Stone the scarlet women
On Friday, The Times ran an appeal by the Gift of Life movement, for clothes, furniture and baby equipment for two single mothers. Beneath the story on the internet edition there was this comment by somebody who seems to live in England.
“Why do these people require charity? Are they not able to get out of bed to earn money to support their offspring? Please, dear Malta, keep your sense of morals. Do not go down the same road as the morally inept UK where single mothers proliferate in their many thousands. These people often just get pregnant in order to dodge work and live off the state free of charge and out of the pockets of the hardworking majority. If these kinds of people can’t support their own children, then maybe they shouldn’t be having them in the first place. I repeat, Malta do not follow the verminous example set by the UK.”
It is astonishing just how many people think of single mothers as vermin, people with loose morals, or spongers whose aim in life is to live off the state. In the world these people inhabit, nobody gets pregnant by accident and wants to keep the baby, or is obliged to do so because the nearest available abortion is expensive and in Catania. In their world, too, loosely immoral single women get pregnant by some form of conception that involves neither a man nor his sperm – although the last woman to do that is still described as a virgin and not as vermin, and is celebrated in our churches as purity itself.
Among the harsh remarks addressed at single mothers, including those made in the electoral campaign by the ‘now I’m leaving, now I’m not’ leader of Azzjoni Nazzjonali, you will never hear any kind of acknowledgement that it has taken two to make that baby. The man and the woman perform precisely the same act of irresponsibility, if you wish to see it that way, but it’s the woman who carries that highly visible sign of having had sex which is called a baby, and so only the woman who is left exposed to the censure of bigots. Strangely enough, these bigots are often the very same ones who are opposed to abortion – cue Azzjoni Nazzjonali – but it never occurs to them that it is their kind of hostility which, in the past, would have driven unmarried women to the nearest backstreet abortionist.
It is also this kind of hostility which, in our own country, drove women to all kinds of subterfuge, with cruel consequences, to conceal the fact of what was seen as an illicit pregnancy. The mother of the pregnant girl would hide her daughter away, then pretend to be pregnant herself until the baby was born. The child would be raised to know its grandmother as its mother, and its mother as its aunt. The pregnant daughters of well-to-do families were sent to England, Switzerland or Italy to have their babies well away from the scrutiny of society back home, then forced to leave them behind for adoption. The daughters of the poor were dispatched to convents in Gozo and allowed back home only without their babies.
But enough of that, because there was no end to the small-minded cruelty wrought in the name of Catholic morality, and to the end of maintaining a façade of respectability in a straitened society. It is very difficult to explain to people who think like this that their perception of the pregnant single woman as the sole culprit in the crime of getting pregnant, and as a symbol of immorality and all that is wrong with society, is no different to that of societies which stone or whip their adulteresses and female fornicators. Let’s hear it from another man who posted a comment beneath that same story.
“Women are given too many rights in this day and age! These are the consequences of giving too many rights!!! Where is the obedience to God’s ten commandments?? Can’t women say ‘NO” to sex before marriage and make their men follow this stance? I pity those women who are abused or raped! I suggest reading the Genesis whereby it describes how God have created men and women and the way society should function!! However, there’s one thing I would like to congratulate them about! That is they had the courage NOT to abort their children!”
Consider the myriad prejudices and erroneous beliefs embedded in that hysterical declaration. Rights are given and hence, can be taken away. More to the point, rights are given to women, presumably by men. Giving people rights has consequences assumed to be disastrous, like large numbers of bastard children (I use the word advisedly because it chimes with this man’s thinking). God laid down the rules for society by giving the ten commandments to Moses, and therefore society has no need to make its own rules in terms of laws and regulations. Sex before marriage inevitably leads to pregnancy, and contraception need not be factored into the equation. Sex after marriage might lead to pregnancy, but then it doesn’t matter. It is the woman who should be in control of the situation and say no, preferably in capital letters, because men can’t control themselves and given half a chance they’re unzipping their fly and getting ready to make a single mother out of her. Sex is something that only women are capable of saying no to. Men, on the other hand, have to be controlled by women – which means that if the women fail to control them, then it is entirely their fault if they wind up pregnant and must be stoned in the square. The game-plan for men, women and society is laid down in the Book of Genesis, in which Eve is the wicked temptress and Adam the gullible sucker who is led astray by the thought of a bit of nookie (yes, girls, I know…but for the purposes of this argument….).
