I'm trying to compile a list of people who have meant something for the childfree cause, a list of pioneers if you like. So far I have come up with the following names:
* Ellen Peck (BON) * Leslie Lafayette (Childfree Network) * Jerry Steinberg (No Kidding!)
I'm sure I'm missing a lot, so could you please add more names to my list, preferably also with a brief description their contribution to the childfree cause. The more people I've got the better. You can even nominate yourself if you feel that's appropriate.
The reason why I'm after this information is to include it in my book on childfreedom, which I have been working on for a couple of years now (due to circumstances there were longer periods of time that I couldn't write as much as I wanted to). I'm dedicating at least one chapter to the history of childfreedom and the people who have played an important role in that.
This is a great thread. I look forward to seeing other responses, > especially from those who don't live in the U.S. My responses are rather > Americentric.
Here is a long list of CF people, past and present:
ChildFree Abby 11 December 2004 23:01:45 [ permanent link ]
MFS wrote:
"Marije" <marije.feddema@kindervrij.org> wrote in > news:1102652361.444165.189310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:>
Katharine Hepburn (never had nor wanted kids. Not the earliest CF pop-> culture celeb - that might be Mae West or W.C. Fields - but perhaps a > pioneer because of her long-lasting popularity. Think how many times > she's been mentioned here and on other CF sites)>
Actually, W.C. Fields was not childfree. He was married Harriet Hughes in 1900, and were never divorced.
In 1904, W.C. Fields, Jr. was born in Philadelphia--and a severe rift developed in the marriage. Hattie refused to raise W.C. Jr. on the road, while Fields wanted his family in tow. Fields lost the argument and the couple soon separated. They nevertheless remained married until Fields' death in 1946. (Fields Jr. was raised entirely by Hattie, but at least to his credit Fields Sr. was not a deadbeat--he never failed for the rest of his life to send a comfortable stipend to Hattie and child support money for W.C. Jr.)
In article <1102792414.070828.184160@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, alanslackerinc@yahoo.com wrote:
"Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood)"> And a racist eugenicist.
She still had the right idea about babies. Abort them ALL!...Pete, in favor of a 100 percent abortion rate -- Robots that make smelly farts? That doesn't make any sense!
ChildFree Abby <morganor@hotmail.com> wrote in news:320uguF3e9i03U1 @individual.net:
Actually, W.C. Fields was not childfree. He was married Harriet Hughes > in 1900, and were never divorced.>
In 1904, W.C. Fields, Jr. was born in Philadelphia--and a severe rift > developed in the marriage. Hattie refused to raise W.C. Jr. on the road, > while Fields wanted his family in tow. Fields lost the argument and the > couple soon separated. They nevertheless remained married until Fields' > death in 1946. (Fields Jr. was raised entirely by Hattie, but at least > to his credit Fields Sr. was not a deadbeat--he never failed for the > rest of his life to send a comfortable stipend to Hattie and child > support money for W.C. Jr.)
Thank you for the corrections. I should have done my homework before proclaiming Fields to be CF.
Would he still fit in the category of "CF pioneer" for making a lack of affection for kids seem acceptable (in a curmudgeonly way) in the popular culture? He was famous at a time when the tide was turning away from "children should be seen and not heard" and moving toward "aren't they precious and cute, and everyone within the tri-county area must see and hear them." Consider, for example, that the Our Gang/Little Rascals movies were out around the same time as Fields' movies.
Thank you for the corrections. I should have done my homework before> proclaiming Fields to be CF.>
Would he still fit in the category of "CF pioneer" for making a lack
affection for kids seem acceptable (in a curmudgeonly way) in the
popular> culture? He was famous at a time when the tide was turning away from> "children should be seen and not heard" and moving toward "aren't they> precious and cute, and everyone within the tri-county area must see
hear them." Consider, for example, that the Our Gang/Little Rascals
movies> were out around the same time as Fields' movies.
