By Dave Andrusko
You always have to calculate whether it makes more sense to deconstruct a particularly idiotic pro-abortion observation or just ignore it. Most of time when Gloria Steinem pontificates, it makes more sense just to shake your head and move on.
Listen, what causes climate deprivation is population. If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn’t have the climate problems that we have. That’s the fundamental cause of climate change.
This is what “Gloria Steinem: Feminist Unicorn & Self-Professed Hope-aholic” told Lindsey Stanberry of Refinery 29.
Insufficient number of dead babies=climate change . It’s actually worse when read in context, which we will get to momentarily. Three other quick thoughts.
First, the self-pity which is signature Steinem, pours out like slop from a bucket from Stanberry. She tells us early on, “Yet following Hillary Clinton’s loss in November, the glass ceiling now seems bullet-proof.”
Really? A pro-abortion fanatic, who ran a presidential campaign whose sheer incompetence was matched only by George McGovern’s, lost because of a “bullet-proof” glass ceiling? Please.
Second, for Steinem (and the reason so many women reject the “feminist” label), men only stop being beasts when they cease being men. In a kind of “The Handmaiden” in reverse, men become the “strongest feminist” of Steinem’s misandrous imagination.
When Stanberry asks for advice on how to get men more “engaged,” “involved with women’s rights,” Steinem responds
Tell them the masculine realm is killing them. It’s [in their] self-interest. Men would live quite a few years longer without the masculine realm.
Third, Steinem takes a really vicious shot (even for her) at Ivanka Trump, the President’s eldest daughter. Because the maternity leave policy Ms. Trump has talked about is not to Steinem’s liking, faster than a speeding ticket, Ms. Trump is a Nazi:
That happens to be the same policy as every authoritarian regime on Earth that I know of, including Hitler’s Germany. I’m not saying that she knows this, but [the Nazis] were paying women to have children. By accident, perhaps, that’s her policy.
Back to population, patriarchy, climate, and abortion. Stanberry asks about the latest attempt to fold killing unborn babies into a larger agenda. She says, “People argue that climate change and other issues are also feminist issues. What do we lose by broadening the meaning of the term?”
Read Steinem’s full answer:
Are you kidding me? Listen, what causes climate deprivation is population. If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn’t have the climate problems that we have. That’s the fundamental cause of climate change. Even if the Vatican doesn’t tell us that. In addition to that, because women are the major agricultural workers in the world, and also the carriers of water and the feeders of families and so on, it’s a disproportionate burden.”
Why is it that it is always “progressives” and most often pro-abortion “progressives,” who are so keen on population control? Who, on the one hand, talk about women being disproportionately powerless, but on the other hand are so eager to use the power of the state to “curb population growth” by forcing women to abort either overtly or by making them pay exorbitant sums to have additional children?
Finally asked if she had “given up hope,” Steinem responds
I never gave up hope. I have never seen such activism in my life. It’s a thousand times anything I’ve ever seen.
Does that make her a “hope-aholic,” as she recently described herself at a “nationwide conference for women looking to ‘create and cultivate the career of their dreams’”?
If that is based on grassroots “activism,” as she seems to imply, then the greatest gatherings of Hope-aholics will gather in Milwaukee, June 29-July 1 for the annual National Right to Life Convention.
Perhaps Steinem will swing by and see the genuine article.