Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Big Sister Is Watching You - Totalitarian feminism and the smearing of Susan G. Komen..
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
Feb 6, 2012, 5:21:13 AM2/6/12
to
The smear campaign against the breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen for
the Cure appears to have had its desired effect, although this may turn
out to be a case in which appearances are deceiving. LifeNews.com, an
antiabortion site, quotes the statement by Komen founder Nancy Brinker:
We will continue to fund existing grants, including those
of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to
apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of
our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the
needs of their communities.
But Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights
Institute, parses the statement for LifeNews and finds it actually
reflects no change in policy: "We have known and have reported that they
are continuing five grants [to Planned Parenthood] through 2012. This is
a reference to that. The second clause about eligibility is certainly
true. Any group can apply for anything. It does not mean they are going
to get anything."
Of course, it also doesn't mean they're not going to get anything. The
Daily Caller reports that Komen's donations doubled in the two days
after the Planned Parenthood assault began, presumably because lots of
people wanted to support its apolitical work against breast cancer but
did not want to give money to a group that was subsidizing a group that
both performs and advocates for abortion.
If that describes you, you might consider following the advice of our
friend Susan Carusi: Give to a local breast cancer support group, "which
provides counseling and assistance to women diagnosed with breast
cancer. At least this way you know exactly what the money is being spent
on."
While our sympathies are with Komen in this whole kerfuffle, we must say
that the group has displayed an appalling naiveté in its approach to the
matter. It's reminiscent of the last big controversy the group was
involved in, which we wrote about in 2009. In that instance, Komen
hosted a conference in Alexandria, Egypt, for "international advocates."
Komen was sandbagged when Israeli doctors who'd been invited to the
event received disinvitations from the Egyptian health minister. The
Egyptians backpedaled, but by then it was too late for the Israelis to
attend.
In breaking ties with Planned Parenthood, Komen made the same mistake:
It failed to understand it was dealing with intolerant fanatics. Planned
Parenthood's attitude toward abortion opponents is not unlike that of
Egyptian officials in the old regime toward Israelis.
Further, Komen offered a rationale for its decision--a new policy
denying grants to groups under governmental investigation--that seemed
disingenuous and provided a point of attack for Planned Parenthood and
its allies. "I'm reminded of the McCarthy era, where somebody said:
'Oh,' a congressman stands up, a senator, 'I'm investigating this
organization and therefore people should stop funding them,' " Politico
quotes Sen. Barbara Boxer as saying on MSNBC.
In truth, Komen was under no obligation to fund Planned Parenthood. Its
decision not to do so was not punitive and did not even appear to be.
The episode is reminiscent of George Orwell far more than Joe McCarthy.
Komen's actual aim was to extricate itself from the divisive national
battle over abortion by severing its connection with a leading
combatant.
The conservative Media Research Center notes that CNN "aired a pretty
one-sided piece including statements from Planned Parenthood's president
Cecile Richards, evidence supporting her claims of right-wing
'bullying,' and even vitriolic Facebook posts decrying the de-funding."
No supporter of Komen's position or critic of Planned Parenthood was
included. Even more appalling than that lack of balance, though, was
CNN's echoing the charge of "right-wing 'bullying,' " while the network
was participating in Planned Parenthood's effort to bully Komen.
The Ministry of Information--sorry, the New York Times--editorializes:
With its roster of corporate sponsors and the pink ribbons
that lend a halo to almost any kind of product you can think
of, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation has a
longstanding reputation as a staunch protector of women's
health. That reputation suffered a grievous, perhaps mortal,
wound this week from the news that Komen, the world's largest
breast cancer organization, decided to betray that mission.
It threw itself into the middle of one of America's nastiest
political battles, on the side of hard-right forces working
to demonize Planned Parenthood and undermine women's health
and freedom.
The truth is that Komen blundered into a political battle by supporting
Planned Parenthood in the first place and was attempting to back out of
it quietly.
The Times's view exemplifies feminism's gradual transformation into a
totalitarian ideology. Totalitarianism politicizes everything, so that
neutrality is betrayal--in this case, neutrality on abortion is
portrayed as opposition to "women's health." As we wrote last year, this
is also why purportedly pro-choice feminists can hate Sarah Palin and
her daughter for choosing not to abort their children.
