posted by
sevenhelz at 08:22am on 06/08/2008
Milky Pink said... 'Yet another tantrum of irresponsible individuals wanting the government to bail them out and teach their children. I could say more about the type of woman who gets pregnant despite the squalled conditions (not people who get raped but the many who go about it carelessly), which is really cruel to the child, but I doubt "pro-women" sites would appreciate that. Rather, lets divert to other issues rather than the ones that don't blame us. There was some concern of the children, and that's fine, but a lot of it was whining.'
So, let's take that piece by piece, shall we?
First of all, the assumption is that the woman on stage has children of her own. That's never been stated; there's nothing wrong with standing up for other people's rights.
Second, irresponsible individuals? Ah, of course, having sex is irresponsible. Refusing to teach the general population about safe sex (by the easiest means; that is, in high schools) and pushing the idea of abstinence rather than contraception (or, indeed, the choice to enjoy sex and *not* have children) in a culture that continually sexualises and objectifies people of younger ages, mostly female; very responsible.
Third: wanting the government to bail them out... erm, not necessarily. Asking for decent wages and benefits from working? Not wanting to be bailed out, just wanting to be treated like a decent human being. Asking for benefits from the state, or help with childcare, when otherwise prevented from working? I guess you could call that asking to be bailed out - from a helpless situation which may not be your fault. The kind of situation a decent government should be trying to avoid. Certainly point 2 adds hugely to the number of people in this difficult situation.
Fourth: wanting the government to... teach their children. Um, yes. Isn't that one of the things civilised governments do? Provide decent education for all?
Fifth: I could say more about the type of woman who gets pregnant despite the squalled conditions but not about the type of man who gets a woman pregnant despite the squalled conditions, and wow, am I glad to know that there's just one type of woman that does such an irresponsible thing, that should make them easier to spot, right? Then we can happily devalue everything individual and everything good about them and help them blame their problems on themselves instead of the society which never showed them how not to get pregnant, how not to be with abusers, how to actually get themselves into that nice middle-class ignorant-of-poverty state you were born into. Hurrah!
Sixth: that is, the many who go about it carelessly. Hell, see all my points above.
Seventh: which is really cruel to the child as against seeing this poverty-stricken, overcrowded community and doing nothing to help nor change.
Eighth: I doubt "pro-women" sites would appreciate that. 'Scuse me, what's not pro-women about wanting fair pay for fair work, access to education and contraception and choice for women? Why the quotation marks? And hell, you've already trolled us, go ahead, rip it all apart... if you can.
Ninth: lets divert to other issues rather than the ones that don't blame us. As a grammatical aside here, "let's" includes an apostrophe. Also, I have no idea what the subject of this sentence is. Are you trying to say that the women on this site are sidestepping an issue? Because I'm fairly certain they're the ones who brought up an issue in the first place, and haven't had chance to respond to your oh-so-clever "rebuttal" yet.
and let me just mention here, as another grammatical aside, that concern can be for something or someone, but not of them.
Tenth: a lot of it was whining. Actually, a lot of it was shouting. We are angry, justifiably angry, at a world that does not offer choice, freedom, education, equal pay for equal work, justice, or fair treatment, but does offer hypocrisy and a whole load of blame. Fuck you, anonymous asshole.
as jexxus said, i can't tell the difference between trolls and idiots anymore.
can has cookie?
The difference wasn't that huge to begin with.
can has cookie?
can has cookie?
can has cookie?