Honey, I only hit you because I love fetuses!
Garth George, columnist for The New Zealand Herald, says that the main cause of violence against women is abortion. That and equality - but I'll get to that in a second.
I have said it before and I say it again: The number one cause of abuse against women and children is abortion.
George's argument is basically that by having abortions, women have opened the door to violence, that we "reap what we have sown." Charming. But it's not long before George's real gripe come to light - it's not just women's reproductive rights that irks him, it's the fact that women have rights at all.
The second major cause of violence against women and children is the belief held by too many women that they should not just be equal to men but, in all but physical appurtenances, are the same....The assumption by so many women of the roles traditionally exclusive to men has left many men in confusion, frustration and anxiety, and more are lashing out because they feel their maleness is under threat.
What's funny is that I actually don't doubt that there's some truth to that - it's called backlash, motherfucker. But you have to love that George writes this as if violence is a reasonable response to women's social and political gains.
If you're feeling feisty, you can email George here.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: NZ columnist: Women would stop getting beaten if they'd just stop having abortions.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10710
I am shocked to see that he is a religious man.
Shocked.
Oh, but you see his opinions don't actually reflect the positions of his religion at all. Bringing his religion into play is unfair since not ALL people in his religion agree! It's the same as racism! (/sarcasm)
Indeed. There wasn't just YESTERDAY a show on TBN where a priest made fun of how women can't read maps. It's also not the religious Christians, Jews and Muslims who have stringent laws for female modesty and implore men to keep their wives home with as many children as possible. That a religious man might be apologetic in matters of domestic violence comes as a real bummer.
Crikey!
I love his "I'm not sexist, I LOVE women!...as long as they don't step out of bounds" disclaimer at the end there.
Sigh. Adults have been railing against the decline of society and growing immorality for hundreds of years. When exactly *was* the world perfect, again? And of course religious people have never been violent in the history of human existence. I got into this argument with an older gentleman on the bus the morning after the election. As soon as I mentioned the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the slave trade, he didn't really have much of a leg to stand on and that part of the conversation was pretty much over. So then he went back to complaining about our new socialist President.
His logic is astounding. I think it made my eyes cross a little...
This guy threatens women's rights, and I, a woman, feel like kicking him in the balls. Wow! He is so right!
The stupid, it burns!
Why am I not surprised that an abuser found a way to blame the victims?
What else is weird about his article is that, in claiming that violence against women and children is a reaction to what he sees as society's increasing liberalism and moral corruption, he seems to be thinking that violence against women and children is something new. Like, if we could just go back to the good old days when people had stronger morals, we'd also find there less violence against women and children. What days were those?
Maybe there's something that he's aware of that I'm not ... like, maybe in his area there really has been a recent increase in violence against women and children? But it seems like the article is talking specifically about one example and the reaction to that one example.
And then there's the bit at the end where he points out the other causes of violence, like multiculturalism.
He must be a great advocate in giving the Maori the autonomy over NZ back.
No?
I'm shocked.
Okay, I have emailed him, pointing out the complete illogic of his position.
I wonder if he's aware that women are at highest risk for abuse when they are PREGNANT. What a jerk.
I want to point out we have a problem with sexism here in the USA. yesterday's Washington Post ran a headline: "Palin Does Georgia"
Now it seems to me that this is a massive issue here!
This NZ guy is a whack job, sure. easy. but when WaPo can get away with "Palin Does Georgia" and Feministing is silent?? I hope you folks
don't subscribe to the same sort of "if you are a Red women then you get what u deserve" thinking. if so then there is no diff btw you and NZ whack job!
I especially liked this post by Femisex.com...
"What the Washington Post Dishes up to readers would be sexual harassment if it was uttered in its newsroom"
They took this a step further and reported that the Post would NOT tolerate such talk in their newsroom!
link: http://www.femisex.com/content/what-washington-post-dishes-readers-would-be-sexual-harassment-if-it-was-uttered-its-newsroo
Why are you posting this on every single thread here?
I would have to say, "silent" is one word I would definitely NOT use to describe this site. Whatever other complaints you may come up with, there is minimal shutting up around here. :)
Brilliant response, Jill, but for it's indelible idiocy. I mean, really, this site ran a series called Palin Sexism Watch, so what leg do you have to stand on?
Right. None.
I've seen this before, though... you know, reactionaries who'd rather rail against something they know nothing about than actually engaging with the content.
