To be a human male is to have a Y-chromosome in nearly every single one of your 70 trillion cells, with those Y-chromosomes orchestrating the production of sperm, semen and testosterone. Men are born to produce semen – which wars against women. Men are born to produce testosterone – which wars against women. Men are born to war against women. Men are primordially a war against women, a biological war against women.
How is it that the Y chromosome – the most mutated, decrepit part of the human genome, currently in a less-than-3%-left condition — has every poli-social advantage at its disposal to assure its survival and perpetuation? Because dudes sure as shit have their assess covered.
The problem with males is biology. Feminist-leaning women fail to spend what would be far-more-productive brain-time deliberating on this fact: Being a human male is a genetic condition, a genetic condition wielding a proprietary biochemistry, a proprietary biochemistry for warmongering against females – and every other fucking thing.
An Australian mother of five held in the deteriorating al-Hawl camp of northern Syria has been stripped of her citizenship – retroactive by three years – leaving two of her children potentially stateless and potentially permanently splitting her family.
Currently, there are 19 Australian women and 47 Australian children held in the al-Hawl camp. The Australian government is aware of their identities and the bona fides of their Australian citizenship or right to claim that citizenship.
They are family members of former foreign fighters who have been captured or killed. None of the Australian women in the camp were combatants, and many were coerced, forced or tricked into travelling to Syria.
The youngest child in the Australian group is less than two months old, born on 30 November last year.
Were the children and their mothers able to get to an Australian embassy or consulate, the Australian government would be legally obliged to provide them travel documents to return home.
More than two hundred members of Congress have urged the US supreme court to reconsider the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade ruling which legalized abortion nationwide.
The appeal came in an amicus brief in a Louisiana case, and was signed by 205 Republicans and two Democrats, and calls on the high court to revisit the ruling, which affirmed that access to safe abortion is a constitutional right.
It would almost be funny if it weren’t real: a bill introduced in Ohio that would require doctors to attempt to re-implant ectopic pregnancies – a medical impossibility – or face charges of “abortion murder” (a legal invention).
But it is real. And it’s dystopian – a sign of the disturbing push from the “pro-life” right to treat women’s bodies as incubators, no matter what the physical toll.
The law would criminalize abortion and make it punishable by life in prison; “aggravated abortion murder” would carry the death penalty. That’s right: “pro-life” lawmakers in Ohio want to throw women and girls in jail for life, and even execute them, for ending their pregnancies.
The supreme court left in place a Kentucky law requiring doctors to perform ultrasounds and show fetal images to patients before abortions on Monday.
The justices refused to review an appeals court ruling that upheld the law, and did not comment further. The move is seen as a victory for the anti-abortion movement in the US.
The development comes amid a wave of anti-abortion laws being passed by state legislatures across the US, focusing in conservative states. The laws are aimed at making access to abortion increasingly difficult and eventually forcing a supreme court showdown on the landmark Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion in the US.
No country allows the sale of human beings, so why is surrogacy still legal? Even if it’s ‘altruistic’, there’s a price to pay.
This week, Sweden took a firm stand against surrogacy. The governmental inquiry on surrogacy published its conclusions, which the parliament is expected to approve later this year. These include banning all surrogacy, commercial as well as altruistic, and taking steps to prevent citizens from going to clinics abroad.
Surrogacy may have been surrounded by an aura of Elton John-ish happiness, cute newborns and notions of the modern family, but behind that is an industry that buys and sells human life. Where babies are tailor-made to fit the desires of the world’s rich. Where a mother is nothing, deprived even of the right to be called “mum”, and the customer is everything. The west has started outsourcing reproduction to poorer nations, just as we outsourced industrial production previously.
In reality, “altruistic” surrogacy means that a woman goes through exactly the same thing as in commercial surrogacy, but gets nothing in return. It demands of the woman to carry a child for nine months and then give it away. She has to change her behaviour and risk infertility, a number of pregnancy-related problems, and even death. She is still used as a vessel, even if told she is an angel. The only thing she gets is the halo of altruism, which is a very low price for the effort and can only be attractive in a society where women are valued for how much they sacrifice, not what they achieve.
Ames’ story reads as every woman’s worst nightmare of what coming back from maternity leave could be like. Ames alleges that when she returned to work, another employee’s things were in her workspace. When she asked for a place to pump breast milk, she was sent to a company nurse. Even though the Nationwide offices had a lactation room, Ames says she was denied access and told she had to fill out paperwork and wait for days for it to be processed in order for them to open the door to let her in. With her breasts swelling and uncomfortable, she says the only options offered to her were rooms that had no privacy.
At this point, Ames says she reached out to the department head for help in getting that lactation room door open, which is when she was met with a resignation letter to sign. Ames reports that her department head said, “Just go home to be with your babies.”
But while the case was primarily decided on this question of whether Ames fought back hard enough, the trial court also ruled that bullying women over breast-feeding cannot be considered sex discrimination, because men can, in theory, lactate, too.
The Australian class action against companies owned by Johnson & Johnson – watched closely across the world – was won on behalf of 1,350 women who had mesh and tape products implanted to treat pelvic prolapse or stress urinary incontinence, both common complications of childbirth.The devices all but ruined the lives of many. Women have been left in severe, debilitating and chronic pain, and often unable to have intercourse. The vast majority also suffered a significant psychological toll.
Internal emails revealed a doctor enlisted to trial the products warned he would “not like my wife to undergo this procedure” and did not think he would be “alone” in that view. The doctor is now earning royalties from their use, the court heard.
Separate emails placed before the court showed a callous and disturbing attitude among some French gynaecologists involved with the company. One suggested doctors advise women to try anal intercourse if they experienced pain during sex.