Planned Parenthood vs. Little Girls: Sex-Selective Abortion in America

The worst form of discrimination against women in our time is one that is virtually ignored by feminists.

The abortion industry has long billed itself as a champion of women’s rights. Almost thirty years ago, the head of the National Abortion Rights Action League, or NARAL, told the New York Times that “Abortion is the guarantor of a woman’s right to participate fully in the social and political life of society.”

But as Cathy Ruse pointed out recently at the Daily Signal, abortion is being used right now to keep millions of women from participating in life, at all.

By some estimates, there are as many as 160 million girls and women missing worldwide because of sex-selective abortion. Modern technology that allows parents to find out before birth whether they’re having a boy or girl, coupled with traditional cultural preferences for boys, results in nothing less than “gendercide”—the systematic killing of female babies over males. And it’s not just happening overseas.

Newsweek reported last year that sex-selective abortions are on the rise right here in the U. S. One study by Columbia University found that Chinese, Korean and Indian parents on their second pregnancy gave birth to 117 boys for every 100 girls. For third children, the ratio shot up to a staggering 151 boys for every 100 girls.

The culprit, says Newsweek, is sex-selective abortion. So-called “family planning” clinics like those affiliated with Planned Parenthood are helping women kill their unborn daughters. You’d think organizations that pride themselves on protecting and empowering women would want this to stop, but you’d be wrong.

Last year, after the state of Indiana passed a law banning sex-selective abortion, a federal district judge granted a permanent injunction against the law at the request of—you guessed it—Planned Parenthood. In the name of ending discrimination against women, this abortion giant is literally making sure fewer women exist.

This is beyond perverse.

Feminists and the police: an illiberal alliance – Criminalising street harassment will harm women’s freedom


Following the Harvey Weinstein scandal, there have been countless articles, news stories, social-media campaigns and public statements aimed at raising awareness about sexual harassment.

Similar campaigns have been around for a while. New York’s Hollaback! organisation, set up in 2010, aimed to raise awareness about street harassment. EverydaySexism, the UK-based feminist website, was set up in 2012 to raise awareness about instances of ‘everyday sexism’. Sexual harassment preoccupies contemporary feminists, and their solution is often to call on government to Do Something.

Now, after the hysteria over Weinstein, the authorities are starting to heed feminists’ calls for greater intervention into women’s lives, and are creating new, illiberal laws as a result.

The French version of the #MeeToo hashtag, #BalanceTonPorc (‘expose your pig’), has encouraged the French government to propose fines for cat-calling. ‘At the moment street harassment is not defined in the law’, France’s gender-equality minister Marlene Schiappa said – and ‘it’s completely necessary’. Along with the proposed fines, Schiappa is calling for the statute of limitations in cases of alleged rapes against minors to be extended, and the raising of the age of consent. In Amsterdam, street harassment will be punishable with a €190 fine from January 2018.

This isn’t the first time this has happened. In 2016, Nottinghamshire Police announced that they would record harassment against women as a hate crime. ‘What women face, often on a daily basis, is absolutely unacceptable and can be extremely distressing’, chief constable Sue Fish said. A representative from the campaign group End Violence Against Women said: ‘What we are talking about is not trivial behaviour – some harassment that women and girls receive in public is upsetting and should have the attention of the authorities.’


As part of the BBC’s 100 Women campaign, reporters went undercover with British Transport Police officers charged with catching ‘offenders’ on the London Underground. This entailed undercover officers following people on the Tube who they thought looked ‘suspicious’. Rather than waiting for women to decide whether they want to report an incident, police officers literally jumped women to ask if they were okay. One clip showed an officer ambushing a woman in a tunnel, flashing his badge, to ask about a man who stood too close to her.

A man can now be criminalised for standing too close to, or shouting at, a woman. This is insane – but it’s also unsurprising. Feminists are actively encouraging police surveillance of women. Aren’t feminists creeped out by the idea that police officers (some in plain clothing) could be watching their every move?

This is what is so dangerous about contemporary feminism’s obsession with harassment. The over-hyping of levels of harassment (as previously reported on spiked) and social-media frenzies about the danger faced by women are having illiberal consequences. If governments are not seen to be proactive when it comes to protecting women, they’re ‘called out’ as misogynistic. So, the state reacts to such hysteria with illiberal policies. It satisfies the feminists on Twitter, but what will it mean for women at large, who are now considered to be in need of protection by the law?

