Gendercide abortion is an ethnic issue

Posted January 16th, 2012 in Canada by Adrian MacNair

An article in the National Post today highlights an issue in North America that grows larger by the day. It’s called sex-selective abortion, or otherwise known as gendercide, one of the reasons that large portions of Asia are imbalancing the natural male to female ratio by killing female fetuses. And the immigrants from countries that practice this atrocity constitute the two largest ethnic groups coming here: Chinese and Indians.

We’ve known about gendercide for a while now, but largely ignored it because the practice was being done outside of Canada. Things that happen beyond our borders bother us less than when they happen in our own backyard. But the idea that Asians are coming here to perform sex-specific abortions isn’t just something that can be ignored. Particularly when it begins to affect us because of our need and craven desire to treat all cultures equally.

Canadians, as much as we are changing each and every year, have traditionally had no history of sex-selective abortion. When technology came along that enabled us to determine the sex of a fetus, we accepted the technology as a boon to society, not as a tool to end the life of girls. And while it can be said that abortion has a solid history of practice in Canada, it has never been due to cultural hangups about the relative value of women in our society.

The concept of murdering women is morally repugnant in Canada, and so should be the concept of aborting female fetuses. It should make us feel the same revulsion we have for the Taliban murdering girls or enslaving them behind shrouds. Gendercide could very well be the 2010′s version of the outcry of gender apartheid a decade ago in Afghanistan and other parts of the world that do not accept the concept of egalitarianism.

But what I cannot accept is a notion that all Canadians should be treated with the same sort of inherent mistrust when it comes to ultrasounds. We’ve already been through this with terrorism. Where one specific demographic has had a prolific history of terrorism, we have taken to suspecting the 99.99 per cent of Canadians who are not terrorists. The lengths to which we have been inconvenienced in order to provide a preposterous appearance of not racially profiling has resulted in the most inefficient, intrusive and invasive way of travelling possible.

Similarly, a large percentage of Canadians have no chance of being sex-selective abortionists. However, it’s fair to say that this percentage changes on a daily basis as thousands of new Asian immigrants come to North America every single day, some of them harbouring backwards cultural hangups that are incompatible with our own culture. It is within the identified demographics from the article of people from India, China, Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines that we should be looking to target this problem.

There’s nothing racist or discriminatory about this. There is no rational reason for refusing to tell Canadians who are not of Asian descent the sex of the fetus since it’s reasonable to expect the fetus isn’t in danger. A blanket ban on all Canadian women is the same useless and failed approach used against terrorism, and all it’s going to do is piss everybody off.

There may be another way. Perhaps when a parent is apprised of the sex of a fetus, that doctor is legally obliged to inform abortion clinics of the decision with the name of the mother. Or perhaps a mother could sign a legal document swearing they will not abort the child after learning the sex. Although based on Canada’s nebulous abortion laws, or lack thereof, I could foresee the clinic going ahead with the abortion anyway. After all, these places are designed to put the woman’s choice ahead of all other issues, even if that choice is culturally reinforced by a patriarchal society that dominates and subjugates women.

Regardless of how it’s achieved, the idea that “policy would require the understanding and willingness of women of all ethnicities” is insulting to the vast majority of ethnicities that don’t practice this barbarism. In the same way that the politically correct are careful not to offend anybody by painting too broadly with the same broad brush, it’s extremely offensive to be equally suspected of wanting to abort your child for cultural issues that aren’t your own.

Ironically, although this issue is less about abortion itself and more about cultural gendercide, social conservatives might find themselves tempted to support a politically correct blanket ban until seven months, knowing that the greater goal of preventing as many abortions as possible is more important than the inconvenience it might serve to non-Asians.

But that sort of thinking has to be rejected. No matter where you stand on the abortion issue, the more morally repugnant act is surely the selection of an entire gender for eradication. This is a disgusting, offensive extermination of girls in the womb based on the belief that boys are more valuable in a society than girls. It must be stopped, and that cannot happen by simply closing our eyes and treating the problem as a generic one like the common cold.

The Pansification Of Society

Posted November 5th, 2011 in Canada by Adrian MacNair

I grew up a much more sheltered child than my father, who spent much of his early childhood during the ’50s in remote Timmins. Although he lived in the city, his upbringing was relatively rural. He became an avid outdoorsman and canoeist, traits he would carry with him into his later years by canoeing the Danube River in Europe. He was confident and independent, hitchhiking across the country when he was 16 to dip the Pearson Pennant in both oceans.

Of course, he was more sheltered than his father, who was more sheltered than his father. To my knowledge, the MacNairs lost their farm to the bank when my great-great grandfather died and his eldest was just 11 years old and couldn’t run it. But the MacNairs of a century ago were like most other Canadians, a hardy and self-sufficient folk, before government and society would begin to control all of what we do, think and say.

My childhood was relatively independent, but the creeping nanny state was already moving quickly. Still, I used to walk to school by myself by age seven or eight, ride my bike everywhere, hang out with my friends in the neighbourhood, and go to the playground without my parents. It’s not that predators and paedophiles didn’t exist in the ’80s, but we just weren’t as paranoid about them to the point where we literally suffocated our children as we do now.

I feel sad for my children growing up in a bubble wrap society where gender is invisible, boys are punished for not acting like girls, and games like tag, throwing snowballs and climbing on trees are forbidden. Their lives are so controlled and manipulated by fawning, pathetic parents who don’t seem to realize how detrimental their neurosis has been to society as a whole. Not that this isn’t a collective problem, reinforced by peer pressure to keep kids from being “free range” children.