I dunno that I'd give him a pass-- seems like the purity of not breeding to begin with needs to be upheld. Otherwise, we'd have to put all of Victorian England on the list.
"Veronique" <veroniqueunique@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1102800667.128508.65830@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
I dunno that I'd give him a pass-- seems like the purity of not> breeding to begin with needs to be upheld. Otherwise, we'd have to put> all of Victorian England on the list.
Many of the people on my list are not childfree themselves, but they are important to the history of childfreedom. That's not to say that W.C. Fields is a major contributor, just a pop-cultural note.
A group I forgot when compiling my list is the National Organization of Non-Parents, which existed from 1972-1982. In 1978, they changed their name to the warmer, fuzzier National Alliance for Optional Parenthood.
I dunno that I'd give him a pass-- seems like the purity of not> > breeding to begin with needs to be upheld. Otherwise, we'd have to
all of Victorian England on the list.>
Many of the people on my list are not childfree themselves, but they
important to the history of childfreedom.
I'm just sayin', childfreedom goes hand in hand with reproductive rights and population concerns. So once you start adding these important but non-CF to "Childfree Pioneers", you're going to have a much larger list.
That's not to say that W.C.> Fields is a major contributor, just a pop-cultural note.
Would that we all are remembered as a pop-cultural note!
A group I forgot when compiling my list is the National Organization
Non-Parents, which existed from 1972-1982. In 1978, they changed
their name> to the warmer, fuzzier National Alliance for Optional Parenthood.
How big was it? My rough impression, given the number of decidely CF but non-self-defining-as-CF (I mean, people who don't have and never had any intention of having kids but who still wouldn't consider themselves a part of a trend or movement or anything-- they still call themselves "childless" despite fitting the criteria of "don't want 'em, don't have 'em") whom I know IRL, my impression in general is that CF aren't likely to walk arm in arm down the Mall in Washington DC as part of a movement, and are hardly likely to join the National Organization of Non-Parents Everywhere (NOPE) or anything else. Just thinking out loud here.
"Veronique" <veroniqueunique@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1102827748.486136.210630@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
How big was it? My rough impression, given the number of decidely CF> but non-self-defining-as-CF (I mean, people who don't have and never> had any intention of having kids but who still wouldn't consider> themselves a part of a trend or movement or anything-- they still call> themselves "childless" despite fitting the criteria of "don't want 'em,> don't have 'em") whom I know IRL, my impression in general is that CF> aren't likely to walk arm in arm down the Mall in Washington DC as part> of a movement, and are hardly likely to join the National Organization> of Non-Parents Everywhere (NOPE) or anything else.> Just thinking out loud here.
A casual Google search does not tell me how large the organization was. It had multiple chapters; it wasn't six people in a basement or anything like that. A Medline or PubMed study I found referenced surveys sent out to 420 randomly selected members of the group.
The following article credits the organization with the invention of the term "childfree":
Whether large groups of CF people are likely to join such an organization or march on Washington seems irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not really sure where you were going with that. Just because the group didn't do the Million Non-Mom March doesn't mean they didn't play a role in CF history.
How big was it? My rough impression, given the number of decidely
but non-self-defining-as-CF (I mean, people who don't have and
never> > had any intention of having kids but who still wouldn't consider> > themselves a part of a trend or movement or anything-- they still call> > themselves "childless" despite fitting the criteria of "don't want 'em,> > don't have 'em") whom I know IRL, my impression in general is that
aren't likely to walk arm in arm down the Mall in Washington DC as
part> > of a movement, and are hardly likely to join the National Organization> > of Non-Parents Everywhere (NOPE) or anything else.> > Just thinking out loud here.>
A casual Google search does not tell me how large the organization
was.> It had multiple chapters; it wasn't six people in a basement or anything> like that. A Medline or PubMed study I found referenced surveys sent
to 420 randomly selected members of the group.>
The following article credits the organization with the invention of
Whether large groups of CF people are likely to join such an
organization> or march on Washington seems irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not> really sure where you were going with that. Just because the group didn't> do the Million Non-Mom March doesn't mean they didn't play a role in
history.