Women don’t want, or need, to be watched over by the state. In fact, liberation movements of the past explicitly argued that viewing women as in need of protection against the ups and downs of public life was exactly what prevented them from being treated as equal to men. Jane Austen was hardly a feminist, but even she knew that the treatment of women as delicate ladies was a barrier to their freedom. In her 1817 novel Persuasion, Captain Frederick Wentworth’s sister chides him when he says taking women on board his ship is too dangerous. ‘I hate to hear you talking so like a fine gentleman, and as if women were all fine ladies, instead of rational creatures’, she says. ‘We none of us expect to be in smooth water all our days.’

Today’s patronising and illiberal approach to women’s safety risks treating us like 19th-century ladies, too delicate and sensitive to deal with the odd brute on the street. I’ve got more faith in women’s capability than that, and most women have enough guts to stand up for themselves. It’s time to tell feminists, and their police bodyguards, to back off and leave women alone.

Ella Whelan is assistant editor at spiked. Her new book, What Women Want: Fun, Freedom and an End to Feminism, is published by Connor Court. Buy it on Amazon UK and Amazon US.

Ella is speaking at the Battle of Ideas on Saturday 28 and Sunday 29 October.

College’s anti-male, emasculation program doubles in size


Northwestern University plans to double the capacity of the “men’s project” that it launched last year to help male students “deconstruct their own masculinity.”

Each quarter since spring 2016, “NU Men” has offered 12 openings for a six-week program where men can learn how “oppression is impacted by their male or masculine identity” and how they can “contribute to stopping violence.”


The program was launched by Paul Ang, the school’s Director of Men’s Engagement, immediately after the university received a $300,000 “violence prevention” grant from the Department of Justice, though a school official told Campus Reform that the program is entirely funded by the university itself, and is not supported by the federal grant.

While NU Men initially offered one course per semester, that will change during the approaching winter quarter, according to The Daily Northwestern, which reports that  the program will now host two courses per quarter, with a total capacity for 24 students whose “gender identity, expression, and/or biological sex align with male-ness, man-ness, and masculinity.”

The first workshop of the winter quarter will begin in November, featuring a two-hour discussion on “combatting toxic masculinity.”


Over the course of the six-week program, participants will be guided through a series of discussions related to masculinity, including “positive ways” they can cope with the daily stresses of life, and “the relationship between masculinity and violence.”

Additionally, they will be asked to keep a personal journal through the course, turning it over to school’s administration for “assessment” upon its conclusion.

“Engaging men, particularly college men, in conversations around what it means to be a man…can reduce gender-based violence and develop healthier relationships with masculinity,” explained Dan Amato, a facilitator of the course, adding that they are “always looking for opportunities where we can engage more men in that conversation.”

[RELATED: College program will help men cope with ‘toxic masculinity’]

Student David Gleisner, a member of the inaugural class, praised the program in an interview with The Daily Northwestern for helping him learn about the “patriarchy.”

“It was a really good space to be able to share in those conversations that you normally wouldn’t have with other men—talking about emotions, talking about rape culture, talking about how masculinity relates to the patriarchy,” he said.

Notably, faculty members are encouraged to nominate students who might benefit from the program, but individual applicants are also welcome to apply.

Never Talk to @NicoleStamp (and Other Advice for Men Confused by Feminism)

Nicole Stamp is a Canadian queer feminist who has been marching in gay pride parades since she was a teenager. She is currently appearing in the lesbian TV series Carmilla. To put it as bluntly as possible, if you are male, the smart thing to do is to avoid Nicole Stamp completely (as if you needed another reason to stay away from Canada).

On Oct. 16, Ms. Stamp wrote a Facebook post about the #MeToo hashtagin reaction to the Harvey Weinstein scandal. Her post began:

Today my timeline is full of decent men asking, “How can I help?”, in the wake of the viral #MeToo movement created by
I’m going to take this question as sincere, and give a few suggestions. . . .

Here’s some Latin for you — mala fides.

