Jump to content
DOSBODS
  • Welcome to DOSBODS

     

    DOSBODS is free of any advertising.

    Ads are annoying, and - increasingly - advertising companies limit free speech online. DOSBODS Forums are completely free to use. Please create a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

     

but we really need to look forward and not back. It’s the right moment for us.


Recommended Posts

Marie Stopes charity changes name in break with founder's view on eugenics

Organisation says Black Lives Matter movement reaffirmed commitment to changing name to MSI Reproductive Choices

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/nov/17/marie-stopes-charity-changes-name-in-break-with-founders-view-on-eugenics

Cooke said the board began seriously discussing a name change in November last year, but that the events of 2020, particularly the Black Lives Matter movement, had propelled change. “The name of the organisation has been a topic of discussion for many years and the events of 2020 have reaffirmed that changing our name now is the right decision,” he said.

Why???

The organisation is launching a new 10-year strategy to reach at least 120 million women and girls with voluntary healthcare services over the next decade, and to encourage greater use of telemedicine, something which has increased rapidly during Covid-19 lockdowns. MSI wants to be more active in influencing policy in the countries in which it works.

Eh??

Cooke said that although “we didn’t plan it to be part of our strategy”, the organisation was “delighted” at the result of the US presidential election.

Id really keep my gob shut on on all things baortion and US funding. I dont think Trump was against birth control.

Very very very very strange linkin CV for the 3rd sector. Looks like a Peter Principle type.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/simon-cooke-3530368

 

Websites fun

https://www.msichoices.org/

‘If you empower a woman or a girl, then you’ve empowered a home, you’ve empowered a country and you’ve empowered the world” 

These are the words of Damaless, a fearless MSI nurse in Zambia who sees the power of reproductive choice first-hand. Every day she witnesses how choice supports women and girls to live their lives on their own terms, to stay in education, forge careers and contribute to improving their lives and communities.  

How the right to choose is transformational.  

Looking at the shithole birth rates Id say they are not doing a good jobs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, spunko said:

It took me a while to figure out if the charity was pro or anti abortion, such is the neutrality of the Guardian article. 

Because it's in Africa the journalists don't give a shit, but why can't all articles be like this.

I thought they were promoting wimmin football .....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panther said:

1. empower a woman or a girl

2. ??????

3. ??????

4. ??????

My take on the quote was:  Do the countries they operate in approve of them empowering girls/women, or do they not care that much are are happy to take the cash.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I find nearly all charities are basically some sort of virtue signalling system for emotionally crippled members of society.

They like to feel that they are good people doing good things.

All that they want from you is your money so that they can get a warm glow in themselves when they give your money to whatever cause they have battened onto.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Byron said:

Personally I find nearly all charities are basically some sort of virtue signalling system for emotionally crippled members of society.

They like to feel that they are good people doing good things.

All that they want from you is your money so that they can get a warm glow in themselves when they give your money to whatever cause they have battened onto.

 

I feel the same about sponsorship when they say on the radio that X has raised two grand by going for a run.

They go for a run anyway but now claim on social media they're doing it for some charitable cause. 

The reality is that people other than X have dug into their pockets for charity and X has got to do the run they would have done anyway but with added "Well done you."

If anyone genuine wishes to raise money for charity rather than raise their own profile then they can get a second job and pay all the earnings from it to charity.

Now that's something of which you don't hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive put my 80s Ad exec glasses on

8405e952-1b88-11ea-81f0-0c253907d3e0?fit

 

Rebranding - 

Dead Baby in a Bucket Inc

Short. To the point. Communicates the core message.

 

20 minutes ago, Byron said:

Personally I find nearly all charities are basically some sort of virtue signalling system for emotionally crippled members of society.

They like to feel that they are good people doing good things.

All that they want from you is your money so that they can get a warm glow in themselves when they give your money to whatever cause they have battened onto.

 

5 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

 

I feel the same about sponsorship when they say on the radio that X has raised two grand by going for a run.

They go for a run anyway but now claim on social media they're doing it for some charitable cause. 

The reality is that people other than X have dug into their pockets for charity and X has got to do the run they would have done anyway but with added "Well done you."

If anyone genuine wishes to raise money for charity rather than raise their own profile then they can get a second job and pay all the earnings from it to charity.

Now that's something of which you don't hear.

I dont think anyones done a sponsored run or sky dive for Marie Stokes ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, muggle said:

Author . of sex manual

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/stopes/married/1918.html

No piccies mind.

If a swimmer comes to a sandy beach when the tide is out and the waves have receded, leaving sand where he had expected deep blue water – does he, balked of his bath, angrily call the sea "capricious"?

But the tenderest bridegroom finds only caprice in his bride's coldness when she yields her sacrificial body while her sex-tide is at the ebb.