Yes, many single mothers are not single at all, but just unmarried. They have a man around but pretend they don’t so that they can pick up the cheques from the social. And yes, some single mothers are girls who got pregnant because they felt lonely and unloved and thought that having a baby would give them somebody to love who would love them back, and make them feel special. And yes again, a few single mothers are older women who had given up waiting for Mr Right and marriage but who didn’t want to give up on having a baby – but then these are usually affluent enough to provide for themselves. But so what? The mistake being made by those who carp at single mothers is to confuse the status of single motherhood with the abuse of social services.
Proper law enforcement is the key here, not having all single mothers put down and their babies confiscated, or doing what Islamic shariah societies do and meting out hideous death to women who have sex with men to whom they are not married.
If people are free to have sex before marriage, then it goes without saying that some women are going to get pregnant, with or without contraception. And it goes without saying that, with or without legal abortion, some of them are going to want to keep their babies. It also goes without saying that not all the men are going to stick around and do their duty, and that having them do so might even be a bad idea for mother and child. So it also goes without saying that in a welfare society, those who can’t provide for themselves or their children must be provided for by others through their taxes. It goes without saying, but it still has to be said.
It’s either that, or a return to the days when pregnant girls were covered in shame and forced to give up their babies to the nuns at birth. So much pain, so much heartache, and so many ruined lives – and what for? So that we could say that we had no single mothers in Malta, and that no one had sex before marriage but kept to God’s 10 commandments and the Book of Genesis.
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
73 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
i really enjoy your sarcasm, it always puts a smile on my face:)
i totally agree with you. it is really funny (or sad?) that many people still think that only easy people have sex before marriage. many people also still think that 99% of the maltese people are strict roman catholics and really care about religion and its rules. how wrong are they, many people dont give a damn about religion, moreover about abstaining from sex.
many think that to have children you have to be married, but the points you pointed out about people who DECIDE to have children without getting married are very true.
unfortunatley many still want to dive in the black abysses of ignorance (not wanting to learn/face the truth):)
“unfortunatley many still want to dive in the black abysses of ignorance (not wanting to learn/face the truth):)”
Not many are ignorant of the fact though, that tax payers end up invariably footing the bill for the deliberate decisions of some.
In the case of unwanted pregnancy – how come no one ever mentions having the baby adopted ?
” The game-plan for men, women and society is laid down in the Book of Genesis, in which Eve is the wicked temptress and Adam the gullible sucker who is led astray by the thought of a bit of nookie (yes, girls, I know…but for the purposes of this argument….).”
So according to our Bible expert the forbidden fruit was the nookie , and the temptress was Eve not the snake.
Daph, as far as Bible interpretation is concerned , you are stuck in the rut of the pre-Vatican Council era. I recommend you take some Dutrina or Muzew lessons or better still attend some bible studies with the learned Dun Karm Attard
http://www.maltabible.com/downloads/Ghaqda_Bibl_3Gate.pdf
As regards babies having babies , I think that we should learn the Adlerian way “we have to face the NATURAL consequences of our actions”. Presently the Welfare State and society are encouraging girls & boys to have ‘fun’ without being really responsible for the natural consequences of their actions .
Then there are those who instead of contributing to the welfare state pose as single mothers while they co-habit with the father of the baby.
It goes w/o saying that the poor taxpayer is forking out the money to these ‘poor’ girls.
Aren’t we really spoiled here in Malta?
John Schembri: Why does the argument that ‘taxpayers foot the bill’ become particularly virulent when single mothers are discussed? There isn’t half as much moral grandstanding when people discuss the haemorrage of public funds due to loss-making public institutions, gross inefficiencies in the public (dis)service or welfare cheats who are not young single mothers. It’s clear that you disapprove of the current system. It’s unclear what you see as the alternative.
@John Schembri – if tal-Muzew makes you a bigot, I’m glad I never went. And what’s all this about Vatican Council this and Vatican Council that? Since when do we need the Vatican to interpret the Old Testament on our behalf? It’s not as though I’m illiterate and can’t read….
Adam, Eve, the apple and the snake take me back to the innocence of my childhood. Many, many moons away. Now, after almost a lifetime of contending with the vagaries, complexities and complications of human behaviour, mores and morality because of the nature of my work, I hesitate to condemn and pass judgement. One thing I know for certain. That is that politicians in their eternal chase after votes continue to throw taxpayers’ hard earned money at social problems; very often exacerbating them in the process.