Komen would have been better off approaching the matter
straightforwardly, by announcing that it wished to opt out of the
abortion debate and would not support groups that take a position on
either side of the issue, including Planned Parenthood. This would not
have averted the smear campaign that followed, for Planned Parenthood
and its supporters have internalized the notion that abortion is health,
and are determined that everyone else internalize it too. But an honest
position would have been easier to defend. No one would have been able
to dent Komen's integrity.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
the Cure appears to have had its desired effect, although this may turn
out to be a case in which appearances are deceiving. LifeNews.com, an
antiabortion site, quotes the statement by Komen founder Nancy Brinker:
We will continue to fund existing grants, including those
of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to
apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of
our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the
needs of their communities.
But Austin Ruse, president of the Catholic Family and Human Rights
Institute, parses the statement for LifeNews and finds it actually
reflects no change in policy: "We have known and have reported that they
are continuing five grants [to Planned Parenthood] through 2012. This is
a reference to that. The second clause about eligibility is certainly
true. Any group can apply for anything. It does not mean they are going
to get anything."
Of course, it also doesn't mean they're not going to get anything. The
Daily Caller reports that Komen's donations doubled in the two days
after the Planned Parenthood assault began, presumably because lots of
people wanted to support its apolitical work against breast cancer but
did not want to give money to a group that was subsidizing a group that
both performs and advocates for abortion.
If that describes you, you might consider following the advice of our
friend Susan Carusi: Give to a local breast cancer support group, "which
provides counseling and assistance to women diagnosed with breast
cancer. At least this way you know exactly what the money is being spent
on."
While our sympathies are with Komen in this whole kerfuffle, we must say
that the group has displayed an appalling naiveté in its approach to the
matter. It's reminiscent of the last big controversy the group was
involved in, which we wrote about in 2009. In that instance, Komen
hosted a conference in Alexandria, Egypt, for "international advocates."
Komen was sandbagged when Israeli doctors who'd been invited to the
event received disinvitations from the Egyptian health minister. The
Egyptians backpedaled, but by then it was too late for the Israelis to
attend.
In breaking ties with Planned Parenthood, Komen made the same mistake:
It failed to understand it was dealing with intolerant fanatics. Planned
Parenthood's attitude toward abortion opponents is not unlike that of
Egyptian officials in the old regime toward Israelis.
Further, Komen offered a rationale for its decision--a new policy
denying grants to groups under governmental investigation--that seemed
disingenuous and provided a point of attack for Planned Parenthood and
its allies. "I'm reminded of the McCarthy era, where somebody said:
'Oh,' a congressman stands up, a senator, 'I'm investigating this
organization and therefore people should stop funding them,' " Politico
quotes Sen. Barbara Boxer as saying on MSNBC.
In truth, Komen was under no obligation to fund Planned Parenthood. Its
decision not to do so was not punitive and did not even appear to be.
The episode is reminiscent of George Orwell far more than Joe McCarthy.
Komen's actual aim was to extricate itself from the divisive national
battle over abortion by severing its connection with a leading
combatant.
The conservative Media Research Center notes that CNN "aired a pretty
one-sided piece including statements from Planned Parenthood's president
Cecile Richards, evidence supporting her claims of right-wing
'bullying,' and even vitriolic Facebook posts decrying the de-funding."
No supporter of Komen's position or critic of Planned Parenthood was
included. Even more appalling than that lack of balance, though, was
CNN's echoing the charge of "right-wing 'bullying,' " while the network
was participating in Planned Parenthood's effort to bully Komen.
The Ministry of Information--sorry, the New York Times--editorializes:
With its roster of corporate sponsors and the pink ribbons
that lend a halo to almost any kind of product you can think
of, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation has a
longstanding reputation as a staunch protector of women's
health. That reputation suffered a grievous, perhaps mortal,
wound this week from the news that Komen, the world's largest
breast cancer organization, decided to betray that mission.
It threw itself into the middle of one of America's nastiest
political battles, on the side of hard-right forces working
to demonize Planned Parenthood and undermine women's health
and freedom.
The truth is that Komen blundered into a political battle by supporting
Planned Parenthood in the first place and was attempting to back out of
it quietly.
The Times's view exemplifies feminism's gradual transformation into a
totalitarian ideology. Totalitarianism politicizes everything, so that
neutrality is betrayal--in this case, neutrality on abortion is
portrayed as opposition to "women's health." As we wrote last year, this
is also why purportedly pro-choice feminists can hate Sarah Palin and
her daughter for choosing not to abort their children.