I think thats a No

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that woman is lowered or "soiled" by sexual intercourse is still deeply rooted in some strata of our society. Many sources have contributed to this mistaken idea, not the least powerful being the ascetic ideal of the early church, and the fact that man has used woman as his instrument so often regardless of her wishes. Women's education and the trend of social feeling have largely been in the direction of encouraging the idea that sex-life is a low, physical, and degrading necessity which a pure woman is above enjoying.

In marriage the husband has used his "marital right"5 of intercourse when he wished it. Both law and custom have strengthened the view that he has the right to approach his wife whenever he wishes, and that she has no wishes and no fundamental needs in the matter at all.

That woman has a rhythmic sex-tide which if its seasons were obeyed would ensure not only her enjoyment, but would explode the myth of her capriciousness, seems not to be suspected. We have studied the wave-lengths of water, of sound, of light; but when will the sons and daughters of men study the sex-tide in woman and learn the laws of her Periodicity of Recurrence of Desire?

Sex-tide .... surfs up ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, muggle said:

Marie Stopes - a British author, Palaeobotanist and campaigner for eugenics and women's rights  O.o

I don't see what's wrong with using eugenics to a degree.

An acquaintance has had her entire life ruined by having a mentally ill child; not that they would openly admit it.

If there had been a check for her and the father to say that their genes in combination gave a 40% chance of such then they would either not have had the child or had it tested in the womb and aborted. 

In case anyone thinks I'm being callous here the child doesn't have much quality of life and that will worsen considerably when her mother dies and she is put into an institution.

You'd have to look at the diseases on a case by case basis but I would include cystic fibrosis as I knew somebody who had that and she knew she was only likely to live into her mid twenties and she didn't even make that.  There was nothing at all wrong with her mentally which must make it worse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

I don't see what's wrong with using eugenics to a degree.

There's common sense, and batshit mental. Stopes tried everything she could to destroy her son's relationship with a girl who (shock, horror) wore glasses. Is that the action of a moral, sane and loving mother? I rest my case!

I'm just amused that it has taken them so many decades to acknowledge that there is an issue to be faced. She was, essentially, a product of her time, and therefore obviously flawed. But to airbrush her away like an 'inconvenient' pregnancy, means that society is one step further from having a serious conversation about our responsibilities to the reproductive health of future generations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

I don't see what's wrong with using eugenics to a degree.

An acquaintance has had her entire life ruined by having a mentally ill child; not that they would openly admit it.

If there had been a check for her and the father to say that their genes in combination gave a 40% chance of such then they would either not have had the child or had it tested in the womb and aborted. 

In case anyone thinks I'm being callous here the child doesn't have much quality of life and that will worsen considerably when her mother dies and she is put into an institution.

You'd have to look at the diseases on a case by case basis but I would include cystic fibrosis as I knew somebody who had that and she knew she was only likely to live into her mid twenties and she didn't even make that.  There was nothing at all wrong with her mentally which must make it worse.

 

2 hours ago, unregistered_guest said:

There's common sense, and batshit mental. Stopes tried everything she could to destroy her son's relationship with a girl who (shock, horror) wore glasses. Is that the action of a moral, sane and loving mother? I rest my case!

I'm just amused that it has taken them so many decades to acknowledge that there is an issue to be faced. She was, essentially, a product of her time, and therefore obviously flawed. But to airbrush her away like an 'inconvenient' pregnancy, means that society is one step further from having a serious conversation about our responsibilities to the reproductive health of future generations.

To the extent of glasses - yes.

But what about cousin marriage?

Ditto the low level of genetic diversity found in most council estates.

I dont think you can breed in a high IQ, which is a random die throw of genes, culture, upbringing and opportunity.

However very low iq seems to hand in hand with the dumb single mums getting knocked up by blokes who may be their half sibling or cousin. I hear the same thing every year - Oh another of shazza 10kids has started, total moron/ SEN.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

I don't see what's wrong with using eugenics to a degree.

An acquaintance has had her entire life ruined by having a mentally ill child; not that they would openly admit it.

If there had been a check for her and the father to say that their genes in combination gave a 40% chance of such then they would either not have had the child or had it tested in the womb and aborted. 

In case anyone thinks I'm being callous here the child doesn't have much quality of life and that will worsen considerably when her mother dies and she is put into an institution.

You'd have to look at the diseases on a case by case basis but I would include cystic fibrosis as I knew somebody who had that and she knew she was only likely to live into her mid twenties and she didn't even make that.  There was nothing at all wrong with her mentally which must make it worse.

Thats largely what my late father said to me when I was about 19

I disagreed. It was wrong. My younger self.

Shit happens, you get older and gain more of that lowest level of scientific evidence, the magic E; Experience.

I am now with you Frank and have been for a long while on this area.

We just dont use that eugenics word.

Genetic testing/ counselling.

Edited by The Grey Man
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...