@ John Schembri: Amen!
religion apart (although being a convinced roman catholic, i don’t think that religion should be used as sole basis of one’s arguments) using the reasoning justifying abortion, i ought to be allowed to runover my annoying neighbour/siblings–they keep getting in the way of my life while being completely unwanted…
(note: it’s an example and very far from the truth, thank goodness :p)
Daphne Caruana Galizia Sunday, 22 June 2132hrs
@John Schembri – if tal-Muzew makes you a bigot, I’m glad I never went. And what’s all this about Vatican Council this and Vatican Council that? Since when do we need the Vatican to interpret the Old Testament on our behalf? It’s not as though I’m illiterate and can’t read….
Quite right. “We” don’t need the Vatican to interpret for us the OLD testament. If you are referring to Christians when you said “we” then, in that case, it might interest you to know that “we” as Christians are more interested in what is written in the NEW Testament and Acts. Interpreting the OLD testament or Torah is a rabbi’s kettle of fish not the Vatican’s.
Corinne Vella Sunday, 22 June 2102hrs
“John Schembri: Why does the argument that ‘taxpayers foot the bill’ become particularly virulent when single mothers are discussed?”
Why is it that taxpayers end up having to pay for the consequences of the deliberate decisions of others?
[Moderator – How do you know that they are ‘deliberate decisions’? The only political system that does not involve payment for the behaviour of other people is anarchy.]
“So much pain, so much heartache, and so many ruined lives – and what for? So that we could say that we had no single mothers in Malta, and that no one had sex before marriage but kept to God’s 10 commandments and the Book of Genesis.”
Since when do the Ten Commandments feature in the book of Genesis?
What a nearly refreshing piece.
I think it is the first of many articles of Daphne’s that I have read where I agree with her sentiment although she still could not resist building a cogent argument without insulting the people she disagrees with.
The problem here of course is that the argument she puts would have a much stronger validity if she resited the insults. The ongoing insults lessen the quality of the argument and provides ammunition for those who may agree with her but refuse to acknowledge this because of the ongoing insults.
You do not need to insult your opponent if your argument is articulate and based on fair play.
Try a little harder Daphne – you will be surprised how easy it is to get people to agree with you if only you used an intellectual approach rather than a parochial emotional and hysterical one. All this does is turn people into thinking of you as – dare I say it – a scarlet woman.
Kind Regards
Raphael Dingli
Canberra Australia
@ Daphne : I see that you are a self appointed expert on many subjects.So now we have to accept it that the forbidden fruit was the ‘nookie” ; Daphne said so. The Maltese language is of Arabic origin not Lebanese ; expert Daphne said so. and we should all say Amen.
I prefer expert and learned interpretations instead of myths. After all I was only pulling your leg.
Well said Anthony.
@ Corinne :I am fed up as a taxpayer seeing my contributions going down the drain . another case in point are the Dockyards (€700 million).
Abuses are abuses, no matter what. But under normal circumstances humanity punishes those who take life not give it.
It is good to read posters invoking the ancient pagan Egyptian good Amun (Amen) to confirm their Christian beliefs.
Moderator – How do you know that they are ‘deliberate decisions’?
I know because I read the enlightened article that is being currently discussed here.
Sybil: “Why is it that taxpayers end up having to pay for the consequences of the deliberate decisions of others?”
Because the alternative is anarchy, or living as a hermit running your own organic farm.
John Schembri: “I am fed up as a taxpayer seeing my contributions going down the drain . another case in point are the Dockyards (€700 million).”
You aren’t the only one, and that was my point about single mothers and social benefits – the issue is wastage and abuse of public funds, not single mothers. It is easy to heap blame on single mothers. They are not unionised and are not backed by a political party. The only political party that made single mothers a central issue is Azzjoni Nazzjonali. Thank heavens they were ignored.
John Schembri: In case you are wondering, I am not a single mother.
Sybil: “Since when do the Ten Commandments feature in the book of Genesis?”
No one ever said they did.
Dear Raphael
Daphne’s purpose is to be provocative. Only be being so will readers access this blog or bother to buy the newspaper for which she writes. Being insulting is part of the equation. Ultimately Daphne is not there to influence public opinion or garner support for a particular issue. She needs to be provocative and insulting… as that sells and you access this blog! You and I might be able to write articles and get people on board to agree with us by using a different style but they would probably be popular and interesting as much as watching a game of cricket… in the dark!