Good job.
i found much on Feministing to object to in the coverage of Palin--e.g., the site writers perpetuating the myth of her charging rape victims, neiman marxist photos of Palin.. i could go on. but won't.
now i am glad that this site did a sexist watch on Palin, but does that mean i can't send readers to other links or encourgage/challenge the site to cover Palin Porno at Wapo? no of course not. (it also doesn't mean i can't call out sexist work/comments on Feministing!)
should i be called an idiot for doing so?? in Mean Girl town, but why not move past that?
Feminists have a lot of work to do now in overcoming their own sexist issues. let's not name call and let's look long and hard in the mirror.
also Daily Beast has done excellent coverage of sexism agasint Palin and Hillary. (see link below!)
here is that Link:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-30/piling-on-palin-hating-on-hillary/
Hey guys, can Mean Girl town be a meme? It has a nice ring to it.
naw, let's empty that place out!:-)
didn't know about community blog. and will check it out. i thought that i was expanding on the press sexist theme here. u know one item leads to antoher and folks who read a story about press sexism might like another. u know..if i liked this movie, article, song, etc. then go here. seems like u'd hit the demographic better.
But... remember gals - a challenge from another women must not be met w spit and horror or we fail!
I assume you e-mailed this to the staff BEFORE posting it everywhere and accusing everyone here of being feminists only to women we like.
Right?
Or do you assume that everyone here is omnipotent and always gets every single relevant story the second it occurs? Apparently, miss one story about Sarah Palin and we're all evil- never mind the Palin sexism watch that this site did a splendid job of covering. You seem to assume that the Palin story trumps every other feminist/sexist story and thus, not reporting it is the greatest injustice ever done to female kind.
Jill, if you want to send us a post idea you should do it here. And I don't think accusing the site of being "silent" is particularly useful, nor is it right to insinuate that we don't cover sexism against conservative women (remember our Sarah Palin sexism watch?). Again, we all LOVE getting post ideas - but I'd just ask that you please send them to us via email.
is this a policy of the site? no links to other stories?? that seems odd to me. I find out about all sorts of good stuff via links to other sites posted by readers. That's how i came across Daily Beast and Femisex and Lynnett Long etc. I was happy for the tips!!
every site has a strong suit ot its own.why not spread the word? Feministing has excellent traffic, you can be generous-yes? women can benefit from hearing things that challenge them, yes? That is why I go to both CNN and Fox!!
readers want a lot of people to see what they think and like, that is why they post on Board rather than contacting only you.
I don't think anyone is objecting to your spreading the word on this story, but this site has a few other ways of going about it.
The first is contacting Jessica via email and alerting her to the story so that she can investigate and write a post if she wishes.
The second is writing up your own post and putting it in the community blog. That still gets a fair amount of traffic and really great posts are featured on the main page.
The fact that you're bringing up a different story in the comments to another post tend to have the feeling of "this story isn't interesting enough, let's talk about X story instead." The comments page is for discussing the original post, not for bringing up entirely different stories.
You're being reacted to so negatively because many "concern trolls" come to this site and bring up non-sequiturs in the comments about "why don't you talk about men's rights, Christian's rights, etc. These people just want to stir up controversy and are rightfully called out on it. This is what it appeared you were doing with your original comment. If not, again, there are other ways to get your story to Feministing readers.
I don't know why anyone bothers with jillb. Every time she comes on here it's "Sarah Palin !11! FemiSex !11! You're all mean!" She did the same thing a few months ago.
Mmmmhmmmm.
That's why, as societies get more egalitarian in regards to gender, violence against women DROPS.
Is it opposite day, Mr. George?
Wow. I adore opinions that are in no way based on any facts or evidence. Previous posters have already brought up so many things he forgot: pregnant women being more likely to be abused, more equal societies being more peaceful societies and the absence of the "good old days".
I took a Violence in Medieval History class and wife beating was probably more common "back in the day". Women stayed at home and listened to their husbands, bore 10 children each, and they were still subject to brutal force. At certain points in time, men could even beat each others wives, just in case the job wasn't being done at home!
I can't really argue with his comments on backlash, L'ecole Polytechnique is an obvious example of a man lashing out violently at women entering "male" spaces. But instead of seeing it as a problem, our wonderful author here essentially just tells women to get back in the kitchen. Original.
:Breathes into paper bag:
Anyone know who else I can email about this piece of shit? Because I'm not really satisfied with complaining to the writer himself.