Komen would have been better off approaching the matter
straightforwardly, by announcing that it wished to opt out of the
abortion debate and would not support groups that take a position on
either side of the issue, including Planned Parenthood. This would not
have averted the smear campaign that followed, for Planned Parenthood
and its supporters have internalized the notion that abortion is health,
and are determined that everyone else internalize it too. But an honest
position would have been easier to defend. No one would have been able
to dent Komen's integrity.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
David Johnston
Feb 6, 2012, 12:37:06 PM2/6/12
to
On 2/6/2012 3:21 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> The Times's view exemplifies feminism's gradual transformation into a
> totalitarian ideology. Totalitarianism politicizes everything, so that
> neutrality is betrayal--in this case, neutrality on abortion is
> portrayed as opposition to "women's health." As we wrote last year, this
> is also why purportedly pro-choice feminists can hate Sarah Palin and
> her daughter for choosing not to abort their children.
So you just reposted an article by a liar? Because Palin is certainly
> The Times's view exemplifies feminism's gradual transformation into a
> totalitarian ideology. Totalitarianism politicizes everything, so that
> neutrality is betrayal--in this case, neutrality on abortion is
> portrayed as opposition to "women's health." As we wrote last year, this
> is also why purportedly pro-choice feminists can hate Sarah Palin and
> her daughter for choosing not to abort their children.
not neutral on the subject of abortion based on her public statements.
Ray Fischer
Feb 6, 2012, 1:35:35 PM2/6/12
to
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>The smear campaign against the breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen for
There was no smear campaign.
>The smear campaign against the breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen for
Komen tried to be anti-choice by lying about PP. Americans stood up
to you pro-liars.
--
Ray Fischer | None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
rfis...@sonic.net | Goethe
Spartakus
Feb 6, 2012, 12:55:54 PM2/6/12
to
Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
> The smear campaign against the breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen ...
This is how wingnuts talk when they lose a political battle.
> The smear campaign against the breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen ...
This is how wingnuts talk when they lose a political battle.
Mason Barge
Feb 6, 2012, 3:56:15 PM2/6/12
to
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:21:13 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
[...]
Why the hell didn't they just announce that, in the future, the only
causes they are going to support are those that are specifically dedicated
to some aspect of treating and/or supporting cancer sufferers?
I personally think they'd be better off broadening their focus from a
female-only cancer (and maybe they do, I don't pay that much attention
even though I give them a little $$), but even if they only targeted
breast cancer, I'd sure as heck give them credit. I don't care if the
organization were run by men-hating uber-feminists, I'd still support
them. Nobody (well, nobody with any shred of normal personality) likes to
see women, especially young women, dying of breat cancer.
[...]
>Komen would have been better off approaching the matter
>straightforwardly, by announcing that it wished to opt out of the
>abortion debate and would not support groups that take a position on
>either side of the issue, including Planned Parenthood.
They could have done a whole lot better than that.
>straightforwardly, by announcing that it wished to opt out of the
>abortion debate and would not support groups that take a position on
>either side of the issue, including Planned Parenthood.
Why the hell didn't they just announce that, in the future, the only
causes they are going to support are those that are specifically dedicated
to some aspect of treating and/or supporting cancer sufferers?
I personally think they'd be better off broadening their focus from a
female-only cancer (and maybe they do, I don't pay that much attention
even though I give them a little $$), but even if they only targeted
breast cancer, I'd sure as heck give them credit. I don't care if the
organization were run by men-hating uber-feminists, I'd still support
them. Nobody (well, nobody with any shred of normal personality) likes to
see women, especially young women, dying of breat cancer.
Obveeus
Feb 6, 2012, 4:19:55 PM2/6/12
to
"Mason Barge" <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why the hell didn't they just announce that, in the future, the only
> causes they are going to support are those that are specifically dedicated
> to some aspect of treating and/or supporting cancer sufferers?
>
> I personally think they'd be better off broadening their focus from a
> female-only cancer (and maybe they do, I don't pay that much attention
> even though I give them a little $$), but even if they only targeted
> breast cancer, I'd sure as heck give them credit. I don't care if the
> organization were run by men-hating uber-feminists, I'd still support
> them. Nobody (well, nobody with any shred of normal personality) likes to
> see women, especially young women, dying of breat cancer.
actually in a 'race for the cure'. The charity doesn't seem to be about
finding a cure for breast cancer. The charity seems to be about upping
society's awareness/support for people with breast cancer.
...and that is a perfectly valid goal/reason for a charity.
I'm just sad to see the Komen Foundation get sidetracked by some
personal/religious agenda from their new leader. She needs to go.
David Johnston
Feb 6, 2012, 7:14:38 PM2/6/12
to
On 2/6/2012 1:56 PM, Mason Barge wrote:
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:21:13 -0500, Ubiquitous<web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Komen would have been better off approaching the matter
>> straightforwardly, by announcing that it wished to opt out of the
>> abortion debate and would not support groups that take a position on
>> either side of the issue, including Planned Parenthood.