Although I agree whole heartedly with what Daphne said in her article, I would like to point out that most of these pregnancies result in having these children put into care. Most of the time the parent/parents are not capable of taking care of them, but at the same time, for reasons known only to themselves, do not want to give up their rights on the child. This usually results in the child being rejected even when they grow older. I am not one who would want to stone or condem single women who become pregnant, but at least they should be in a good position to take care of the child. Otherwise I am all for legalising abortion.
[…] one inch of last Sunday’s contribution. I must be thick. But an article written by DCG caught my eye. I agree with most of what she had to say, but on the other hand I believe that […]
Well done Daphne, I would never have thought I would ever agree with you. Although I hope my daughter will never be a single mother, I am not prepared to make her give up her child if she gets pregnant and is single. I do believe that single mothers should try to help themselves, after all many married mothers go out to work and have a family on the other hand we still need some mother friendly job conditions – like flexi-time etc etc.
@ John Schembri – Before we quote the bible let us remember what Christs said “Let the ones without sin throw the first stone” (or something like that)
JCC said: ”Daphne’s purpose is to be provocative. Only by being so will readers access this blog or bother to buy the newspaper for which she writes. Being insulting is part of the equation.”
I doubt that being “insulting” in itself necessarily detracts from someone`s worthiness as a social commentator. I suppose it all depends on who you are insulting, why and how you are insulting them.
However, I think that the argument that insulting someone is justifiable on the grounds that it helps to sell The Malta Independent newspaper is perhaps not a very good one. Except if you actually happen to be one of proprietors of that dire publication, I suppose.
In fact, as you yourself are such an enthusiastic proponent of the “being insulting is part of the equation” manifestio JCC, I will oblige you by telling you that your argument is a profoundly imbecilic one.
Corinne Vella Monday, 23 June 1049hrs
Sybil: “Why is it that taxpayers end up having to pay for the consequences of the deliberate decisions of others?”
Because the alternative is anarchy, or living as a hermit running your own organic farm.
Not if people were taught about duties and shouldering their responsabilities, and not about rights only.
Xewka Monday, 23 June 1345hrs
@ John Schembri – Before we quote the bible let us remember what Christs said “Let the ones without sin throw the first stone” (or something like that)
Since you find fit to quote the Bible, you may also remember that Christ said that even the Devil can quote the Bible when it suits him. That also includes selectively quoting from what He is reported to have said on this occasion. On the occasion that you kindly highlight, Christ carried on by telling the sinner that her sins were forgiven , and that she should go “and sin no more”.
Corinne Vella Monday, 23 June 1057hrs
Sybil: “Since when do the Ten Commandments feature in the book of Genesis?”
No one ever said they did.
Read the last five lines of the article under discussion;
“It’s either that, or a return to the days when pregnant girls were covered in shame and forced to give up their babies to the nuns at birth. So much pain, so much heartache, and so many ruined lives – and what for? So that we could say that we had no single mothers in Malta, and that no one had sex before marriage but kept to God’s 10 commandments and the Book of Genesis.”
Pucca Monday, 23 June 1117hrs
“Although I agree whole heartedly with what Daphne said in her article, I would like to point out that most of these pregnancies result in having these children put into care. Most of the time the parent/parents are not capable of taking care of them, but at the same time, for reasons known only to themselves, do not want to give up their rights on the child”
The reason is simple. If they give up their rights, they forfeit children’s allowance.
John Schembri Monday, 23 June 0613hrs
@ Corinne :I am fed up as a taxpayer seeing my contributions going down the drain . another case in point are the Dockyards (€700 million).
How very true.
Sybil: “Not if people were taught about duties and shouldering their responsabilities, and not about rights only.”
People are taught their duties and responsibilities. Some don’t learn. Accidents happen. Communal life exists. Taxes have to be paid. And no, I don’t receive any social benefits. I’m a net tax payer.
Sybil: “Read the last five lines of the article under discussion”
I did. It says “AND the Book of Genesis” not “IN the book of Genesis”.
@ Sybil – I never meant to say that the “sinner” should sin again (if you consider sex a sin). What I meant was that we should except single mothers as they are and try to help them. After all we all have our shortcomings.