Actually tons of the "Preserving Marriage" bloggers are all up on the bandwagon of how NZ's "feminist agenda" and "homosexual agenda" are ruining the country, so if you feel the need to address even more of this idiocy, check out this:
http://jennifer-roback-morse.blogspot.com/2008/12/new-zealand-study-examines-abortion-and.html
The blog frightens me, so I'd love to see someone eloquent take it on :)
Apologies to Feministing & its readership if urls aren't allowed.
you can go here to e-mail the news desk directly.
...i am at a loss for words. i think that is the weakest piece of intellectual reasoning i have seen in weeks, and the fact that it was actually published by the news media makes my head hurt.
btw i love how he manages to sneak in that crap about the crumbling of the traditional family unit...god forbid we allow people to assemble families that look different from the cozy heteronormative nuclear family, or all manner of carnage will ensue. as demented as most traditionalist rhetoric is it at least tends to make sense on a superficial level...but this? i could never figure out how they make the leap from "change in family unit" to "societal chaos." any thoughts on that?
Ah, sexism. Nowhere else does the logic "they will attack you simply for wanting the freedom to be what you want to be" lead to "therefore you shouldn't be free." Everywhere *else* in wingnut land, that logic leads to "therefore you should kill them all now."
Doesn't this guy's logic sound *exactly* like "Men hate women for their freedoms?" Doesn't this imply in wingnut land that we should pre-emptively strike against men, killing large numbers of them to prevent them from committing terrorist attacks against women?
Personally I am in favor of the policy of negotiating with your enemies and trying to find common ground, ways that you can help them without harming your own freedom, etc. But the kind of people who agreed with the Iraq War because we *should* bomb those brown people for even thinking about attacking us are the same ones who believe that women should keep our heads down and behave submissively to avoid being attacked by men. Uh, isn't that appeasement, guys? Aren't you opposed to appeasement? Don't you like to point out that it doesn't work?
If women thought about men the way men apparently think about women, the rate of women murdering men wouldn't be the tiny, tiny fraction of the rate of men murdering women that it is. The reason women don't kill men is not that we can't; men *sleep* with us. No matter how big a guy is, when he's asleep a grown adult of either sex who has access to kitchen utensils can kill him. It's that we don't *choose* to. Yet apparently men think it's okay to kill or harm women simply for wanting the same freedoms men have.
"because they feel their maleness is under threat."
Poor Mr. George.
It only hurts for a generation. If you had raised your sons to be equals with their partners, mothers, sisters or daughters, instead of pining for the unearned entitlements that your generation had and partially lost, the world would be fixed by now.
But you didn't. So it's your fault, Mr. George.
So... women take on traditional men's roles... men get confused.... and arrive at the conclusion that what will make things better is beating a woman. Huh.
He really does make his own sex look bad. To think that he would say that the thought process of men is that ridiculous...
Even with his argument, I still arrive at the conclusion that it's the fault of the beater, because they are too simple and stupid to be able to accept a woman taking on his role. So of course his solution is for women to let the poor violent, simple-minded buffoons have their traditional "man roles" back! That way, men don't have to take responsibility for what they are doing! Give this guy a medal.
He does make his own sex look great! Men are big, dumb violent apes that are easily confused and react with nothing other than pure rage when they feel threatened by anything, according to this guy.
But then, they're also the most rational and best able to run the country, the home, and the economy?
Guh.
I gave you a +1 purely for the usage of "guh."
Masculinity: such a fragile thing.
Yeah, I know! I hate that whole line of thinking. I heard this guy on the radio talking about (horrors!) women making more than their husbands and how this can "damage" his masculinity. These guys must be a bunch of hothouse flowers that their masculinity is in such great danger of being damaged all the time. My wife makes more money than me, and I'm glad she does - she's worked hard and she's earned it, plus it helps pay our mortgage!
"because they feel their maleness is under threat."
It always amazes me how fragile masculinity--or in this case, even "maleness"--is to anti-feminists.
Jinx, Attagrrrl.
Another thing: This piece of garbage was written as a response to the Nia Glassie case (according to his first paragraph). How dare he use the torture and murder of a little girl to advance his backwards political agenda?
Wow. Just...wow.
George...why stop there? Why not blame the global financial crisis on womens rights as well? It would make as much logical sense.
"Well, obviously, employed liberal women are taking all the money away from the men that work for it and they're keeping it for themselves because they're mean stupidheads and it's ruining the global eccconnnommmmy!"
If you can picture it ending in a sort of whining, sniveling tone, it'll match up quite nicely with his article's general feel and theme.
