Culling the Herd Via Climate Change, LGBT, Feminism, Prisons, College, Wars

The best way to control India population is to make sure they can’t develop. This is done by cutting CO2 production.

Another good way to cull the herd is to turn everyone out. Make them gay by giving them money. Nothing against gays.

Another good way is to keep them busy in college or work.

Prison is self explanatory. Hard to have babies there.

War is good but going out of style. But still good business for killing people and saving Gaia planet Earth.


Another good way is to make sure women work instead of have babies.

Population Controllers and Feminists:

Strange Bedmates at Cairo?

Dennis Hodgson
Department of Sociology
Fairfield University
Fairfield, CT 06430
Susan Cotts Watkins
Population Studies Center
3718 Locust Walk
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104-6298 Introduction

The Programme of Action (United Nations, 1994) adopted at Cairo is intended to establish international population policy for the subsequent two decades. It is an unusual population policy document. The phrase “population problem” never occurs in its pages; more significantly, no demographic factor is identified as the principal cause of any problem, and few demographic changes are sought. The Programme assigns (Principle 4) an explicit feminist agenda to population programs:

Advancing gender equality and equity and the empowerment of women, and the elimination of all kinds of violence against women, and ensuring women’s ability to control their own fertility, are cornerstones of population and development-related programmes.

The purpose of population programs is promoting reproductive health, defined (7.2) as ensuring women “the capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so.” A family planning program is an appropriate part of such a program (7.12), if it employs no “form of coercion,” uses no “incentive and disincentive schemes,” and imposes no demographic “targets” or “quotas” on providers. The document melds feminist and human rights rhetoric into a programmatic position that bans explicit attempts to influence reproductive behavior.
Yet a neo-Malthusian subtext still runs through much of the Programme and occasionally breaks through to the surface of the document (3.14):