@Sybil: unless I’m very much mistaken, the Book of Genesis IS in the Old Testament. As for the New Testament, nobody – unless they are illiterate or sub-literate – should need the Vatican to interpret it on their behalf. It is, after all, written in plain English – though you do have to make allowances for the errors in translation a thousand years ago or so, which might have given us concepts like the virgin birth.
Also, it’s a shame that you don’t pay as much attention to reading plain sentences as you do to your dogma. The phrase ‘the Book of Genesis and God’s 10 commandments’ does not mean that the 10 commandments are in the Book of Genesis. Quite frankly, no wonder you need the Vatican to interpret your bible.
@Raphael Dingli: I write to entertain and inform, not to persuade people to agree with me. Please don’t confuse me with politicians. I don’t need anyone’s votes. It is precisely because I write the way I do that people read me. But thanks for your advice – though you have failed to remember that I’m the one writing the column here, not you. I do apologise if you feel insulted.
@John Schembri: I am not a self-appointed expert on anything, though I am an expert on communications appointed by others. As for the rest, I’m merely a fairly intelligent observer. You should try it some time.
Also, it isn’t me who says that the Maltese language is of Arabic extraction, but every single expert on the Maltese language that you might care to question, as I have done. Apparently, it’s you who who has decided on the basis of no expertise whatsoever that Maltese is derived from a language that doesn’t exist, and which you have chosen to call Lebanese. Lebanese people speak Arabic.
@John Schembri again: am I right in suspecting that your reluctance to admit that Maltese is derived from Arabic has more than a little something to do with the fact that you would then be forced to admit that the roots of our culture lie not in Catholicism, but in Islam?
Oh for God’s sake, Sybil – take a time-machine and go back to Salem, c. 1680.
i don’t think that we should generalise the argument of single mothers. from the comments i have read i don’t think that anyone is stoning anyone here. they are just giving opinions.
i am a married mother of 1 child. my husband works and so do i. because we are both hard working parents and because we want the best for our son the state is telling us: pay, pay, pay for the ones who are irresponsible enough to have babies when they cannot really take care of them. do not bring out arguments of people having to have kids because they are raped cause although these people exist the majority are not in this situation.
the majority (i know cause i work real close to these people) are young girls who have sex for the sake of having it and then if they end up pregnant it does not matter. They think it is a good enough reason to stop going to school, to apply for a govenment flat, to apply for government subsidies etc etc etc.
Whilst i am all for helping the ones in need, i think the government should really find out who is abusing of the social welfare. and let’s stop not taking good decisions for the sake of not loosing votes.
Mary Agius: Taxes are not only paid to finance the benefits of single mothers. You say abuse should be stopped. I agree. Why begin and end with single mothers, though? “Single mothers” is a very broad term. It includes mothers who are not young, who are not benefit cheats, who are unwillingly single and who – surprise, surprise – pay taxes. Like I said earlier, it is easy to target single mothers and blame them for the inefficiencies of the management of public funds. Plenty of men scrounge money off the system. How come we never hear complaints about those?
Faith and begorrah. Arguments are flying like pigshit. This is a country where we have a Cesarean Section Support Group (“Grupp Sapport tac-Caserja” or whatever it’s called). I mean, tsk!
@ Mary Aguis – I don’t think it is fair to generalize. I know of girls who had babies when they were in form 5, who sat for their O levels and their A levels and continued on to University. Usually these have all the support they need from their families. There are people who are married and have a family who abuse the social services. There are people who work and earn quite a lot of money who used to take children’s allowance when it was meant for families with a low incomes. Three are people who abuse the health system and people who abuse the income tax system. Who are we to point our fingers at one section of people who abuse the system. I don’t want to sound political so I won’t mention decisions taken by (all) governments or politicians which have caused us quite a lot of taxpayers money. I suggest we don’t judge so we’ll not be judged. As the Maltese saying goes “Jekk il-gemel jara Hotobtu jaqa’ u jmut zoptu”
Yes, quite. And that’s why we should immediately legalise abortion. As Daphne said, unmarried pregnant women deserve better than the Salem 1680 treatment.
In any case, Daphne, I’m more freaked out by the game this Gift of Life chappie seems to be playing. What’s he trying to do? Get us to financially support unmarried pregnant women in case it ever crosses their mind that they could solve their problem by having an abortion?
@ Daphne : Did I pull your leg? I really touched your red button with this ‘nookie’ thing !
