Conservatives have always scared me. Not just because of their right-wing agenda, but because that agenda can be taken over and made to seem plausible and in some cases well thought out.
Anyone who knows anything about conservatives is that nothing they do is that well thought out - it is basically reactionary in a society sense and then business is king mentality after that. Conservatives are, by default, authoritarian. They don’t lead - they drag, and that is something they prefer. They wish to be forefront and society has to be put in its place for the benefit of those at the top - even though it those who work beneath them that keeps them in place. They believe in the individual and not a group where we can all work together. They believe in the rights of others as long of those rights do not impede on their god-given right to be exempt from what society believes to be wrong.
But, British Conservatives are worse than most. How should we determine who these people are and what should we gauge their beliefs on? Unfortunately you cannot put them into a particular class in the UK. What you can do is gauge them by the newspaper they read - and if you sit next to a person who reads the Daily Mail - move away from them, quickly.
This story is a story that broaches the idea of sterilising young women. Why? Well - they believe that this would be a good thing because it will stop them reproducing children - and stop them having sex.
At what age? Well, doesn’t 12 until 17 sound rather sensible?
This would have the advantage of bringing down the teenage pregnancy rate, so high in this country it makes us a disgrace among the nations
All young women from the age of 12? If you don’t think they are serious - they are!
Neither do I believe it will encourage “promiscuity” because girls will feel they have nothing to fear in sleeping around. In truth, they seem to be doing that already. I’m afraid we are now in a time when sex is mere recreational pleasure to thousands of young women.
So sex shouldn’t be recreational? Only used to produce children? Then surely this moves us onto where there should be no contraception at all - only abstinence from having a shag, even in marriage?
But the conservatives are for marriage and for families - well they are if you believe David Cameron. Not that I do by the way.
Suddenly, they can give birth to someone who will offer unconditional love in a bleak, busy, money-grubbing world.
Erm - that’s the world of the Tories! Isn’t it? Oh - I get what you mean - they are working class people so they should be working for the Boss and nothing else - we can’t have those pesky working class having rights now can we?
Please feel to be reviled at the story - I was. But before you read on with disgust and dislike for the author, as wrong as she may be….read this quote first:
Last week, an intriguing proposition was mooted by Government minister Dawn Primarolo.
This is a government minister at the moment - a Labour government minister, this is complete proof that this is NOT a labour government but one that is conservative.
With thanks to Chris who posted the original link.
All Images designed by Alison Rhodes (LastingExpressions)
10 responses so far ↓
steve // April 7, 2008 at 11:01 am
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Kids these days have to be much worse than prior generations because the parents themselves tend to be sociopaths, presuming they even have a set of parents, so the kids grow up to be severely disturbed people. I would think some “Connor” of today will grow up to make someone like Hitler seem rather mild.
B0bbyG // April 7, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Good grief! This the most absurd thing I have read in some time. I think it especially ironic that she blames sex education for teenage pregnancy:
“if you start teaching the birds and the bees too early, all that the nine, ten or 11-year-olds will do is want to experiment with what they have been taught”
That’s just stupid. Kids aren’t (all) stupid; most of them know what sex involves from a much earlier age, but regard it as some gross thing that those unfathomable “grownups” do. I have no idea how teaching kids about contraception is supposed to make them more likely to get pregnant.
“many people will see this modest proposal as little short of horrific”
Too blooming right we will! Although… “modest proposal”? Shades of Swift there. Is there a slim chance that she is being satirical? It doesn’t strike me as likely, but even if she is, some of those readers’ comments can’t be:
“Should be compulsory”? “I agree, except I would extend the age of sterilisation from 12 to 20+ years”?? “Please stop the yob culture from reproducing and raising yet more feral animals to blight the UK”???!!
Utterly ridiculous.
Will Rhodes // April 7, 2008 at 7:53 pm
My wife read this last night, Bobby - and she said exactly the same as you, almost word for word - “kids having sex education doesn’t lead to pregnancy, it stops it!”
The comments must have been staged - there cannot be people like that, are there?
steve // April 7, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Actually I beg to differ Will. I was a kid not too long ago, and when we got sex education, I felt it was more like a permission slip to have. The government, our teachers, the people we respected basically told us about sex without any “you shouldn’t, you’re too immature” but rather like a guide-manual. The same would have happened had a teacher said, “well, pot isn’t harmful”. I literally thought if you smoked pot you would have a heart attack and die, and didn’t realize it was just BS scare tactics they did in high school about drugs, but basically said sex was okay, and it’s really not for 8th graders. Lots of the kids started having sex right after that. Some of them got Pregnant. I remember one of the Jesus freak girls got pregnant by 9th grade and dropped out.
Will Rhodes // April 7, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Well all I can say with that is it wasn’t sex education - it was just saying sex is good, which it is, but you have to be taught the correct things.
Obviously the teacher that taught you was completely wrong. Sex education includes a long, long lesson on STDs and contraception.
thebeadden // April 7, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I read that twice. Thought it must have been a joke. I looked her up, an author. So I thought, it’s out of one of her books. This is for real?
I don’t even know what to say.
“Education would benefit, too. Classrooms would be less plagued by fatherless lads whose ambition it is to cause nothing but trouble.” huh?
Really, I just can’t believe what I just read.
Will Rhodes // April 7, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Yep - Fay Weldon is for real.
But, I use the feminism tag for this post - and have you noticed how the feminists stay away?
Fay Weldon is regarded as one top mamma in the feminist world.
Opens your eyes, eh?
Will Rhodes // April 7, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Oh, and as a PS - if you look at the picture on that story, read under it - the people in it are posed by models. Propaganda anyone?
thebeadden // April 7, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Maybe they could just sell all those children to the Canadian government for a silver dollar like they did with the Barnardo Children or Britsh Home Children. We could have use them as slaves again. It’s a win win…..sick!
thebeadden // April 7, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Good gracious. I was so flustered I couldn’t even say that right! We could have use them for slaves again! Good one. I meant we could use them as slaves again.
And I really can spell British. What happened to my red line that tells me the errors of my ways?
LOL
Leave a Comment