thinkingmama (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} thinkingmama) wrote,@ 2006-11-27 22:17:00 |
|
Someone Who Realizes . . .
. . . that it's okay to disagree?
I recently received the e-mail that's in italics at the end of this entry and, sure enough, it seems as though this woman lives to disagree with me. Well, whatever. At least she does it nicely, or so it seems. Anyway, I did respond to her socialist victim-oriented comments. My guess is that she's a nice woman who's been led astray, by mainstream media, government, and other Fabian Socialist outlets. Honestly, I think I could count the number of strong freedom-oriented women in the world on my right hand, and I don't have extra fingers! Most women, unfortunately, are way too willing to be victims, to allow the government to do their thinking and financial planning for them, and to take whatever mainstream media feed them and make it so. The letter from this woman merely proves my point. It is very unfortunate, but we have become a world of victims; unfortunately, this woman, along with many others, seems to be more than willing to accept the victimhood and supposed cures of the current mental health industry.
From Thinking Mama:
Thanks for your comments.
Regarding the LLLI thing, they contacted me. I make no effort to hide what I've written nor am I ashamed of my views on natural family preservation or my huge skepticism of the mental health industry, which is what Brooke seems to be a paid advocate for. I had to look at the essay again to see what you meant about making fun of someone with PPD. I don't see it.
During the whole time of this LLLI Founders' Dinner controversy, I only talked with one person. (I have since talked with a couple of other people with LLLI, but not about the controversy itself; they all seem nice.) Her name is Judy Torgus and you are more than welcome to talk to her yourself. She seems like a very nice person. She told me that it was the controversy itself, the result of the stalkers themselves, that scared away LLLI. Judy had read some things I'd written and I planned on talking, not about post-partum depression, but about breastfeeding and my experiences with it. Should they have also not allowed me to perform because I am Southern Baptist? Because I have a degree in math? Because I used to date women? What gives? These stalkers, by the way, tried to kick me off of Lew Rockwell's Web site and he basically told them to go away. Fortunately, Lew Rockwell, much to his credit, will not be bullied.
As to why LLLI, who has not been immune from controversy themselves, bothered to allow this particular controversy to startle them so, my guess is that the stalkers made a lot of noise and threatened them in a similar way to how they threatened me. As I mentioned in my essay, they're scary folks.
I would think that someone who spoke up against the victimization of women via the mental health industry is the kind of woman that would be drawn to breastfeeding and all the stuff that goes with it. These days, the breastfeeding woman tends to be a strongly opinionated woman. It's too bad that LLLI didn't have the guts that Lew Rockwell has. When I have money to donate, I know who'll be getting it: A site that encourages free speech, such as Lew Rockwell.
The larger question, however, is why someone with strong opinions who is quite adamant about expressing them is such a threat to some people. When I read or hear about people with whom I vehemently disagree, I tend to either write about it or simply forget about it. I don't stalk and slander, as these people seem to enjoy.
Regarding fertility et al.: Why does someone want to pounce on someone like a cheetah, or whatever it was that person said? I don't believe I've ever said that I wanted to pounce on someone like a cheetah, no matter how inane or rude that person's comment it. Go to www.in-gender.com and you'll find lots of women who have children all of the same sex and want a child of the opposite sex. Is their desire to be trivialized simply because they already have a child? Methinks that people have become far, far too sensitive in these politically correct days. I grew up with a family who had three daughters, the last of which was named a female version of her father's name. When she was born, her mother called the dad and said, "Go ahead and eat your supper; it's another girl." This was a story that all of us heard and it wasn't anything that "victimized" the third daughter, or any of the other daughters. They're all grown and relatively happy these days, as far as I can tell.
Your comments have inspired me to talk even more about post-partum depression. Our illustrious King Jorge has managed to institute a program, little reported in mainstream media, that aims for the government to screen every woman and child for PPD. In the land of the supposed free, such a program is bizarre and uncalled for. Brooke, as with many celebrities these days, is touting how lovely it is to be a victim. It's that kind of thing that ties in so nicely with the pharmaceutical companies and their supposed cures. These pill cures can preclude women from breastfeeding. Hmmm. Ponder that for a moment. I would think that it would very much be in the interest of breastfeeding moms to be very much against this kind of thing. My commentary on the mental health industry, which I've also written about for Lew Rockwell, has made a lot of women think twice about depression and its so-called cures. For that, I am thankful. Again, I'm not saying that post-partum depression doesn't exist, but that it doesn't need to be touted and encouraged, especially by celebrity spokespeople.
You've just read Thinking Mama's response to this:
I was so sorry to hear that other people resorted to insults to express their disagreements with your views. I always find it a real shame when people behave like that.
Couple of things to say, though. Firstly - no, I don't think it's fertility that the critics dislike. I think it's certain attitudes. The woman that Julie criticised, in the post you quoted – Julie wasn't criticising her for being fertile. She was criticising her for talking, publically, about the birth of a healthy boy as something that she was 'devastated' about. Doesn't it seem to you that that really is a rather tactless, thoughtless way to put it? I'm not saying it's wrong to be upset because you had a boy rather than a girl. But, when so many women would give anything to have had the blessing of that birth, is it really appropriate to sound so ungrateful about it so publically? (And in front of the child, too – now, that's just wrong!)
The other, and more important, issue is what you've said about post-natal depression in the past (http://www.newswithviews.com/Vaughan/t
I've written more about this at http://goodenoughmummy.typepad.com/good
. . . that it's okay to disagree?