Just for your info : bible experts during their studies spend months studying the Old Testament with Jewish Rabbis.
The subject is this business of couples having fun but then fail to to be responsible for their actions.
I never quoted the church or religion.
As a taxpayer I am seeing cohabiting couples living together and then the “single mother” claims for Lm 120 per month as social assistance.
There are married couples who claim that they are separated and are still living together.The maintenance money which the husband (normally self employed) gives to his ‘estranged’ wife is non taxable.
This is what I am against , tax dodging and paying for the irresponsibility of others.
I am all for the welfare state but under stricter checks and balances , so that only the ones who really need aid will be helped.
Well said Mary Agius.
Daphne Caruana Galizia Monday, 23 June 1627hrs
Oh for God’s sake, Sybil – take a time-machine and go back to Salem, c. 1680.
Gladly.
Lead on Mcduff.
;)
John Schembri Monday, 23 June 1845hrs
“I am all for the welfare state but under stricter checks and balances , so that only the ones who really need aid will be helped.
Well said Mary Agius.”
I agree one hundred per cent with you in this.
Finally, trivializing and minimizing complicated and sensitive social issues and insulting those who are not in complete agreement with one’s views may help in selling newspapers , but little else.
Corinne Vella Monday, 23 June 1443hrs
Sybil: “Not if people were taught about duties and shouldering their responsabilities, and not about rights only.”
People are taught their duties and responsibilities. Some don’t learn. Accidents happen. Communal life exists. Taxes have to be paid. And no, I don’t receive any social benefits. I’m a net tax payer.
Why go on the defensive , honestly? Your tax status isn’t anyone’s business and certainly not pertinant in the subject under discussion here. If I gave you the wrong impression that I was in anyway referring to you , I apologize. No offense should be taken where none was meant.
Just a small note on the Maltese Language – according to learned researcher J. Brincat in his book il-Malti elf senata storja – the Maltese language sees its beginning as a Siculo-Arab dialect, brought over to Malta in the 11th and 12th century, through immigrants coming from Sicily.
This linguistic characteristic has also been recently corroborated through comparative DNA analysis.
Unfortunately we are still teaching our children loads of B…sh.t when it comes to Maltese history and language – such as the fact that the we are derived from Phonecians and that the language is Arabic from the times of the Arab occupation, that the Maltese were liberated by Count Roger (he in fact conquered the Islands from the Arabs, but di not liberate the Maltese as there were none!).
[Moderator – Roger I’s subjects were Muslims, his conscripts too, and Arabic was one of the languages of his court.]
@John Schembri – if you read my article again, you’ll see that we are in perfect agreement about the abuse of social services. However, the solution is not to withdraw social services for single mothers. It’s to sort out the abuse. You shouldn’t penalise the deserving because the undeserving are cheating. And a lot of people here seem to be missing the point that it takes two to make a baby, but only the ‘single mother’ is publicly chastised, criticised and shamed, because she is the only one of the two who is visibly pregnant. It’s not that anyone should be chastised or shamed, but some people here would do well to remember that virgin births are a thing of fiction.
well said Daphne.
What a heavenly concept! Live and let live, perhaps, yes, it even is Heaven, why should we have to stick our noses in everybody’s underpants. What’ s wrong with an unmarried woman who wants to be a mother. Is that punishable OR IMMORAL for having sex and become pregnant? This can happen accidentally or a woman deliberately wants to be a mother. Do you really have to get married to raise a child?
Is there anything wrong if we “foot the bill” to lessen our ageing population.
Getting married and having children is the best scenario but life is not always that straightforward, all you have to do is just look around you and try to find the ‘lucky’ families. Even those you come across does not necessary had a normal marriage, happy and intact.
Women strive to be treated as equals, but due to a petty and ignorant tradition, our society believes that women are only suited for making children and in the norm circumstances.
Why don’t you keep your religion and traditions to yourself and -Live and Let Live.
Have you ever noticed how contagious laughter is or how contagious a smile is? Well, so is the Golden Rule. Respect, honesty, and sincerity can spread just as fast as hate, hypocrisy, and prejudice.
@ Daphne : I am in agreement , by and large , genuine cases need help. The emphasis on ‘single’ mothers is simply because there is no such thing as Social Services for single fathers. But don’t you agree that here in Malta people expect the Government to come in like a ‘deus ex macchina’ and solve all their problems? I can recall a case on Xarabank where some people living in sub standard housing were complaining about a leaking roof, they prefer complaining rather then buy €0.50 cement and repair the roof.(It seems that they get more points from the Housing Department).
