Tuesday, December 26, 2006

The Brotherhood

I found the following policy changes from China vis-à-vis adoption for single parents (really single women as few single men ever adopt, even through they’ve had the ability to do so for decades now) rather interesting. It followed very closely on the heels of other countries such as England and the Netherlands banning the use of anonymous sperm donors anymore (they are now illegal in both places).

So this is just continuation of the hate campaign against women in their role as mothers as men continue their ongoing attempts to be in charge of everything again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/20/us/20adopt.html?pagewanted=print

Clearly listening to the 'spin' emanating on a daily basis from the western media about how horrible mothers are (particularly single mothers, but they are targeting all mothers ultimately with this propaganda), how many of us murder our children, abandon them regularly to homeless men (as the current movie “The Pursuit of Happyness” would have us believe), how insignificant the mother/child bond is compared to say a male penguin bonding with an egg, or a sperm donor with a dixie cup, all of this propaganda and spin, going unchallenged for the most part, led to the recent turnabout in China’s adoption policy.

The same way it incited England and the Netherlands to outlaw anonymous sperm donors a year or so back.

Now, of course, every woman in either of those countries wishing to become a mother, without the requisite male overseer being put in charge of her, will have to leave these places to seek out donors elsewhere. This will probably lead to more sickness being spread amongst the general populations there, as many other countries that allow anonymous sperm donors aren’t as careful about testing for various blood-borne diseases as England or the Netherlands probably was.

It will probably also lead to more women becoming pregnant through one-night stands and just refusing to identify the recreational sperm donor. Since remember even going to the trouble and expense of using a sperm bank is really a ‘tip of the hat’ to women’ ethics in this area, trying to avoid involving a sperm donor in the expense of raising a child he had no wish to create. It’s not something women need to continue doing, if it becomes too much trouble and expense for them to bother with.

Additionally, it will lead to further drops in populations in the west, as women will continue not having children under the threats of these ongoing custody wars incited by men. Most of these custody/legalized abduction actions instigated to relieve men of the financial responsibility of fatherhood. Anyway, that’s the real motivation behind women using all of these extraordinary processes to have children: anonymous sperm donors, single parent adoptions of foreign orphans, etc. It is women in their ongoing attempts to try and head off some stingy cheapskate/control freak from having any legal rights to her children. To short-circuit the use of the power of the state to harass and terrorize her and some poor kid for up to 18 or so years, if not permanently…

Last, but not least, even though many women here don’t want to face this part, it will eventually lead to the same thing happening in the US of A. It’s just a question of time really. The writing is on the wall (in spite of the many highly publicized stories about celebrities such as Mary Cheney being allowed to impregnate herself, probably via an anonymous sperm donor) this is not an option that is going to be available much longer for women in this country.

Ideas have consequences, as this latest example of the reaction to single women from the west adopting their unwanted population of girl children in China has shown us.

As I, for one, don’t think for a moment that this policy was changed due to the best interest of those orphans. China, as a society, has shown its complete lack of regard for its female population many times. Even the fact that most of the those orphans are girls shows the low regard that their society places on women to begin with, that’s why baby girls are abandoned in the first place. Since the one-child policy has been put in place, everyone wants a boy. Thus a girl baby is tossed out like an old pair of shoes in the nearest ditch, so a mother can be allowed a ‘do-over’ and try for a boy with a second pregnancy. Actually now that they have sonar technology, many in China just abort a girl fetus as soon as it’s identified, so the whole Chinese orphan situation can pretty much become a moot issue in a few years anyway.

Anyhow single women adopting these little girls and bringing them to the west to raise them had little or no impact on China overall. Other then saving some girls from either death or a miserable existence, once they become adults in a society that could care less about women. Nevertheless, I think it’s instructive for us to review how/why the adoption policy came to be changed recently; as it can tell us a lot about what to expect in the future for western societies.

So what was the rationale underlying China’s policy changes: I believe it was threefold: the first one being the usual backhanded swipe at western civilization in general. This is similar to what progressives in the US did when they helped ban white middle-class families from adopting black orphans. It’s part and parcel of the whole bruhaha that we saw flare up over the Madonna adoption controversy, for instance, as in: better a million children dead of starvation in the streets before allowing a westerner to adopt a single one of them.