Curiosity, mostly. And the ability to move off on a tangent at a moment's notice. And the image of a million CF, arm-in-arm from Capitol to the Washington Monument. A girl can dream, can't she?
"Veronique" <veroniqueunique@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1102830081.179294.126860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Curiosity, mostly. And the ability to move off on a tangent at a> moment's notice. And the image of a million CF, arm-in-arm from Capitol> to the Washington Monument.> A girl can dream, can't she?
It's a great notion. I think you're right, though; it's unlikely to happen.
Amanda Robin <amanderr@yahoo.com> wrote in news:121220040811379072%amanderr@yahoo.com:
Charlotte Perkins Gilman may not belong on your list, although she was> a pioneer in so many ways. Here are some excerpts from her novel> "Herland," a feminist utopian novel that put motherhood as the> pinnacle of women's achievements.>
(The context is that a group of men have stumbled on an all-female> society and are questioning the women there)
Ah, this plot device again. I've seen it a few times bfore, but mostly with martial arts and/or spaceship battles.
***************>
яя"You surely do not think that any of us," he said it with a good> deal of emphasis on the "us," "would hurt your young girls?">
яяя"Oh no," she said quickly, in real surprise. "The danger is quite> the other way. They might hurt you. If, by any accident, you did harm> any one of us, you would have to face a million mothers."
OK, obvious question now: who would win in a fight, this crew or the Mouse Army (from _Diamond Age_ by Neal Stephenson)?
Jeri Jo Thomas 13 December 2004 05:36:22 [ permanent link ]
From the trenches *ack.20.teletard@spamgourmet.com* sent a runner with this important missive...
Q:Many of the people on my list are not childfree themselves, but they are Q:important to the history of childfreedom. That's not to say that W.C. Q:Fields is a major contributor, just a pop-cultural note. Q: Here's some people to add to your list:
Elaine Burkette -- I can't believe you left her off! Sharon Case, actress Y&R, has stated that she doesn't want kids Anna Stuart, actress "Another World", also stated that she never wanted kids Stephanie Powers, actress, final companion of William Holden Jill St. John, actress, marred twice, no kids
And with Diane Sawyer with no kids, I can't believe how she badgered George Clooney about not having kids on the O12 Primetime Live special. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Important MWS documents ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The MWS FAQ: http://www.online-communicator.com/faqs.html Filtering Trolls: http://www.schmuckwithanunderwood.com/trolls.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jeri Jo Thomas <katana365@earthlink.net> wrote in news:MPG.1c26aa07d73286e19898d5@news.east.earthlink.net:
Here's some people to add to your list:>
Elaine Burkette -- I can't believe you left her off!
Elinor Burkett, yes. My list goes back a little further in history, but she absolutely deserves a place on a CF Pioneers list. "The Baby Boon" is the only major publication I know of that discusses how people with kids benefit at the expense of those with kids.
Sharon Case, actress Y&R, has stated that she doesn't want kids> Anna Stuart, actress "Another World", also stated that she never> wanted kids> Stephanie Powers, actress, final companion of William Holden> Jill St. John, actress, marred twice, no kids
Excellent CF pop-culture icons, but I wouldn't call them pioneers.
And with Diane Sawyer with no kids, I can't believe how she badgered > George Clooney about not having kids on the O12 Primetime Live> special.
Good observation. Maybe she gave Clooney a hard time because she wanted him to talk openly about not wanting kids. I'd like to think that was the case.
Thanks so much for so many replies. I couldn't respond earlier as I hadn't found a way how to access the beta version of the Google groups at home (it doesn't default to that like it does at work, for some reason) and in the older version not all the messages show up.