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again."
lol, this jackass has said this before?
I don't think anybody else has asked it, so: Why the fuck does this man have a column, and what the fuck kind of editor let this piece go to press?
Oh trust me, everybodyever NZ Herald readers have been asking for years why the man gets to publish his vitriol. He retired, and then came back, presumably because he missed the screeds of fans [/sarcasm]
The NZ Herald seem to figure it's all about balance, and since they have had highly educated, clued-up youngish coloured women writing columns, it's only fair to balance that with the polar opposite. Or something (and I think the columnist I'm thinking of quit, sadly).
I tried writing letters a few times, but seeing contrary opinions dismissed in his next column was just so infuriating, I've given up reading. The comfort is that ONLY people who are like Garth George read Garth George, because he's such a judgemental prick about everyone, not just women. I don't usually take such a lackadaisical attitude to sexism, but his influence isn't enough to bother putting the energy into fighting him. Nice to see him singled out here, though I suspect he'll hold it up as an example of an "extremist feminist response" to score points with his small fanclub.
Excuses, excuses.
In order to make this argument not only must you ignore history, but you have to also turn a blind eye toward all of the regions and cultures (including our own to a lesser degree) that today are still steeped in inequality where men continue not only murder their fellow men, but continue to persecute and brutalize the very women and children whom they claimed they'd protect.
Nope. Not buying it.
this: "There are other reasons for the violence that riddles our society - multiculturalism, greed generating poverty and a growing deprived underclass, television and the internet, for instance. They, too, present insoluble problems."
it's like... hello white male middle-class heteronarmative privilege. this is george. you two should get along really well. and while you're at it, here are some sticks to beat those baby killing uppity women back into their proper place. don't worry i measured them against the thumbs of some really large men.
So, domestic violence didn't exist before feminism? That seems to be the logical line of his argument.
There's some kind of weird trend of saying that the idea of women being equal to men "confuses" men, who don't know how to deal with woah! equal rights. I've heard that argument used for the existence of homosexuality (what?) and now for domestic violence. I'd like to think men are smarter than that.
Yes, violence is always the logical conclusion to everything we deem unacceptable in society...
So domestic violence is acceptable as long as, in his opinion it seems, "she started it" by stepping outta line...
Way to go all school yard...
"I believe that God left creating woman until last because he wanted to make sure he got it right. The result was the creation of the most perfect and wonderful creature in the world."
Really knows how to sweep a girl off her feet, doesn't he?
aside from the awesome logical fallacies in this article, this was by far my favorite part. Women are perfect, amazing creatures ... who don't deserve equal rights? who ask for all of the violence against them for trying to be the best they can be? are women only "perfect and wonderful" if they fit his archaic stereotype?
saying that you love women doesn't make you not a sexist ass.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10546392
"Thus it was with last week's column. I don't know how many letters to the editor there were (some seven were printed), but I do know that of the 35 emails I received last week, 32 were in praise and agreement." -apparently
Because barefoot and pregnant women are never beaten either.
A SHARP INSIGHT INTO THE MIND OF AN ABUSER!
A: Honey, I'm pregnant. Since we're obviously not ready for a baby right now, I've decided to have an abortion.
B: Hey, you don't have to be pregnant, either?! NO FAIR! *punch*
We all know that domestic violence doesn't happen in countries where abortion is illegal.
Now, if only the primary cause of columnist abuse could be stupid, sexist editorial articles.
Seriously, every time minimally functional male writes or says something this monumentally stupid, a large and scary looking person should be dispatched to hunt them down and beat the sexism out of them.
With a stick.
Here is another bullshit rant from Darth George about the evils of abortion:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10478890
It might be interesting for you guys to know that this man is actually very crude in person. He makes sleazy sex jokes all the time and once told a co-worker who was in a bad mood that she "needs a good fuck". Seems weird seeing as he is such a "religious" man...
I'm really glad this is getting some attention on my favourite site!
George: "A nation festering in a moral cesspit"
This New Zealand sounds like my kind of place!
NZer, so felt obliged to write about it to the online eds of NZ Herald:
"I found George's recent opinion piece not only sexist (though I note his condescending shout-out to this reaction) but also incredibly unfounded and poorly researched. His main reference is (the late and admittedly cool lady) Mother Teresa, rather than say statistical evidence showing a correlation between gender equality or abortion rates and domestic violence. This reader can only imagine that this is because the evidence isn't in his favour (statisically, if I'm remembering correctly, pregnancy is when women are most at risk of domestic violence). Why is this even published by the NZ Herald? (seriously, not rhetorical. And is he paid for his articles?)