Look at your neighbourhood these days. Do you see any kids playing outside? Are they running about playing tag and hide-and-go-seek and gathering in big groups? If the answer is yes, consider yourself fortunate. Most parents today are so paranoid that their kids will be abducted, raped and dismembered, that playing with other children only happens through carefully controlled and planned “play dates.” There’s no spontaneity, and parents hover over these activities to ensure all socially correct behaviour is observed.

I suppose this is largely the modern urban experience, but that’s where the majority of Canadians are living these days. The lucky few kids who will grow up in a smaller town will probably know more freedom and individuality, learn hunting and fishing and camping by themselves, and all the other things deemed too dangerous by today’s supernanny parents.

It isn’t just a phenomenon with children. Take any walk in the park and you’ll see people treating their dogs in the same insane manner, coaxing and cajoling, cooing and cawing at their canines, and ensuring their dog doesn’t participate in any socially incorrect behaviour. This mania is pervasive in almost all dog owners, and is reinforced through social coercion.

My son turned 10 last week and I’ve been trying to convince my wife that he’s old enough to walk the five blocks to school by himself. In my mind there’s no doubt he’s more than old enough to do it, but she’s not so sure. Not only because she’s susceptible to the same sort of social sickness, but because she’s afraid of what others might think. A neighbour who shelters her 9-year-old foster child so much that the boy still weeps when things don’t go his way once remarked that somebody should call child services on a local 10-year-old boy who was walking to school by himself every day because his single mother had to go to work.

Personally, I find it embarrassing being a parent in today’s Canada. The extent to which parents will talk about their children, and fret about their future certainly isn’t anything new, but the micromanaging of their behaviour has to be at an unprecedented level. I know because I all I have to do is think of my own childhood and remember that kids were allowed to decide how to make their playtime. They didn’t require their parents to arrange dates and friends and plans.

My grandfather’s generation was ready to go to war at the age of 16. Today’s kids aren’t prepared to make their bed at that age. It is a terrible tragedy what we have become, and where we are headed. And I think this sort of overbearing control is manifesting itself in obvious ways, such as the fact kids can’t leave home until they’re 30 now, are having their own children later in life, and are so afraid at having any harm come to their kids that they will literally deprive them of a real life.

I knew that the world had gone insane when my son was suspended from school at the age of six for kissing a girl. When I returned from Afghanistan last year I brought my son home a Swiss Army Knife, hoping to give him something that used to be a boy’s must-have tool. It was confiscated at school as a weapon and then the next one was taken by airport security this summer because of the risk that a white, sixth generation Canadian 9-year-old might use it to bring down western civilization.

I wonder, as we approach Nov. 11, whether the men who died by legions in France and Belgium and Italy ever thought they were sacrificing their lives to protect this watered down version of a free society.

Time To Call Family Services

Posted May 25th, 2011 in Canada by Adrian MacNair

A Toronto couple have decided to forgo the boringly mainstream tradition of, you know, telling the world what sex their baby is, and will raise it “genderless”. Which should be interesting when the child decides to ask how the equipment works later on in life:

It is nothing if not an unorthodox approach to child rearing: A Toronto couple says it is trying to raise a genderless child, refusing to reveal baby Storm’s sex to encourage a more neutral approach to the infant.

Hiding the four-month-old’s sex from the outside world is a “tribute to freedom and choice” that they hope will let Storm grow up unfettered by the values of others, Kathy Witterick and David Stocker have been quoted as saying.

There is a bizarre strain of feminist-inspired lunacy wafting about out there that believes gender identity is a social construct and that gender personality is influenced by nurture, and not nature. Which is a cute philosophical conversation for single childless couples to discuss over a plate of locally-grown organic avocados, but not so much when it becomes the lab experiment of a pair of deluded hipsters.

Obviously, there are some serious physiological differences between boys and girls that manifest themselves in different ways during childhood. Certainly, not all stereotypical gender roles are fulfilled by all persons of that gender as they grow up, but generally speaking they do.

It’s nonsense to say that certain social traits of each gender are all nurture and not nature. I have one boy and one girl and thankfully I’ve been able to witness both in the early stages of development. Although we didn’t hide gender-appropriate toys from each our children, we certainly gave each child ample opportunity to gravitate toward one or the other.

And guess what? My son wound up being very attracted to building blocks and Lego, while my daughter likes pink and purple sparkly ponies. Nurture? I find it difficult to believe I’m the reason my daughter asks me to play the Tinkerbell DVD over and over and over again.

I don’t think it really matters what society does to nurture your gender; if you’re born a boy in a girl’s body you will eventually exhibit male gender behaviour or sexual identification that is male. So, it seems pointless to hide the sex of “Storm” from the world.

That doesn’t mean that there isn’t some natural struggles with gender self-identification as children grow up. At some point everybody becomes curious about the opposite sex and that leads to an internal examination of one’s sexual identity and orientation. That could be as simple as one realizing he or she is comfortable in their skin, or as complicated as believing they were born the wrong gender.

But a better idea than trying to keep secret any concept of gender from a person is probably to offer it a plethora of choices, so it can make its own decisions. My son liked blue and my daughter liked pink, but it wasn’t because we foisted those choices on them.