![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Feminism gives you cancer!
I found this in this morning's Guardian. Just posting so I can keep a copy, but I know some of my friends will like this :-)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,2044435,00.html
It's all feminism's fault (again)
The newspapers have been telling us that equality makes us ill. We've heard it all before, says Zoe Williams
Zoe Williams
Wednesday March 28, 2007
Just this last Monday, a new report from Sweden found that gender equality in a household brings with it an increased risk of illness and disability. That's right, any household where men and women co-exist on a happy, equal par is apparently cursed.
The British newspapers that ran this as a news story ("Why feminism 'could be bad for your health"', was the Daily Mail headline) didn't provide any statistics to support this theory, which had me pondering just what "a strong link" (as The Independent put it) actually is. How much more likely is one to be disabled, for instance, if one hails from an equal household? Is equality a prime factor here, or is it simply that people with managerial jobs - male and female - work harder and drink more and go to bed later than people without? Sadly, the only number provided in most of the coverage was that the study was conducted "across Sweden's 290 municipalities". Gosh, that's a lot of municipalities, I guess we're supposed to think. They must be right, having studied as many as all that.
Of course, feminism has been blamed for all manner of social ills over the decades. For ages now, for instance, the argument has been bandied around that feminism gives you cancer. Sounds unlikely? Well, let me walk you through the theory. Having children later - which is what happens if you are a feminist and you work - makes you more likely to get breast cancer. Not having children at all - which is what happens if you are a feminist and it's all about you rather than nurturing - makes you more likely to get breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Drinking and smoking - which is what happens if you are a feminist and you are financially independent, and you don't do what you're told - gives you throat and mouth cancer; smoking, of course, also gives you lung cancer. Just about the only cancer feminism doesn't give you is prostate cancer, and I wouldn't put it past us feminists to start stealing prostates the way we've already stolen managerial positions and bar stools, would you?
So, there you have it. Feminism causes cancer. According to American journalist, Naomi Schaefer Riley, it also makes you more likely to be raped and murdered because feminists go out in the evenings and drink more than we should. (And, laughably, we think that whatever we wear and wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no. Idiots.)
The writer Doris Lessing has argued that feminists have undermined men, pointlessly humiliating them to the point that their manliness has evaporated. Harvey Mansfield, a Harvard professor and author of the book Manliness, takes this a little further, saying that, in destroying men, feminism has destroyed any chance of a meaningful union between men and women. And rightwing US polemicist Ann Coulter - fearless in the face of her own stupidity - even argued back in 2004 that female emancipation had led to the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. "I think the other point that no one is making about the [Abu Ghraib] abuse photos," she said, "is just the disproportionate number of women involved ... number 1,000,047 on why women shouldn't be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious".
According to the writer Fay Weldon, feminism has also undermined sex - she suggested recently that real women should revert to faking orgasms and praising "their man lavishly afterwards". This does not sound like sex to me. This sounds like training an animal, only not training it to do anything useful. But don't mind me, I'm probably just being a feminist. I also plan to ruin a child's childhood, as well as quash any joy I or others may take in motherhood (according to the journalist Amanda Platell), but only if I haven't already, with my "complacent self-assurance" stored up (via accidental childlessness) "years of heartache and despair".
So, from the top: feminism has destroyed men, women, the happy congress thereof, any joyful union that might once have resulted from that congress, and in the event of accidental union, any chance that it might last. Let's say it lasts long enough to produce offspring, feminism has destroyed our ability to care for and nurture them, destroyed men's desire to hang around and provide for them, destroyed the confidence of this blighted spawn, craving as it does a mother's love, and hereby stored up all the social ills commensurate with creating a child heedlessly, and failing properly to love it. If, however, you chance upon a feminist who hasn't done this, it is because she complacently failed to have children at all, which is a downward spiral for the nation, and, indeed, the race, as well as, naturally, emptying a void into her soul that she will never fill, that will ache with sorrow until her self-induced cancer carries her away. Shucks, I forgot about her getting raped. She's probably been raped, too, and it was all her own fault.
The argument that feminism has undermined masculinity is strange since it suggests that, in order to show strength, men must see weakness manifested all about them; no matter if that weakness is faked or forced or cajoled. It's a bit like Henry VIII demanding incredibly bad tennis from all his tennis chums. It might have made him feel better, but he's not going to get any better at tennis, is he? In this ideological portrait, men cannot handle challenge, do not seek excellence and need to be indulged through lying. It interests, but doesn't surprise me, that the people who most keenly hate women also seem to hate men. As a feminist, might I say that we don't hate men. We believe all humanity to be as capable of greatness as the generosity of its nature and scope of its imagination will allow; this is why we don't pretend to be scared of spiders and/or in the throes of an orgasm, unless we are, genuinely, scared of spiders and/or in the throes of an orgasm.