Margaret Sanger I have included (I forgot to mention her on my list). I tend to agree with MFS that there are no 100% good people. I don't agree with all of the old feminist ideas too, but feminism was of influence to the later childfree movement, no matter how you look at it. MFS, thanks for listing the other people and groups as well, I'll go and investigate them.
I've had a look at the Childfree by Choice list quickly too. It's a very long list, so it'll take me a while to go through. There were a lot of people on it that I don't know though (perhaps because of my non-American background).
"Thank you for the corrections. I should have done my homework before proclaiming Fields to be CF.
Would he still fit in the category of "CF pioneer" for making a lack of affection for kids seem acceptable (in a curmudgeonly way) in the popular culture? He was famous at a time when the tide was turning away from "children should be seen and not heard" and moving toward "aren't they precious and cute, and everyone within the tri-county area must see and hear them." Consider, for example, that the Our Gang/Little Rascals movies were out around the same time as Fields' movies."
That sounds interesting enough. I'll see if I can find out a bit more about him and include him in my book.
Jeri Jo Thomas. I'll have a look at the ones you listed too, especially Elinor Burkett.
How about other writers of CF books? Would they somehow fit on the list of pioneers too or is there something special about Elinor that makes her a CF pioneer?
Also, would anyone consider Melissa McPherson (founder of the former ChildFree Association) to be a CF pioneer? I know she used to be part of this group (I read older messages of her, but she seemed to have vanished suddenly).
By the way, my co-writer and I have decided to donate part or all of the revenue made from the book to charity, which include the World Childfree Association of course (to further promote childfreedom), but also the RSPCA (animal protection) in Australia (because most of the childfree are animal lovers, including myself). The book is currently being written in Dutch, but if a publisher is interested in giving it out in English too, I might decide to translate it and internationalise it a bit (at the moment it is very much focused on childfreedom in the Netherlands).
"Marije" <marije.feddema@kindervrij.org> wrote in message news:1102909783.370121.144860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> Hello all,>
Thanks so much for so many replies. I couldn't respond earlier as I> hadn't found a way how to access the beta version of the Google groups> at home (it doesn't default to that like it does at work, for some> reason) and in the older version not all the messages show up.>
Margaret Sanger I have included (I forgot to mention her on my list). I> tend to agree with MFS that there are no 100% good people. I don't> agree with all of the old feminist ideas too, but feminism was of> influence to the later childfree movement, no matter how you look at> it. MFS, thanks for listing the other people and groups as well, I'll> go and investigate them.>
I've had a look at the Childfree by Choice list quickly too. It's a> very long list, so it'll take me a while to go through. There were a> lot of people on it that I don't know though (perhaps because of my> non-American background).>
"Thank you for the corrections. I should have done my homework before> proclaiming Fields to be CF.>
Would he still fit in the category of "CF pioneer" for making a lack of> affection for kids seem acceptable (in a curmudgeonly way) in the> popular> culture? He was famous at a time when the tide was turning away from> "children should be seen and not heard" and moving toward "aren't they> precious and cute, and everyone within the tri-county area must see and> hear them." Consider, for example, that the Our Gang/Little Rascals> movies> were out around the same time as Fields' movies.">
That sounds interesting enough. I'll see if I can find out a bit more> about him and include him in my book.>
Jeri Jo Thomas. I'll have a look at the ones you listed too, especially> Elinor Burkett.>
How about other writers of CF books? Would they somehow fit on the list> of pioneers too or is there something special about Elinor that makes> her a CF pioneer?>
Also, would anyone consider Melissa McPherson (founder of the former> ChildFree Association) to be a CF pioneer? I know she used to be part> of this group (I read older messages of her, but she seemed to have> vanished suddenly).>
By the way, my co-writer and I have decided to donate part or all of> the revenue made from the book to charity, which include the World> Childfree Association of course (to further promote childfreedom), but> also the RSPCA (animal protection) in Australia (because most of the> childfree are animal lovers, including myself). The book is currently> being written in Dutch, but if a publisher is interested in giving it> out in English too, I might decide to translate it and internationalise> it a bit (at the moment it is very much focused on childfreedom in the> Netherlands).>
Regards,> Marije>
Was Agnes Smedley child free? Her autobiography about pioneer life which I had to read for a coordinated studies class about ten years ago was pretty darned phenomenal. Can't recall if she ever had a miscarriage or had any children, though. She definitey got married but spent long periods of time apart from him for one reason or another.