Sybil, please explain to me how you made the connection between a play about Scotland written by William Shakespeare in the early 17th century and the real-life religious community of Salem across the Atlantic in the late 17th century. I’m mystified.
John Schembri, where are you living? Of course there are social services for single fathers. The legislation doesn’t distinguish between whether you are male or female. It only looks at whether you are a single parent or not. Single fathers are in exactly the same position as single mothers in respect of social services eligibility. The only differece is that there aren’t many of them, because not many women dump the baby on its natural father and buzz off. Even if that want to do that, the natural father has usually buzzed off beforehand.
Daphne Caruana Galizia Tuesday, 24 June 1016hrs
Sybil, please explain to me how you made the connection between a play about Scotland written by William Shakespeare in the early 17th century and the real-life religious community of Salem across the Atlantic in the late 17th century. I’m mystified.
I’m mystified too. Most probably , I get carried away at times. Don’t we all at some time or another? ( :) )
Sybil said: “Finally, trivializing and minimizing complicated and sensitive social issues and insulting those who are not in complete agreement with one’s views may help in selling newspapers , but little else.”
And she is perfectly right. The pity is that she only feels that way when she happens to disagree – when exactly the same tactics are used in circumstances where she agrees, she does not protest – she cheers!
The expression “Lay on (not “lead on”) McDuff” is a quote from Shakespear that has come to mean an invitation to someone to do his worst (or best). It is not necessarily (or even usually) a reference to the play itself.
On the other hand, Sybli may simply have confused Salem with Glamis. :P
Sybil: “Why go on the defensive , honestly? Your tax status isn’t anyone’s business and certainly not pertinant in the subject under discussion here.”
You are right. My tax status isn’t anyone’s business but my own but since all the moral grand standers see fit to declare their interests, I felt obliged to do the same. And no, I wasn’t on the defensive. It’s just tiresome to hear the same carping over and over again. Going on about single mothers misses the point entirely. Taxpayers are irked by the abuse of benefits. Why blame single mothers alone?
Dear Moderator, Speaking of Shakespeare and Glamis, am I allowed a shameless plug? MADC’s production of Macbeth is on at Fort St Elmo from 5 – 9 July. Please come along…
Parthenogenesis – “virgin birth” – far from being a thing of fiction is a phenomenon that has been extensively researched and documented among various species. It can occur spontaneously and/or it can be induced. Research into how or if this can be applied to humans is underway.
@Zizzu. Mention just one source that a curious person could check out on the internet.
Zizzu – parthenogenesis and virgin birth are not the same thing. A virgin birth is still the result of conception, albeit a miraculous one. And thinking about it, lots of people are conceived without sex nowadays – IVF, sperm banks, etc etc. The only reason they’re not called a virgin birth is the women involved are rarely virgins. But a virgin birth is nowadays completely possible, so no research is required. Parthenogenesis is something else.
Daphne parthenogensis MEANS virgin birth (and it happens without the need for a male gamete – which is why it is called that.)
IVF is, as the name implies (in vitro FERTLISATION, but of course, you knew that), a union of 2 gametes (i.e. a sperm and an ovum) outside the body. In some cases the zygote thus produced is then implanted in another mammal’s uterus. To my knowledge this has been done with sheep and pigs, but I stand corrected.
So, according to the CORRECT definition of parthenogensis they cannot be termed virgin births.
Also, even if, by chance, the hymen is not ruptured during penetration (it happens, you know) it will nearly always be destroyed during birth. If one chooses to define virginity (in certain mammals and humans) as the presence of a hymen then even with “normal” intercourse you can still have what may be “poetically” called “virgin conception”, but that’s stretching things a bit, don’t you think?
@ uncle fester
wikipedia should be a good starting point. Then follow any references.
Quote “It (translation of New Testament) is, after all, written in plain English – though you do have to make allowances for the errors in translation a thousand years ago or so, which might have given us concepts like the virgin birth.” Unquote.