The rape argument is not an argument. It is a piece of malice. The cancer argument is plain obtuse. Sure, there are elements of affluence and emancipation that are bad for your health. If you will join me in a little topical comment, I bet that black people wouldn't be so likely to get throat cancer if they were all still slaves and couldn't afford alcohol or tobacco. It's not much of an argument for slavery, though, is it? Which brings us neatly to our main point: what, exactly, are these Swedes researching? Even if gender parity increased your risk of illness by a factor of 100%, what do they think would happen - women would all resign our jobs and resume knitting?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,2044435,00.html
It's all feminism's fault (again)
The newspapers have been telling us that equality makes us ill. We've heard it all before, says Zoe Williams
Zoe Williams
Wednesday March 28, 2007
Just this last Monday, a new report from Sweden found that gender equality in a household brings with it an increased risk of illness and disability. That's right, any household where men and women co-exist on a happy, equal par is apparently cursed.
The British newspapers that ran this as a news story ("Why feminism 'could be bad for your health"', was the Daily Mail headline) didn't provide any statistics to support this theory, which had me pondering just what "a strong link" (as The Independent put it) actually is. How much more likely is one to be disabled, for instance, if one hails from an equal household? Is equality a prime factor here, or is it simply that people with managerial jobs - male and female - work harder and drink more and go to bed later than people without? Sadly, the only number provided in most of the coverage was that the study was conducted "across Sweden's 290 municipalities". Gosh, that's a lot of municipalities, I guess we're supposed to think. They must be right, having studied as many as all that.
Of course, feminism has been blamed for all manner of social ills over the decades. For ages now, for instance, the argument has been bandied around that feminism gives you cancer. Sounds unlikely? Well, let me walk you through the theory. Having children later - which is what happens if you are a feminist and you work - makes you more likely to get breast cancer. Not having children at all - which is what happens if you are a feminist and it's all about you rather than nurturing - makes you more likely to get breast cancer and ovarian cancer. Drinking and smoking - which is what happens if you are a feminist and you are financially independent, and you don't do what you're told - gives you throat and mouth cancer; smoking, of course, also gives you lung cancer. Just about the only cancer feminism doesn't give you is prostate cancer, and I wouldn't put it past us feminists to start stealing prostates the way we've already stolen managerial positions and bar stools, would you?
So, there you have it. Feminism causes cancer. According to American journalist, Naomi Schaefer Riley, it also makes you more likely to be raped and murdered because feminists go out in the evenings and drink more than we should. (And, laughably, we think that whatever we wear and wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no. Idiots.)
The writer Doris Lessing has argued that feminists have undermined men, pointlessly humiliating them to the point that their manliness has evaporated. Harvey Mansfield, a Harvard professor and author of the book Manliness, takes this a little further, saying that, in destroying men, feminism has destroyed any chance of a meaningful union between men and women. And rightwing US polemicist Ann Coulter - fearless in the face of her own stupidity - even argued back in 2004 that female emancipation had led to the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. "I think the other point that no one is making about the [Abu Ghraib] abuse photos," she said, "is just the disproportionate number of women involved ... number 1,000,047 on why women shouldn't be in the military. In addition to not being able to carry even a medium-sized backpack, women are too vicious".
According to the writer Fay Weldon, feminism has also undermined sex - she suggested recently that real women should revert to faking orgasms and praising "their man lavishly afterwards". This does not sound like sex to me. This sounds like training an animal, only not training it to do anything useful. But don't mind me, I'm probably just being a feminist. I also plan to ruin a child's childhood, as well as quash any joy I or others may take in motherhood (according to the journalist Amanda Platell), but only if I haven't already, with my "complacent self-assurance" stored up (via accidental childlessness) "years of heartache and despair".
So, from the top: feminism has destroyed men, women, the happy congress thereof, any joyful union that might once have resulted from that congress, and in the event of accidental union, any chance that it might last. Let's say it lasts long enough to produce offspring, feminism has destroyed our ability to care for and nurture them, destroyed men's desire to hang around and provide for them, destroyed the confidence of this blighted spawn, craving as it does a mother's love, and hereby stored up all the social ills commensurate with creating a child heedlessly, and failing properly to love it. If, however, you chance upon a feminist who hasn't done this, it is because she complacently failed to have children at all, which is a downward spiral for the nation, and, indeed, the race, as well as, naturally, emptying a void into her soul that she will never fill, that will ache with sorrow until her self-induced cancer carries her away. Shucks, I forgot about her getting raped. She's probably been raped, too, and it was all her own fault.
