Category Archives: Hate
This from the Government ‘discipline expert’, Charlie Taylor:
‘Nurseries should identify toddlers showing early signs of aggression so they can be given intensive help from expert staff.’
This apparently on the basis that it’s easier to tackle bad behaviour among young children because habits are ‘less ingrained‘.
‘[Taylor] recommends that from the age of 5, the most disruptive kids could be placed in specialist behaviour centres, in order to stop their behaviour escalating.
“Any child can go off the rails for a bit and what we need is a system that is responsive to them and helps them to get back on the straight and narrow,” said [Taylor], speaking to the Telegraph.’
So there you have it. Some kids are just evil. And if we catch that evil early enough, we might save a few quid on prison later on.
Let’s ignore the suspicious correlation between those toddlers who show signs of demonic possession and, oh I don’t know, parental abuse, neglect, poverty, lack of adequate housing, lack of decent, affordable childcare, lack of support for marginalised parents.
Some kids are just born bad, right?
That these kids will, in general, be ones suffering from at least one if not several of the above, is neither here nor there, I guess.
I give up.
Over at Represent!, they have a post up about Mississippi representatives introducing a personhood bill into the Mississippi legislature, despite the fact that a personhood bill was recently put to the vote in that state and was soundly defeated with 60% of the vote. Just to be clear: that means that the fine people of Mississippi, having been politely asked, do not, no thanks, not at all, no, siree Bob, want to define personhood as arising from the moment of conception. Are we clear? And Republicans (and no I haven’t checked they’re Republicans, but if they’re Democrats, I really do just give up), have taken that resounding no and told voters to go fuck themselves. Are we clear?
And it’s too easy, over on this side of the pond, to just yawn and dismiss this as yet another example (and not even a particularly fine example at that) of bat-shit Republican craziness, given that every word attached to ‘Republican’ these days seems to be either ‘anti-abortion’, ‘anti-contraception’, or ‘trans-vaginal probe’. And that’s just when they’re trying to win the women’s note. Bat-shit crazy.
This would never happen here, though, amirite?
Nadine, Nadine. Aah, lovely Nadine! What would we do without you to remind us that pride comes before an ungainly trip straight on the noggin?
Nadine Dorries, the MP for somewhere clearly bonkers (I can’t remember where, but just look for the large hole in the ozone layer and the hanging smell of over-cooked brains somewhere over the Home Counties ).
I’ll be kind because she may have just forgotten, so I’ll remind her what she was up to last year. She was introducing a bill to parliament which sought to ‘strip charities and medics of their exclusive responsibility for counselling women seeking an abortion‘. In other words, she wanted to stop organisations providing abortions from offering counselling to women thinking about having one. Her stated rationale was was that they had a conflict of interest because they both provided counselling and were paid to provide abortions. She also maintained that ‘alternative’ counselling would prevent women being rushed into abortions that they may later regret.
Those evil abortion pushers, eh? Does anybody seriously believe that charitable abortion providers try and push abortions on women to get a few quid?
No, nobody did believe it, Nadine. Even the other members of parliament (known for a degree of bat-shit craziness themselves) understood that the whole idea was just bat-shit craziness.
Dorries is now a member of a cross-party group of MPs which is now looking to give anti-abortion groups an official role in abortion counselling. As in, yes, exactly what was defeated last time around. This is the same cross-party group, by the way, that MP Diane Abbott walked out of saying she was leaving ‘because the talks were little more than window dressing for the agenda of “Tea Party Tories” determined to prevent abortion providers, such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, from offering counselling.’ This is also the same cross-party group that includes Catholic MP Louise Mensch, just so we can be certain where this is all going.
The Guardian has the low-down on the three policy options this group is currently being offered:
‘One option is to make no change while another resembles Dorries’ original proposals, which would have prevented abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) from providing counselling services.
‘It is understood, however, that most discussions are focusing on an option that would create a register of counsellors eligible to tender for pregnancy counselling – including anti-abortion organisations.’
It has been suggested, quite rightly, that this is an attempt at back door legislation which would introduce radical changes to current abortion laws.
It has also been suggested, again quite rightly, that this is Dorries way of telling women to go fuck themselves (that was my suggestion).
Or, as Clare Murphy from BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service) puts it: ‘There was a major discussion about pregnancy counselling last year and a comprehensive defeat of these campaigners in parliament. It seems extraordinary to then turn around and effectively say: “It doesn’t matter that this has been talked about and voted on. We’re going to do it anyway.”‘
And all this when there is no evidence that there is anything wrong with the current standard of counselling being provided. It’s almost like Dorries has invented a problem where none exists! You’d almost believe it was nothing about women and the standard of care they receive and all about ideology! Unbelievable I know!
As Marie Stopes’s Tracey McNeill put it, the current system provides ‘access to impartial, non-directive and expert support from trained counsellors, if [women] decide they want it’.
She also said, and this here’s the rub:
‘We simply don’t believe that organisations whose own publications describe abortion as “a most grievous sin” can provide impartial pregnancy counselling to women.’ [emphasis mine]
So, sure, you could ask an avowedly anti-abortion religious group for advice on your abortion but, then again, you could ask a PETA activist advice on whether to buy a fur coat, but it sure as fuck wouldn’t be a good idea.
You will of course know this: today is the UN International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
I of course knew this, but what with one thing or another, it had slipped my mind. ‘One thing or another’ for me, today, not including direct violence against me. Is this privilege or just luck?
This, according to the UN, is the problem:
‘Violence against women and girls takes many forms and is widespread throughout the globe. It includes rape, domestic violence, harassment at work, abuse in school, female genital mutilation and sexual violence in armed conflicts. It is predominantly inflicted by men.’
What does that discription miss out? I’ve been thinking of all the violence against women which is not spelt out there. I’ve come up with a lot of stuff, but I’ll just leave you with one, in the words of somebody far more eloquent by me on the subject:
‘There is nothing safe for the women in porn, or for those who are pushed by their partners to emulate the painful and unsafe practices porn promotes. Porn treats women as disposable -literally, it fucks them over, and then moves onto ‘fresh pussy’.
‘Porn is also everywhere – it is now mainstream. How can we be so blind as to miss the glaring contradiction between promoting safe sex practices and glorifying porn? The two are totally incompatible.
The words ‘safe’ and ‘pornography’ don’t even belong in the same sentence. Porn damages – body, mind and spirit. Fact. I’m still working on unknotting the damage it’s done me.’ [by Angel K at Surviving]
It’s not just me, right?
I’ve got no truck (well, not really), with people believing in ‘god’ per se; I see that there are many reasons why people choose to do so and, hey, who am I to judge?
Course, when those people ally that belief to a belief system which judges me – for swearing like a trooper, for having children out of wedlock, for eating chicken fried rice on a (gasp!) Friday or, say, oh, just being female – then I am exactly the person to judge. ‘Belief system’ here obviously therefore covers every major, and every minor, religion on this planet. And no, don’t argue with me because when even buddhism, the ‘belief system’ so beloved of left wing hippies it’s almost like it couldn’t exist if drugs didn’t, discriminates against women, you know you’re up shit creek and, regardless of the availability of propulsion systems, it frickin’ stinks.
I would say that this is what happens when religion turns bad, but this is just what happens when you have religion. More specifically, it’s what happens when people decide they know what ‘god’ wants.
And God advocates child abuse. No, not that kind of religious child abuse; cripes, even the Catholic priests didn’t try and pretend that ‘god’ told them to do it.
Bat. Shit. Crazy.