The second one, I believe, is sheer, vicious, spitefulness aimed at women who have some autonomy. Obviously in a society, such as China, where women are the low ‘man on the totem pole’ it must gall the average man over there to see western women with some control over their own lives. Western women can travel alone, obviously we have a good economic standard of living if we can afford to travel to China to arrange an adoption and raise a child alone, etc.,

Also, the petty spitefulness behind some of the criteria is pretty obviously directed against women since as I said previously, we are the majority of single parent adopters of children in China and everywhere else really. So now, no fat women can be allowed to adopt a Chinese orphan as: “The guidelines include a requirement that applicants have a body-mass index of less than 40.”

A totally unnecessary, ridiculous, petty, spiteful qualification added just to frustrate women, for the most part. Since few single men adopt, although they’ve been legally allowed to do so for decades now. Thus a rule such as this is clearly going to have a disparate impact on women. They’ll probably set up scales at the airports to weight western women and send them packing, if they are over the weight requirements.

Idiots. Why not just ban fat women from traveling to China as tourists while you’re at it? That will be the next step. We waste too much gas transporting you back and forth on planes will be the rationale.

Anyway to the final reason, which I frankly believe is probably the most important one. That in spite of the Chinese wanting to step on the toes and aggravate western civilization whenever possible, without being too obvious about it (ala Paris of the Orient), they nevertheless also recognized the loss of power western men experienced once western women had legal rights on par with him, including and especially the control of our own reproductive processes, ie., as in the right to decide if, when and how we are going to create our own families. So in spite what was probably a ferocious inner struggle, the Chinese ultimately decided to help the “brotherhood” maintain their overall status by striking a blow against western women’ choices in this area. Hopefully, by helping western man restrict women’ choices, they could help them regain some of the control lost to us.

Sad really.

That man everywhere is so self-centered and greedy for power and control over their sisters.

Thus the struggle continues.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Stupid article!

Women who want kids without fathers are just plain stupid, these type of women just think they can go around and have sex with anyone to have kids with because they want to, they think they can go to a sperm bank and do the same. Women are not God! These type of women really need to know what their selfishness is doing in society and the effects of it. I find that women who want to have kids without a father present is just plain evil. The reason why anonymous donors are illegal is because the states welfare system is tired of picking up the tab. Stupid and dumb article, it makes me sick.

silverside said...

Women who use anonymous donors through sperm banks tend to be above average in income and education. They don't end up on "the welfare system."

Having a supportive father in the household is very nice. Not too many would object to it in principal. But not having a father in the household is by far preferable to having a deadbeat, abuser, alcoholic/druggie, and so forth. It is not always easy to find a man who wants to work for a living and come home at night. Even men claim they don't want to be tied down. So older women, women who no longer have ingenue figures or long blond tresses, have decided to go it alone, either through sperm banks or adoption. You'd think that all those guys out there screaming about being "trapped" by their girlfriend with the very loudly ticking biological clock would be thrilled. Now she can have her baby and leave you and the child support out of it. But NOOOO. The men are just as angry as ever. Because THEY ARE IN CONTROL.

I'm glad that older single women are adopting too. But it's too bad that they are being lumped with adopting single men, who seem to have disproportionately suspicious motives -- like the guy who adopted a Russian orphan girl and proceeded to brutally sexually abuse her from day 1, including on the internet.

NYMOM said...

Yes, I was going to note this as well.

Women who are adopting as single parents and/or using invitro to have children alone are generally the creme of the crop...higher income, more education, etc.,

Actually women who don't marry generally are the creme of the crop anyway...guys who don't marry are generally from the low end of the pool...

But you're right, it's about control of women, although they like to paint it as concern for children...

NYMOM said...

"...the states welfare system is tired of picking up the tab..."

I bet a lot more women who have children w/o any planning wind up on welfare, then does this pool of women who either adopt or use invitro to have a child.

Clearly it has been demonstrated many times that most of the women doing this are professional, educated, high income women who just never met the right person to start their family with...

This is nonsense that these women are being stopped for any valid reason. Actually one article was saying how invitro treatment cost a mother $10,000 and insurance picked up none of it...she's back to work, supporting her child now and they'll do just fine.

This was men trying to be in charge of everything again that incited England and the Netherlands to pass this law...

Same thing with the Chinese adoptions.

You are all very jealous of women unfortunately...

Sad really sad.