The argument that feminism has undermined masculinity is strange since it suggests that, in order to show strength, men must see weakness manifested all about them; no matter if that weakness is faked or forced or cajoled. It's a bit like Henry VIII demanding incredibly bad tennis from all his tennis chums. It might have made him feel better, but he's not going to get any better at tennis, is he? In this ideological portrait, men cannot handle challenge, do not seek excellence and need to be indulged through lying. It interests, but doesn't surprise me, that the people who most keenly hate women also seem to hate men. As a feminist, might I say that we don't hate men. We believe all humanity to be as capable of greatness as the generosity of its nature and scope of its imagination will allow; this is why we don't pretend to be scared of spiders and/or in the throes of an orgasm, unless we are, genuinely, scared of spiders and/or in the throes of an orgasm.
The rape argument is not an argument. It is a piece of malice. The cancer argument is plain obtuse. Sure, there are elements of affluence and emancipation that are bad for your health. If you will join me in a little topical comment, I bet that black people wouldn't be so likely to get throat cancer if they were all still slaves and couldn't afford alcohol or tobacco. It's not much of an argument for slavery, though, is it? Which brings us neatly to our main point: what, exactly, are these Swedes researching? Even if gender parity increased your risk of illness by a factor of 100%, what do they think would happen - women would all resign our jobs and resume knitting?
no subject
Ah yes, my husband and I have such a strong relationship because I am careful to not ask for what I want in it instead choosing to agree with everything he says and does.
no subject
I do enjoy Zoe Williams' columns. She's beautifully snarky and often very on-point.
no subject
no subject
http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/comment/0,,2038974,00.html
no subject
What's your opinion?
no subject
no subject
Risk comes down to likelihood of harm. I've had no reason to do serious research into the risks of pregnancy - it's not a condition I intend to be in, ever - so I don't know the risks of FAS. Maybe it's a major issue that has somehow passed me by - if that's the case, I apologise.
I do know, however, that an occasional alcoholic drink does no harm whatsoever to an adult and indeed has certain health benefits.
So why not risk it? "Because everyone else does it this way" is not an informed argument: it's peer pressure.
no subject
FAS is a serious problem and my husband personally knows three people affected by it but downing a bottle of wine a night is *very* different to having 1/2 glass of wine once a month at someone's wedding or your birthday.
I suppose for me, this will just allow the same people who tell me not to lift up my own handbag, not to eat pineapple (WTF?) and generally believe that me getting pregnant stops me being able to make adult decisions for myself even more ammo. And all of this is not based on research but just yet another cheap way for the government to claim it's tackling the serious drink culture we have in the UK.
no subject
All just MHO, of course. :D
no subject
Huh. I didn't know that. Shows how long it's been since I went out for a drink, doesn't it?
On the alcopops thing - a lot of drinks I see on the supermarket shelves do seem to list the units on the bottles now. I know it's not compulsory (and likely should be) but it does seem to be happening.
Thanks for the info. I'm learning...
no subject
I'm sure by posting this, I'm going to seem like a complete alcoholic and I'm sure it'll start a healthy debate where people will disagree with me but the new 'guidelines' the government are thinking of introducing saying that zero alcohol is the only acceptable amount of alcohol to drink during pregnancy are just dumb IMO.
Why?
1.) The definitive studies have suggested that small amounts of alcohol are fine. As always, moderation and a bit of common sense is the key.
2.) A whole generation of people (you and I in fact) who's mothers drank in their pregnancies because their doctors often told them it was positively good to have a stout or a Guinness have turned out just fine.
3.) The purpose of the new guidelines is to 'stop binge drinking'. I'm sorry - if you're drinking a lot of alcohol throughout your pregnancy, then being told zero units rather than 1 or 2, once or twice a week isn't really going to change your habits and you're not likely to be the sort of person that pays much attention to guidelines anyway.
4.) Women who did have a few drinks before they knew they were pregnant will at the very least get stressed and worried and at the worst, possibly opt for a therapeutic abortion of a healthy and wanted baby.
5.) It will allow already far-too-busy-bodies to further victimise women (and yes, this includes me) who indulge in a 1/4 glass of wine once or twice a month at special occasions in their second and third trimester.
Overall - I just feel a bit 'huh?!?!?'.
Oi Tony! Stop pfaffing around fine-tuning guidelines that are only going to affect those women who already know all the basics on how to have a healthy pregnancy and start spending your time helping those mums in deprived and dangerous situations who can't or don't know how to ask for help to bring their little ones safely into the world!
Just my thoughts.
I added afterwards that what actually bugs me most is the first point - the guidelines are not being based on the research but on the usual political posturing to win the vote.
And I mean, it's the first time that the government has presented rubbish as facts to get what they want, isn't it?!?!?!?!? :(
no subject
Not.
no subject
Kinde, Kirche und Kuche = "and they all lived happily ever after"
Hell, I didn't believe that as a starry-eyed five year old; I'm certainly not gonna fall for that crap now.
Being a mom is freaking hard work! I watched my mum ruin her health to raise two daughters; I have nothing but admiration for anyone with the necessary dedication. Me, I'm too selfish for that.