from this article:
“There was a palatable air of hopelessness among the discourse surrounding Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation. Those who thought numerous corroborated claims of sexual assault levied against Kavanaugh would stifle his elevation to the court were stunned — albeit probably not shocked — when conservative senators cast the allegations aside and confirmed him anyway.”
“On Wednesday, Facebook user Jason Stovetop Littlejohn shared a video of the ensuing argument, reportedly outside the Sahara Deli in Flatbush, N.Y. ‘Meet Cornerstore Caroline. White Woman calls police on a kid, saying he sexually assaulted her,’he wrote. ‘As I walked up I noticed the argument, apparently, the kid brushed up against her and she said he touched her and decided to call police on a nine-year-old child. As you can see the kid is crying and the mom is upset.”
It just gets better and better:
“The New York City Police Department tells Yahoo Lifestyle that no related complaint reports are filed, although according to Pix11, officers did respond after the crowd had dispersed. Yahoo Lifestyle could not reach a representative of Sahara Deli for comment; however, the owner told Pix11: ‘The woman has a history of being unwell.’ Heavy also reported that Klein, of Missouri, studied sociology at the University of Missouri and is a former actress and performer.”
Oh, a sociology major huh? That explains something I suppose. I thought that progressives wanted everyone to “believe women” and “believe survivors“? Not if it doesn’t fit the narrative I suppose and only when it’s politically expedient. I wonder how a typical leftist would really like it if they could be falsely convicted of a crime with zero evidence? Derp, “Kavanaugh was in a job interview, not a criminal trial.” I wonder how many regressives would like such an argument used against themselves?