Slower population growth has in many countries bought more time to adjust to future population increases. This has increased those countries’ ability to attack poverty, protect and repair the environment, and build the base for future sustainable development. Even the difference of a single decade in the transition to stabilization levels of fertility can have a considerable positive impact on quality of life.
The presumptions of a population control movement that for nearly half a century has sought to make fertility reduction an important objective of international policy are invariably made: low rates of population growth are beneficial; more rapid fertility declines are better than slower declines; and population stabilization is an ultimate goal.
Despite this mild neo-Malthusianism, in volume the feminist’s commitment to the rights of the individual woman is granted much more significance than the population controller’s emphasis on the prerogatives of the group. The Programme offers a rationale for this bias by asserting (3.16) that “eliminating social, cultural, political and economic discrimination against women” is a “prerequisite” for “achieving balance between population and available resources.” Protecting the individual rights of women is thus presented as an indispensable means for achieving aggregate neo-Malthusian ends.
Cairo distinguishes itself from earlier population conferences by having its population control strategies depend so extensively upon attaining feminist aims.(1) The agenda of the population control movement coalesces with that of the feminist reproductive health movement in the Programme of Action, and both population controllers and feminists at Cairo spoke in terms of a “common ground.” Population controllers commit themselves to a gender equity strategy for attaining population stabilization, and programmatically agree to supplement family planning activities with reproductive health activities that add several times to program costs. Feminists gain an ally for gender equity campaigns and a commitment to additional funding for women’s health programs. They offer only lukewarm support for neo-Malthusian goals, and that support is heavily circumscribed with human rights rhetoric regarding choice.
What conditions make a viable alliance between population controllers and feminists likely? This question takes us beyond the specific terrain of Cairo and into a historical consideration of population control and feminism as social movements with ideologies, strategies and resources, including money, members, and organizational allies.(2) Histories of the population control movement privilege individuals and organizations, and accounts of Cairo privilege individuals and interest groups (Piotrow, 1973; Donaldson, 1990; Harkavy, 1995; Campbell, 1993a; McIntosh and Finkle, 1995). Our story, in contrast, treats population control and feminism as social movements; ones aimed at influencing state policy. It privileges ideologies — the set of beliefs that give coherence to the collective activities of a movement (Buechler, 1990: 85) — and the way that ideologies are framed, and re-framed, in specific political and social contexts (Goffman, 1974; Snow et al 1986; Mueller, 1992). We also consider the extent to which the population control movement and the feminist movement had common goals and their perceptions of mutual benefit. As we shall see, feminists and population controllers are neither natural allies nor natural opponents. At some periods alliances were impossible, whereas in others real alliances were formed.
The ideological belief that informs American feminism has been consistent over the past century: an unacceptable inequality exists between women and men.(3) Despite this degree of unity, the feminist movement has often been divided. The main fault lines have been between liberal feminists who emphasized removing legal barriers to women’s equality with men, and more radical feminists who emphasized that equality could only be achieved through the establishment of positive rights requiring a more profound transformation of economic and social structures (Freedman and Isaacs, 1993). Only occasionally did some feminists call for recasting the reproductive role of women as a way of redressing inequality. Margaret Sanger and the early birth controllers were one such group of feminists.(4)
Population control is more difficult than feminism to define ideologically since it does not refer to a single movement. A number of ideological movements have had objectives that required the molding of aggregate demographic processes. Eugenists believed that the quality of a race was genetically determined, and sought to enhance it by influencing the fertility of the “less capable” and the “more capable.” Immigration restrictionists believed in the superiority of the Anglo-Saxon stock that settled colonial America, and sought to preserve its hegemony by restricting entry into the US of those from different backgrounds. Neo-Malthusians believed that population growth was a major cause of poverty, and sought to enhance prosperity by fostering the practice of contraception. Pronatalists believed declining numbers would sap the nation’s strength, and sought to revitalize the nation by encouraging births. Although motivated by different ideological beliefs and seeking different objectives, the advocates of all these movements are “population controllers” since all had clear demographic goals.(5)
In this paper, we confine our examination to the interaction between American feminists and American population controllers. We recognize the important international component to both social movements, evidenced by international meetings and considerable cooperation among activists from many countries, and we recognize that the Programme of Action is a document that was fashioned by numerous actors, among whom Southern feminists were prominent. However, the ideology and objectives of social movements are still crucially responsive to national conditions. A focus on American feminists and American population controllers is justified because their relationship has much to do with international population policy assuming its present form(6); understanding the dynamics of this relationship in the US will provide a special insight on the formation and viability of that policy. Our analysis encompasses the period between the early 20th century and Cairo.
Feminists and population controllers have encountered each other during recurring attempts each has made to shape reproductive behavior by influencing state policy. Examining a long period of interaction will allow us to identify the conditions under which alliances develop and flourish. First we will examine early 20th century encounters, when most American feminists were focused on gaining suffrage and when American population controllers were motivated by compositional concerns rather than neo-Malthusian worries. We divide the post-WWII era into four periods: 1945-1965, 1965-1974, 1974-1985, and 1985-1995. This periodization is based on important events in one or both of the movements and is somewhat arbitrary since there are trends that cross several periods.
The 1945-65 period is characterized by a quiet alliance between a growing number of neo-Malthusians, located primarily in foundations and universities, and a mildly feminist planned parenthood movement. It ends with the adoption of an international population control policy by the US government and the establishment of the National Organization for Women (NOW). The period from 1965-1974 is characterized by a rapid growth in the resources of the neo-Malthusian movement and its extension to the United Nations. There is a revival of the feminist movement which had been quiescent since the 1920s, and with it the beginning of feminist critiques of international population control, many of them from the left and largely ignored. The 1974-1985 period begins with a turning point for neo-Malthusianism, when the international community rejects calls for an all-out fertility control campaign at Bucharest and adopts instead a mild developmentalist position that ensconces birth control firmly within individual rights rhetoric. Combat with a pro-life movement aroused by the Supreme Court’s Roe vs Wade decision in 1973 rallies American feminists around a pro-choice reproductive agenda that becomes a requirement for feminist identity. The last period, 1985-1995, sees the further weakening of neo-Malthusian ideology and the skillful elaboration of a feminist population policy and a strategy with which to implement it.

Have any suggestions on how to reduce population? You’ll probably get funded.

Another way is make women think its a good idea to starve themselves. models-too-thin



Lambdas’ monthly LGBTQ community, business luncheons are held every 2nd Wednesday of the month, EXCEPT IN AUGUST, 2016. Our special luncheon with SENATOR HARRY REID is on AUGUST 16, 2016.

Lambda Monthly Business Community Luncheon

In addition to the informal networking before, during and after the luncheon, Lambda members are able to introduce themselves and talk briefly about their business. Usually, between 75 and 90 people, members and non members attend the monthly business luncheon.

At both the monthly Lambda Luncheon and the other Lambda events, members are able to place their business cards and other marketing materials in the “give-away” bags that are given to all the attendees. Of course, the Members that experience the most success are those that consistently attend events, share ideas, information and business leads.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s