Phenomenal book about a pioneer woman at any rate... It's called Daughter of Earth and is a great read. Large book, but it's intriguing enough to get through pretty fast.
MFS <ack.20.teletard@spamgourmet.com> wrote in news:Xns95BD5FFD2AFC9mfswheee@130.133.1.4:
Ugh. You're right. I also see that feminism as uterism is hardly a new > concept. >
We'll strike Ms. Gilman from the list, interesting a read though she is. > It seems she didn't understand that women should have the choice to not > be mothers. I guess she didn't learn from her experiences that led to > "The Yellow Wallpaper."
Or maybe she did, but figured the lesson was "we should get compensation for being forced to do this" instead of "we shouldn't be forced to do this in the first place"?
I'm reminded of that thread on soc.feminism a couple of years ago on whether American women today need to be compensated for the burdens of motherhood...
Omixochitl <omixochitl2002@yahoo.com> wrote in news:Xns95BE545E576ABidtoken@130.133.1.4:
Or maybe she did, but figured the lesson was "we should get> compensation for being forced to do this" instead of "we shouldn't be> forced to do this in the first place"?>
I'm reminded of that thread on soc.feminism a couple of years ago on > whether American women today need to be compensated for the burdens of> motherhood...
Back in Charlotte Perkins Gilman's day, when not being a mother wasn't an option for most fertile women, compensation for motherhood would have been a fair idea. Nowadays, I wouldn't support it, because women have the option to just not do it.
The exception would be in lesser-developed countries where birth control is not easy to get and societal attitudes are still prejudiced against the childless woman, but most of those countries treat women so poorly that compensating them for motherhood would never be considered. The woman's only use is to provide children, so why pay her for it? (and yet prostitutes can still get paid in those countries...tells you how much children are really valued, when producing them is worth nothing but producing an available orifice warrants a bit of cash)
MFS <ack.20.teletard@spamgourmet.com> wrote in news:Xns95BE52EE32E01mfswheee@130.133.1.4:
Omixochitl <omixochitl2002@yahoo.com> wrote in> news:Xns95BE545E576ABidtoken@130.133.1.4: >
Or maybe she did, but figured the lesson was "we should get>> compensation for being forced to do this" instead of "we shouldn't be>> forced to do this in the first place"?>>
I'm reminded of that thread on soc.feminism a couple of years ago on >> whether American women today need to be compensated for the burdens>> of motherhood...>
Back in Charlotte Perkins Gilman's day, when not being a mother wasn't> an option for most fertile women, compensation for motherhood would> have been a fair idea. Nowadays, I wouldn't support it, because women> have the option to just not do it. >
The exception would be in lesser-developed countries where birth> control is not easy to get and societal attitudes are still prejudiced> against the childless woman, but most of those countries treat women> so poorly that compensating them for motherhood would never be> considered. The woman's only use is to provide children, so why pay> her for it? (and yet prostitutes can still get paid in those> countries...tells you how much children are really valued, when> producing them is worth nothing but producing an available orifice> warrants a bit of cash)
Hmm...if someone gets more food and shelter from her husband/father-in- -law/whomever's in charge if she bears heirs than if she doesn't, does that count as her earning a living (in some barter manner) bearing heirs?
