Friday, 23 December 2016

Polly Dunning, congratulations, or not…

Polly Dunning was shocked at learning that she was pregnant with, wait for it, a boy! What a surprise. In a world where the gender of babies can’t be controlled (unbeknownst to leftists), Polly Dunning has had to submit to the power of the world and nature. What really strikes me is that she is actually counter-productive. During her article, she acts like having a son was actually a disgusting thing to have, like she having a son was a punishment.

There were dark moments in the middle of the night (when all those dark thoughts come), when I felt sick at the thought of something male growing inside me.

Is that sexist? Is she discriminating based on sex? I thought the idea of feminism was to fight sexism against women. Maybe it's just women?

Polly Dunning with her son, Alfred.
Polly Dunning and son Alfred
On the idea of sexism, Dunning, the daughter of feminist Jane Caro, says that the world, and “even the best men (and women for that matter)” is ingrained with casual sexism. She pointed out how people say that boys are ‘easier’ to raise and adds “(casual and ingrained sexism, anyone?)”

How is that sexist? Taking the word from your friends, probably feminist, may I add, and pointing it out to the world. Aren’t e allowed to make statements about other genders, or about genders. Does Polly know that not all genders are the same? Then again, in her leftist cloud, all genders probably are the same. However, making a comparative statement about someone’s experiences is not sexist. Would Polly classify the statement that ‘girls are generally smarter than boys’ sexist? Differentiating the two genders (and yes, there are only two genders) is not sexist, it is factual, just like girls are smarter than boys (as current evidence suggests), maybe boys are easier to raise than girls.

I feel sorry for the boy. Will Polly keep this article to show how she felt after learning she would have a boy? And yes, I know she is not so happy about having his dear Alfred. As all parents do, she adores her child. But, the fact that she was feeling bitter after learning that she was going to have a boy, is plain selfish. Does she know how many people don’t have that opportunity? Who can’t have a child?

Also, doesn’t Polly know that women can break through the “glass ceiling”? In the 21st century, nothing stops women from doing anything. They can even become Presidents if the people like them. This huff about Hillary losing the election because she was a woman is absolute garbage. She lost because she was too confident on the polls, she leant on them too much, she didn’t relate to the American people and, in the end, the American people didn’t like her, end of story!
Women like Theresa May, Angela Merkel (foolish as she is), Oprah Winfrey, Ellen DeGeneres, etc can do whatever they want. It is the lazy women, the backseat drivers those who couldn’t possibly succeed (even if they had the so-called advantage of being male) that call out feminism the most. Those that say that women can’t get high positions. Those working from the preface that women can’t, and those not trying to.

The comments on Andrew Bolt’s blog hold many valued opinions.

Jane comments:
“I feel sorry for the boy already, him growing up knowing that he is inferior to his sisters because of his gender.
Wait, where have I heard that before, oh that’s right that is what feminists whinge about?”
She hits the point on the head. Dunning’s article is counter-productive. Dunning is actually going against what she is supposedly all about, gender equality (for the two genders). The son will now grow up knowing that his sisters, his girlfriends all his female associates, are superior than him because of gender.

Pat comments:
Feminism has become a dirty word - I can't write what I really think of Polly Dunning because it would raise multiple red flags. What is the Sydney Morning Herald doing by publishing this?”

Pat’s worries are completely justified. In this 18C world, you can’t say anything, especially to or about these leftists who use 18C as their shield and defendant.

David also touches on the counter-productive sexism issue saying:
“Imagine a father expressing a similar thought about having a daughter.
Oh, silly me that's different.”
This is furthered when Jan says:
“Holy moly - you can only imagine the outcry if the genders had been reversed in this article.”

Lastly and most importantly, James and Bernard touch on the point that is all important. How did Polly get pregnant?

Bernard:
“Surely this must be the Second Coming of Christ? After all, it seems to be a virgin birth.”

James:
“Baffles me how on earth she got pregnant, the thought of a male appendage anywhere near her delicate female nether regions would have thrown this poor little bed wetter in to convulsions.”

So, Polly Dunning, the poor mother who was lumbered with a son. She will live ever on as being, not the mother who fought sexism, but she who didn’t want a son, but got it anyway. Will Alfred be reading her disgusting writing anytime soon?

Alfred, good luck. I think you’ll be needing it soon.