I recently received the e-mail that's in italics at the end of this entry and, sure enough, it seems as though this woman lives to disagree with me. Well, whatever. At least she does it nicely, or so it seems. Anyway, I did respond to her socialist victim-oriented comments. My guess is that she's a nice woman who's been led astray, by mainstream media, government, and other Fabian Socialist outlets. Honestly, I think I could count the number of strong freedom-oriented women in the world on my right hand, and I don't have extra fingers! Most women, unfortunately, are way too willing to be victims, to allow the government to do their thinking and financial planning for them, and to take whatever mainstream media feed them and make it so. The letter from this woman merely proves my point. It is very unfortunate, but we have become a world of victims; unfortunately, this woman, along with many others, seems to be more than willing to accept the victimhood and supposed cures of the current mental health industry.
From Thinking Mama:
Thanks for your comments.
Regarding the LLLI thing, they contacted me. I make no effort to hide what I've written nor am I ashamed of my views on natural family preservation or my huge skepticism of the mental health industry, which is what Brooke seems to be a paid advocate for. I had to look at the essay again to see what you meant about making fun of someone with PPD. I don't see it.
During the whole time of this LLLI Founders' Dinner controversy, I only talked with one person. (I have since talked with a couple of other people with LLLI, but not about the controversy itself; they all seem nice.) Her name is Judy Torgus and you are more than welcome to talk to her yourself. She seems like a very nice person. She told me that it was the controversy itself, the result of the stalkers themselves, that scared away LLLI. Judy had read some things I'd written and I planned on talking, not about post-partum depression, but about breastfeeding and my experiences with it. Should they have also not allowed me to perform because I am Southern Baptist? Because I have a degree in math? Because I used to date women? What gives? These stalkers, by the way, tried to kick me off of Lew Rockwell's Web site and he basically told them to go away. Fortunately, Lew Rockwell, much to his credit, will not be bullied.
As to why LLLI, who has not been immune from controversy themselves, bothered to allow this particular controversy to startle them so, my guess is that the stalkers made a lot of noise and threatened them in a similar way to how they threatened me. As I mentioned in my essay, they're scary folks.
I would think that someone who spoke up against the victimization of women via the mental health industry is the kind of woman that would be drawn to breastfeeding and all the stuff that goes with it. These days, the breastfeeding woman tends to be a strongly opinionated woman. It's too bad that LLLI didn't have the guts that Lew Rockwell has. When I have money to donate, I know who'll be getting it: A site that encourages free speech, such as Lew Rockwell.
The larger question, however, is why someone with strong opinions who is quite adamant about expressing them is such a threat to some people. When I read or hear about people with whom I vehemently disagree, I tend to either write about it or simply forget about it. I don't stalk and slander, as these people seem to enjoy.
Regarding fertility et al.: Why does someone want to pounce on someone like a cheetah, or whatever it was that person said? I don't believe I've ever said that I wanted to pounce on someone like a cheetah, no matter how inane or rude that person's comment it. Go to www.in-gender.com and you'll find lots of women who have children all of the same sex and want a child of the opposite sex. Is their desire to be trivialized simply because they already have a child? Methinks that people have become far, far too sensitive in these politically correct days. I grew up with a family who had three daughters, the last of which was named a female version of her father's name. When she was born, her mother called the dad and said, "Go ahead and eat your supper; it's another girl." This was a story that all of us heard and it wasn't anything that "victimized" the third daughter, or any of the other daughters. They're all grown and relatively happy these days, as far as I can tell.
Your comments have inspired me to talk even more about post-partum depression. Our illustrious King Jorge has managed to institute a program, little reported in mainstream media, that aims for the government to screen every woman and child for PPD. In the land of the supposed free, such a program is bizarre and uncalled for. Brooke, as with many celebrities these days, is touting how lovely it is to be a victim. It's that kind of thing that ties in so nicely with the pharmaceutical companies and their supposed cures. These pill cures can preclude women from breastfeeding. Hmmm. Ponder that for a moment. I would think that it would very much be in the interest of breastfeeding moms to be very much against this kind of thing. My commentary on the mental health industry, which I've also written about for Lew Rockwell, has made a lot of women think twice about depression and its so-called cures. For that, I am thankful. Again, I'm not saying that post-partum depression doesn't exist, but that it doesn't need to be touted and encouraged, especially by celebrity spokespeople.
You've just read Thinking Mama's response to this:
I was so sorry to hear that other people resorted to insults to express their disagreements with your views. I always find it a real shame when people behave like that.
Couple of things to say, though. Firstly - no, I don't think it's fertility that the critics dislike. I think it's certain attitudes. The woman that Julie criticised, in the post you quoted – Julie wasn't criticising her for being fertile. She was criticising her for talking, publically, about the birth of a healthy boy as something that she was 'devastated' about. Doesn't it seem to you that that really is a rather tactless, thoughtless way to put it? I'm not saying it's wrong to be upset because you had a boy rather than a girl. But, when so many women would give anything to have had the blessing of that birth, is it really appropriate to sound so ungrateful about it so publically? (And in front of the child, too – now, that's just wrong!)
The other, and more important, issue is what you've said about post-natal depression in the past (http://www.newswithviews.com/Vaughan/t
I've written more about this at http://goodenoughmummy.typepad.com/good