Mrs. Daphne Caruana Galizia has for once written an article, controversial as much as possible but at least free from personal animosity. Articles like these provoke intelligent reactions and useful debates. Once she is able to do it why not persist and leave alone personal grudges from which she surely does not derive any satisfaction, unless…. She will derive more satisfaction and we will read her with more interest and perhaps could help us write better English. To be a teacher is more beneficial than rousing the crowds
Now may she permit me to refer to the quotation (opening para. above) and possibly ask her to develop her idea that “errors in translation could have given us the “concept” of virgin birth”.
It is felt that this needs clarification. How should reader understand the inclusion of the word “concept”? The sentence could be misinterpreted in a way that creates misunderstandings and this to her detriment.
Parthenogenesis though this mode of conception is more an attribute of certain inferior animal species and plants it can also occur in humans.
Many years ago, many does not mean hundred but some 30 or 40 years ago the Daily Mirror featured an article about the subject and published the photo of a woman and her daughter a clone of her mother, though the subject clone had not yet emerged, that was born through parthenogenesis.
It is easy to verify if the daily mirror keeps a record of its past numbers.
If I remember well it also gave the chances of being born in such a manner as 1 into 1 million.
[Moderator – The Daily Mirror?]
Parthenogenesis presupposes that there’s no father. A virgin birth presupposes that there’s no sex. In the biblical virgin birth, there was no parthenogenesis because there was a father: God. You might greet this with a cough, but there you go.
Michael Debono: if you write about people, and politicians are people, then you have to be personal. Otherwise, what you get is the kind of obfsucation that has benighted our newspapers for decades. Read a few London newspapers (not the Daily Mirror) and you’ll see what I mean. Incidentally, the roles of teacher and columnist are completely separate and different. Columnists are not paid to teach, but to inform and above all, to entertain.
Your question about the confusion over the virgin birth: so as to translate a document faithfully, you have to know the precise meanings of words. We do not know whether the translators/compilers of what we know as the New Testament today were truly familiar with the idiomatic meaning of the scripts they translated. The word they translated as ‘virgin’ may have simply meant ‘young woman’. There is an embedded contradiction in talking about a ‘married virgin’, especially when the period you are referring to is 2000 years ago and it was the act of sexual intercourse that brought the marriage into effect. But there in no interest in researching this further because the virgin birth and the idea that Jesus was the son of God, not an ordinary mortal with exceptional charisma, underpins the entire religion. it does make for an interesting thought, though.
@Zizzu
IVF procedure is also done on humans, the pioneers for this reproductive assistance technique were Belgians and they started this procedure way back in 1978. In Malta only St James Hospital do IVF , they has a very good track record which compare very well with other hospitals in Europe. Pregnancy rate is about 35% , St James started ten years ago.
Do St James have a special baby care unit where the weaker siblings that result from of an IVF-induced multiple pregnancy can be cared for until they are fit enough to lead an independent existance out of a incubator?
@Sybil
Induced pregnancy is a result of Treatment given to a woman so she can produce more eggs, have nothing to do with IVF. In vitro fertilization is done outside the women s wombs and therefore there is no chance of multiple pregnancies.
St James have incubators but it has nothing to do with IVF treatment.
IVF is safe and has no risks its a simple procedure of inserting sperm into an ovum.
@Leonard ellul bonici
The success rate of IVF is 25%. Hence 4 ova are fertilised and implanted. However, 25% is just an average and so multiple pregnancies ARE possible after IVF.
Leonard Ellul Bonici: Where did you get the idea that IVF carried out with the intent of pregnancy cannot result in multiple births?
@Corinne Vella / SB
I did not say that there is no possibility of multiple pregnancies. Sybil gave the impression in his post that chances of multiple pregnancies in IVF is normal and there is risks of a weaker baby. The norm is that only 4 fertilised eggs are inserted, if the couple are lucky enough of having 4 fertilised eggs in one cycle. The possibility of a quadruplets is very rare besides there is nothing wrong in multiple pregnancy I can assure you cause I m triplet myself :)
Leonard Ellul Bonici:
“I did not say that there is no possibility of multiple pregnancies.”
Yes you did.
“In vitro fertilization is done outside the women s wombs and therefore there is no chance of multiple pregnancies.”
Why do many readers go into arguments about whether the state should help those who are underprivileged or not, as if THEY are the ones forking out the money?
[Daphne – Because they ARE the ones forking out the money. The government does not have a money-tree.]
Let’s try to help those who find themselves in difficult situations like single mothers and live on. Why do we measure our lives by passing comments about people in difficulty? Sometimes I suspect that these people are the ones who contribute least in society.