I realise it's under 'Opinion', but your writers should at least be held to some standard of quality and integrity. Stating that 'the number one cause of abuse against women and children is abortion' would be almost funny, if it wasn't potentially dangerous (domestic abuse is actually quite serious) and not-so-cleverly deceptive, not to mention supported by a national newspaper. And it's not like this piece is particularly surprising from George."
Is using a computer natural?
No.
Not at all.
That's more up conservatives alley.
What a COMPLETE asshole this guy is. He sure looks like a grumpy one, too, from the picture.
Is a Kidney transplant natural? No. And it hasn't been happening a fraction as long as abortion has.
And it cannot be said often enough - nobody has the right to use another person's reproductive system against their will. Nobody, for any purpose. Just like nobody has the right to use your kidney without you consenting to donate it, no matter how much they might need one. It has to be your choice to donate.
Funny how nobody worries about 'natural' when it comes to anything else.
Feminism isn't sexist. Women can't be sexist against men; it requires institutionalized power to enforce a prejudice, which women don't have, which is the entire point of feminism!
Besides, you're confusing movements with individuals. As a movement, feminism is not sexist or prejudiced. As individuals, yes, there are likely some feminists that have harsh opinions about men. Considering how men actually ARE sexist against women, and how they've built a culture of rape, objectification and glass ceilings, it's not the hard to see why.
On top of that, I'm not a feminist, I'm a pro-feminist male. I can't be a part of the movement, I can just be sympathetic with it's goals and support it where I can. And I can say without a moments hesitation that I am prejudiced towards men, and I wouldn't trust the average male farther than I can throw him. That's my personal opinion, and it belongs to me, not to feminists, feminism or pro-feminists.
I don't want to see male columnist beaten because I hate men. I want to see male columnists beaten because I think it'd be hilarious, and I'd really want to see what they'd write the next day. If you have a problem with that, well, tough. Nobody is actually going to beat these columists up, sadly, so you can just calm down and find yourself a nice MRA group who will help you nurture your sexist ways into full-blown assholehood.
I'd call you a feminist. You gotta say that proudly, open_sketch ;-)
Kind of. Look up pandas or wolves or dogs. They don't have the option of aborting, but if one of their young is weak, ill or disabled, or resources are so scarce their lives or the life of their other young are threatened by another mouth to feed, they'll kill or abandon it. If you breed dogs and a puppy is born with a major problem like a missing limb, it often needs to be removed from the mother who may instinctively smother or otherwise kill it. Unfortunately, pandas have not managed to reach an agreement on Roe v. Wade, so they have to wait until after they give birth.
Personally, I'd rather fix the problem before I have to deal with a viable living creature.
This is what I wrote to Mr. George:
It's so interesting that you think that the cause of violence against women is the victims' behavior and hopes and dreams. I always thought violence against women and, in fact, other men, was caused by men.
Maybe men should take a hard look at the way society forces them to isolate themselves, restricts their emotional expression, and makes them believe they should be in charge and be able to take care of everyone even in a failing economy. If men could free themselves from these outdated definitions of masculinity, they could take the hand offered them in friendship by women. They could fully give and receive the love of their family. They could have deep, fulfilling relationships with other men without fear of being gay. They could stop feeling robbed of their rights when other groups achieve rights for themselves. Then they wouldn't feel so alone and disrespected. Then they wouldn't feel the need to reassert their masculinity with violence. They wouldn't feel the need to control women.
But what do I know? I'm merely a woman, someone who like a child just doesn't know what's good for her, right?
Sometimes abortion is natural, google "spontaneous abortion" or "miscarriage" to learn more.
As for medical abortions, (shrug) floride treatments and bypass surgeries aren't natural either, so what?
I love how I always hear conservatives claiming they advocate "personal responsibility", and then what I read from this asshole sounds like "WAAAAHHHHH! It's not MY fault if I'm abusive! It's EVERYBODY ELSE'S fault but my own! Women! Multiculturalism! The internet! Blame THEM, not ME! WAAAAAAHHHHHH!"
RING!... RING!...
The 19th Century called... They want their bigot back.
RING!... RING!...
The 19th Century called... They want their bigot back.
why would this columnist say this. This is a terrible thing to say.
boulder mortgage
colorado springs mortgage
denver mortgage