>
> They could have done a whole lot better than that.
>
> Why the hell didn't they just announce that, in the future, the only
> causes they are going to support are those that are specifically dedicated
> to some aspect of treating and/or supporting cancer sufferers?
Because the most effective tool for treating cancer is early detection
> On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:21:13 -0500, Ubiquitous<web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> Komen would have been better off approaching the matter
>> straightforwardly, by announcing that it wished to opt out of the
>> abortion debate and would not support groups that take a position on
>> either side of the issue, including Planned Parenthood.
>
> They could have done a whole lot better than that.
>
> Why the hell didn't they just announce that, in the future, the only
> causes they are going to support are those that are specifically dedicated
> to some aspect of treating and/or supporting cancer sufferers?
and Planned Parenthood is the only outfit providing women's health
services in a lot of poor neighbourhoods.
Adam H. Kerman
Feb 6, 2012, 7:32:25 PM2/6/12
to
Mason Barge <mason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:21:13 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>[...]
>>Komen would have been better off approaching the matter
>>straightforwardly, by announcing that it wished to opt out of the
>>abortion debate and would not support groups that take a position on
>>either side of the issue, including Planned Parenthood.
>They could have done a whole lot better than that.
>Why the hell didn't they just announce that, in the future, the only
>causes they are going to support are those that are specifically dedicated
>to some aspect of treating and/or supporting cancer sufferers?
The reason Planned Parenthood got any funding for breast cancer screening
>On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 05:21:13 -0500, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>[...]
>>Komen would have been better off approaching the matter
>>straightforwardly, by announcing that it wished to opt out of the
>>abortion debate and would not support groups that take a position on
>>either side of the issue, including Planned Parenthood.
>They could have done a whole lot better than that.
>Why the hell didn't they just announce that, in the future, the only
>causes they are going to support are those that are specifically dedicated
>to some aspect of treating and/or supporting cancer sufferers?
in the first place is because the women they serve who come in for birth
control counseling don't have any ongoing medical care. Planned Parenthood
tries to get the patients to go through a whole battery of exams because
they don't have their own doctors and won't see another doctor for years.
If Komen thinks screening women for early detectable signs of cancer
is contrary to its mission, it's fuckin' nuts.
The reason Planned Parenthood doesn't own mammography machines is it's
trying to be a low-cost operation. Also, the United States doesn't
have a shortage of expensive medical devices. I don't know how they'd
refer a patient who should receive further screening; these things
aren't free.
>I personally think they'd be better off broadening their focus from a
>female-only cancer (and maybe they do, I don't pay that much attention
>even though I give them a little $$), but even if they only targeted
>breast cancer, I'd sure as heck give them credit. I don't care if the
>organization were run by men-hating uber-feminists, I'd still support
>them. Nobody (well, nobody with any shred of normal personality) likes to
>see women, especially young women, dying of breat cancer.
Komen and give directly to charities that treat women or research
organizations that directly employ the researchers working on
the disease in question.
bigdude
Feb 6, 2012, 11:45:59 PM2/6/12
to
> The smear campaign against the breast cancer charity Susan G. Komen for
> the Cure appears to have had its desired effect, although this may turn
> out to be a case in which appearances are deceiving. LifeNews.com, an
> antiabortion site, quotes the statement by Komen founder Nancy Brinker:
>
> We will continue to fund existing grants, including those
> of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to
> apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of
> our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the
> needs of their communities.
>
The Komen foundation's mistake was to get involved in a controversial
> the Cure appears to have had its desired effect, although this may turn
> out to be a case in which appearances are deceiving. LifeNews.com, an
> antiabortion site, quotes the statement by Komen founder Nancy Brinker:
>
> We will continue to fund existing grants, including those
> of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to
> apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of
> our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the
> needs of their communities.
>
group like PP. They should have stayed focused on 'cancer-only'
organisations.
Mason Barge
Feb 7, 2012, 5:34:33 PM2/7/12
to
On Mon, 06 Feb 2012 17:14:38 -0700, David Johnston <Da...@block.net>
wrote:
Yeah, there are probably a lot of similar organizations, also. I guess my
suggestion might not be realistic.
Still, I can see the point of not giving money to organizations advocating
one side or the other on abortion.
wrote:
suggestion might not be realistic.
Still, I can see the point of not giving money to organizations advocating
one side or the other on abortion.
0 new messages