The recent shooting at the Colorado Springs abortion facility Planned Parenthood has left feminists wailing and stamping their feet with typical, toddler-esque demands that reflect their principle concept of reality: make the bad people go away, Daddy! My purpose today is not to discuss abortion or vigilante justice or what constitutes a person, but rather to examine the feminist reaction to the shooting, and consider that in lieu of their own behavior towards groups they don’t like. I think it’s worth noting that the mindset of people who pick up guns and shoot abortion providers is not hard to understand: they genuinely, truly believe that abortion is murder, and they are engaged in stopping mass murder.
Let’s take a moment here and examine the charge that anyone who opposes abortion is automatically a misogynist. I think this charge is garbage, for two reasons: first, half (perhaps even more than half) the babies being aborted are girls. Fighting to protect the lives of unborn girls who will become women is, by definition, not misogyny. You may not agree that unborn humans are, in fact, human, but that doesn’t matter: the people who think life begins at conception do, and that is the perspective we are considering. Second, if men were the ones who got pregnant, and the ones having abortions, I sincerely doubt the abortion opposition would care. They are opposing what they see as outright murder of the person in utero, not the gender of the person committing murder.
Screaming misogyny is just another way feminists try to shut down the conversation over abortion, because they get twitchy as hell over the definition of ‘human’. I personally think that life begins with sentience. Once there is an “I” present, a human being is present, and I oppose abortion for all reasons beyond that point. No exceptions. I also think abortion should essentially be free for the first 8 weeks, when there is slim to no chance of sentience. That is how most socialized medical systems deal with the issue, and it’s in my comfort zone, although I am fully prepared to consider reasoned, scientific arguments for why that is wrong. Feminists hate this conversation, because they reality is they don’t fucking care if the baby is a human or not, they want the right to kill up to the very moment of birth, and possibly even beyond. Even feminists know that makes them sound like psychopaths, which they very likely meet the clinical definition of, when it comes to abortion.
All that aside, I’m more interested in their response to things like the Colorado Springs shootings, and what they would like to see happen in response. The sane response, in my opinion, is this: abortion is a legal procedure in the US (like the death penalty), and the correct avenue to challenge that is through the courts of law, which is precisely what is underway. Given that shootings do occur, as does arson, vandalism and other criminal acts designed to impede clinics’ right to provide legal services, there is an impetus for the government to provide armed security for these facilities, as long as they remain legal. Armed security. Even though I oppose abortion after sentience, I understand that killing a sentient human being is currently legal, and shooting up clinics is not the answer. Provide security until we have resolved this matter through the courts.
I have yet to find a feminist writer who agrees. In their minds, armed security is not the answer, censorship is. Let’s take the always lucid Jessica Valenti, for example:
Words matter. When we dehumanize people – when we call them demons, monsters, and murderers – we make it easier for others to do them harm. Let’s not pretend that we don’t know that.
Oh, indeed, Valenti, let’s not. So when you call men rapists, monsters, demons – does that count as speech that matters? Is that speech that dehumanizes? Is that speech that makes it easier for others to do men harm? Or is this just one more thing that applies to women who share feminist beliefs, because equality, amirite? I’m not saying I agree with this sentiment (I don’t), but I am asking if Valenti considers her own hateful words against men to fall under this same rubric. Any guesses?
How we talk about abortion matters. We know it, and anti-choice extremists and politicians know it. Anti-abortion activists are not making WANTED posters or revealing doctor’s addresses for fun. They’re doing it to harass and intimidate, and they’re doing it knowing the long history of violent fanatics using their rhetoric to justify crimes against providers and clinics.
And are social justice warriors and feminists posting pictures of my home, and images of my children, and the homes and children of others with whom they disagree doing it for fun? Or is it a similar tactic to intimidate, harass and invite fanatics to do harm to our children, families and homes? Remember this fanatic who executed two people on live television over perceived racial slights?
Remember him, Jessica? Don’t give me any crap about how feminists/social progressives have no history of violence or fanaticism. Do the same standards apply to you are your group? Do they? Or are you just carrying on your own long, hateful tradition of using rhetoric to demonize innocent men you’ve never met and who have done no harm to a single person in the entire course of their lives?
Do we really think that there are no consequences to claiming that abortion is murder, or that Planned Parenthood is an organization of money-hungry monsters selling baby parts?
And do you really think there are no consequences to claiming that a severely disturbed individual who had absolutely no connection of any kind to men’s rights groups, who murdered more men than women in an apparently ‘misogynist’ attack, was a spokesperson for every human being who cares about the well-being of men and boys? Do you think your friend Marcotte railing that each and every person who care about men and boys is a woman-hating monster has no consequences? Do you think that Marcotte creating a list of women who oppose feminism, and declaring them to be ‘working tirelessly against women’s rights’ (an outright lie) doesn’t encourage violent radicals in your midst to try actual harm?
Violent radicals are welcome to give it a shot, when it comes to me. But I speak for me. There are others in the MHRM who are not so confident, bold or well-trained. I can take a tweet like this one, and laugh at it:
Is George so blinded with his hateful worldview that he fails to see simple, obvious reality, or is he just throwing as much mud as possible, in the hopes that something will stick? Personally, it makes no difference to me. Bring it George, and you will find out just how vehemently and aggressively me and my ‘lardass’ will respond. I can and will provide my own security. Valenti, on the other hand, calls for censorship:
We must demand that the violent radical language and lies about abortion stop.
Okay. Let’s also demand that the violent language and lies about men stop, too. Oh, but that would put you out of a job, whining about your papercuts and the ‘jingle-bell clusterfuck of Christmas’, wouldn’t it? It would mean you could no longer boldly call all men rapists, and demand they step in to help damsels in distress, even at the cost of their own safety. It would mean you could no longer scream misogyny at the slightest male glance, even while weeping feminist tears over the fact that men don’t notice you anymore (likely because you’re a miserable cunt, dear, not because you’re old). It would mean your entire vaudeville act would collapse, because it’s based on almost the same lies as anti-abortion rhetoric.
The anti-abortion crowd at least has the laws of biology on its side. This is not a fetus. It is not a ‘clump of cells’. It is not a ‘parasite’. She is a human being who will survive, with medical care, because her mother decided she was allowed to live. It is currently legal to kill this baby in utero.
At least have the moral courage to say what you want: you have no shame in admitting you killed two of your three children, so why not just go the full length of the field? Feminists want to give women the power to decide who lives and who dies, based on nothing more robust than how the mother feels.
Can you think of any rhetoric more violent than that?
If we’re going to ban lies about abortion, let’s start there. Abortion, especially after the first trimester, is killing a human being. If you think there are good reasons that women should be able to do that, then state them. Argue your position. Can you do that without travelling back in your mind to the two children you admit you killed? Does that make you feel guilty, Jessica? Like a horrible human being?
Maybe it should.
You might be able to write comforting words to take away the sting of what you have done, but I suspect you will never recover from the lies feminism told you, and the lies you tell others. It’s not hard to understand why you did it. In your own words:
Because of hate, because of lies, and because words matter.
Or keep lying.
That is your right.
Lots of love,