Omixochitl <omixochitl2002@yahoo.com> wrote in news:Xns95BEE1D585BBAidtoken@130.133.1.4:
Hmm...if someone gets more food and shelter from her husband/father-in-> -law/whomever's in charge if she bears heirs than if she doesn't, does > that count as her earning a living (in some barter manner) bearing heirs?
Maybe. Which is an even sadder thought.
"Breed for us and you won't die a beggar on the streets."
Mroo Philpott-Smythe 14 December 2004 08:06:30 [ permanent link ]
Omixochitl <omixochitl2002@yahoo.com> wrote in news:Xns95BEE1D585BBAidtoken@130.133.1.4:
MFS <ack.20.teletard@spamgourmet.com> wrote in> news:Xns95BE52EE32E01mfswheee@130.133.1.4: >
Omixochitl <omixochitl2002@yahoo.com> wrote in>> news:Xns95BE545E576ABidtoken@130.133.1.4: >>
Or maybe she did, but figured the lesson was "we should get>>> compensation for being forced to do this" instead of "we shouldn't>>> be forced to do this in the first place"?>>>
I'm reminded of that thread on soc.feminism a couple of years ago on>>> whether American women today need to be compensated for the burdens>>> of motherhood...>>
Back in Charlotte Perkins Gilman's day, when not being a mother>> wasn't an option for most fertile women, compensation for motherhood>> would have been a fair idea. Nowadays, I wouldn't support it, because>> women have the option to just not do it. >>
The exception would be in lesser-developed countries where birth>> control is not easy to get and societal attitudes are still>> prejudiced against the childless woman, but most of those countries>> treat women so poorly that compensating them for motherhood would>> never be considered. The woman's only use is to provide children, so>> why pay her for it? (and yet prostitutes can still get paid in those>> countries...tells you how much children are really valued, when>> producing them is worth nothing but producing an available orifice>> warrants a bit of cash) >
Hmm...if someone gets more food and shelter from her> husband/father-in- -law/whomever's in charge if she bears heirs than> if she doesn't, does that count as her earning a living (in some> barter manner) bearing heirs?
Being, as my ER doctor friend calls it "a bag for having babies"?
Just remember the fate of those poor babybags who bear the "wrong" gender of heir.
sq, "Currently trying to help raise some funds for battered women who spawned females"
Keith Barber 14 December 2004 08:37:15 [ permanent link ]
Omixochitl <omixochitl2002@yahoo.com> wrote in news:Xns95BEE1D585BBAidtoken@130.133.1.4:
Hmm...if someone gets more food and shelter from her husband/father-in-> -law/whomever's in charge if she bears heirs than if she doesn't, does > that count as her earning a living (in some barter manner) bearing heirs?>
Yet another form of prostitution.
-- Keith Barber anerien@comcast.net I am the housing fairy
In Message-ID:<Xns95BE545E576ABidtoken@130.133.1.4> posted on 13 Dec 2004 13:16:50 GMT, Omixochitl wrote:
MFS <ack.20.teletard@spamgourmet.com> wrote in >news:Xns95BD5FFD2AFC9mfswheee@130.133.1.4:>
Ugh. You're right. I also see that feminism as uterism is hardly a new >> concept. >>
We'll strike Ms. Gilman from the list, interesting a read though she is. >> It seems she didn't understand that women should have the choice to not >> be mothers. I guess she didn't learn from her experiences that led to >> "The Yellow Wallpaper.">
Or maybe she did, but figured the lesson was "we should get compensation >for being forced to do this" instead of "we shouldn't be forced to do this >in the first place"?>
I'm reminded of that thread on soc.feminism a couple of years ago on >whether American women today need to be compensated for the burdens of >motherhood...
Not unless they were stupid enough to become mothers.
...Of course, many people are stupid enough to follow self-appointed leaders.
After all, look at how may previously intelligent Germans followed Hitler? And how many Russians followed the Communists! And how many people followed the "Reverend Jim Jones. ....or the Pope, for that matter!