Ms. Stamp is arguing in bad faith because she is a feminist, a member of a totalitarian anti-male hate movement. Her reference to “decent men” is dishonest. Feminists condemn all men as participants in, and beneficiaries of, the systemic oppression of women, i.e., “patriarchy.” Therefore, when a feminist like Ms. Stamp speaks of “decent men,” she is speaking of a category that is non-existent, according to her ideology.


What does Ms. Stamp mean, then, in asserting that “a small group of my own male friends . . . were explicitly asking for advice”? Can we expect her to give us a list of the names of these idiots, just so we could ascertain their existence? Don’t hold your breath. While I doubt any man could be so foolish as to seek Ms. Stamp’s advice, she lives in Canada, where idiots are quite numerous, so we’ll stipulate she has “male friends.”

What sort of “advice” does Ms. Stamp offer men? She accuses them of “male privilege,” invokes “marginalized groups” and “oppressed persons,” and urges men to “Google ‘kyriarchy’ and ‘intersectionality’ to learn more.” In other words, Ms. Stamp delivers the same jargon-filled Third Wave SJW sermon you’ve heard a million times, if you’ve paid any attention at all to feminism in the past five years. How is it that Ms. Stamp’s “male friends” — the “decent men” who, she says, desperately solicited her advice — have missed this? Yet we already stipulated, arguendo, that these men actually exist (because Canada is full of idiots), so let’s move on. Ms. Stamp’s Facebook post “went viral,” and this resulted in it being republished at CNN’s Web site.


So here we have Ms. Stamp at CNN advising men on “consent”:

During sex, seek enthusiastic consent. If your partner hesitates, stops reciprocating, avoids eye contact, becomes quiet, tense or frozen, or otherwise slows the tempo of any sexual encounter, then you should STOP WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
Revise your idea of consent. The old model is, essentially, “go for it, until someone yells stop”. But having a history of trauma, (like, say, a #MeToo story) can actually cause people to freeze up in response to stress. This makes it difficult for them to say “no,” even when they want to stop. So keep in mind that no means no … and frozen silence also means no.
Flip the paradigm. Instead of charging ahead until you hear “no,” pay attention and proceed only when you receive a clear “yes.” Yes can be verbal — or it can be an enthusiastic action, like ripping off an item of clothing — together.

When reading this sermon on consent, of course, you must keep in mind the facts about Ms. Stamps cited above, e.g., her celebration of the Toronto Dyke March and her evident devotion to lesbianism. CNN didn’t inform its readers of this, nor did they otherwise indicate skepticism about Ms. Stamp’s sincerity. (Who are those “male friends”?)

Insofar as Ms. Stamp has an opinion on heterosexuality, she seems to be against it. Certainly, I would not accuse her of participating in it. Ms. Stamp would probably be offended if anyone suggested she had ever felt sexual attraction toward a male, nor would I dare imply she might give “enthusiastic consent” to heterosexual intercourse.


“I loved how many strong female characters there were. I loved that there were so many queer relationships.”
— Nicole Stamp, on being cast in Carmilla

You see the problem here. If men are seeking advice on how to have sex with women, they should seek it from women who like sex with men. Heterosexuality isn’t necessarily so difficult to understand that you need a college education to figure it out — humans have been doing it successfully for thousands of years — but one ought to have an established record of success before offering advice on the subject.

Feminists in general despise men as inferior. The feminist movement is not about “equality,” and it isn’t about “consent.” Feminists like Nicole Stamp consider all males loathsome and contemptible, and she would never advise any woman to “consent” to sex with a male. The very idea of heteorsexual intercouse fills her with dread and horror.

Although I’ve never been published at, nor do I claim that any men (“decent” or otherwise) have begged me for advice — “How can I help?” — I will nonetheless offer this bit of wisdom:


The whole damned country is full of queer Third Wave feminists babbling on about “intersectionality” and “kyriarchy.” As dangerously crazy as American feminists are, Canadian feminists are far worse. And if, by some misfortune, a young man should ever find himself in Toronto, beware! If you see Nicole Stamp, do not speak to her. It may not be illegal for a man to talk to a feminist in Canada, but it’s definitely unwise.

Never Talk to @NicoleStamp (and Other Advice for Men Confused by Feminism)