"mroo philpott-smythe" <sqanga@hatglovesidiom.com> wrote in news:Xns95BECD0CD98DAsqangamroo@216.240.32.176:
Omixochitl <omixochitl2002@yahoo.com> wrote in> news:Xns95BEE1D585BBAidtoken@130.133.1.4: >
MFS <ack.20.teletard@spamgourmet.com> wrote in>> news:Xns95BE52EE32E01mfswheee@130.133.1.4: >>
Omixochitl <omixochitl2002@yahoo.com> wrote in>>> news:Xns95BE545E576ABidtoken@130.133.1.4: >>>
Or maybe she did, but figured the lesson was "we should get>>>> compensation for being forced to do this" instead of "we shouldn't>>>> be forced to do this in the first place"?>>>>
I'm reminded of that thread on soc.feminism a couple of years ago on>>>> whether American women today need to be compensated for the burdens>>>> of motherhood...>>>
Back in Charlotte Perkins Gilman's day, when not being a mother>>> wasn't an option for most fertile women, compensation for motherhood>>> would have been a fair idea. Nowadays, I wouldn't support it, because>>> women have the option to just not do it. >>>
The exception would be in lesser-developed countries where birth>>> control is not easy to get and societal attitudes are still>>> prejudiced against the childless woman, but most of those countries>>> treat women so poorly that compensating them for motherhood would>>> never be considered. The woman's only use is to provide children, so>>> why pay her for it? (and yet prostitutes can still get paid in those>>> countries...tells you how much children are really valued, when>>> producing them is worth nothing but producing an available orifice>>> warrants a bit of cash) >>
Hmm...if someone gets more food and shelter from her>> husband/father-in- -law/whomever's in charge if she bears heirs than>> if she doesn't, does that count as her earning a living (in some>> barter manner) bearing heirs? >
Being, as my ER doctor friend calls it "a bag for having babies"?
Pretty much. Doesn't it suck when a woman has no opportunity to do, or even learn, any safer job or profession?
Just remember the fate of those poor babybags who bear the "wrong"> gender of heir.
Yup - that's why I specified "bears heirs" instead of "bears sons who will inherit stuff and/or daughters who won't."
Meanwhile, also remember the fate of those who bear the "right" gender but got HIV mixed with the Y-chromosome sperm cells...
sq, "Currently trying to help raise some funds for battered women who> spawned females"
Mroo Philpott-Smythe 15 December 2004 13:58:30 [ permanent link ]
Omixochitl <omixochitl2002@yahoo.com> wrote in news:Xns95C01289E1841idtoken@130.133.1.4:> "mroo philpott-smythe" <sqanga@hatglovesidiom.com> wrote in > news:Xns95BECD0CD98DAsqangamroo@216.240.32.176:
[hugeEctomy]
Hmm...if someone gets more food and shelter from her>>> husband/father-in- -law/whomever's in charge if she bears heirs than>>> if she doesn't, does that count as her earning a living (in some>>> barter manner) bearing heirs?
Being, as my ER doctor friend calls it "a bag for having babies"?
Pretty much. Doesn't it suck when a woman has no opportunity to do, or > even learn, any safer job or profession?
Yes. I grew up in that generation. It really sucks.
Just remember the fate of those poor babybags who bear the "wrong">> gender of heir.
Yup - that's why I specified "bears heirs" instead of "bears sons who > will inherit stuff and/or daughters who won't."
sq, "Currently trying to help raise some funds for battered women who>> spawned females"
Sounds like a cool fundraiser!
Well, this woman I know is working to fund a shelter for battered women. She's selling handmade writing paper and matching envelopes, mostly made by these women.
If anyone's interested in helping, ping me on the NG, I'll reset my filters and you can tell me if you want to send her a check, I'll send you the paper/envelopes.
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please . Если Вы хотите пожаловаться на содержимое этой страницы, пожалуйста .
