Marin: A place at the Center

Choose Life at Yale, Yale’s undergraduate pro-life organization, recently applied to be a residence group at the Women’s Center. The application proved to be a catalyst for conversation between CLAY and the Women’s Center on an issue that desperately needs attention on campus: the lack of support for pregnant women at Yale. This conversation is an exciting step forward. But by refusing to admit CLAY as a residence group, the Yale Women’s Center undermined the prospect for successful cooperative action, fundamentally hindering the feminist effort.

First, in rejecting CLAY, the Women’s Center hinders its mission to “seek to improve the lives of Yale and New Haven women.” This mission can only be accomplished by bringing unlikely feminists into the fold of the feminist movement. In general, the Women’s Center recognizes this fact. Yale Men Against Rape is an example of a current residence group whose members are not stereotypical feminists. By uniting them under the same umbrella their joint work has been more effective.

Like Yale Men Against Rape, CLAY is a non-stereotypical feminist group that should also be supported under the Women’s Center umbrella. CLAY is dedicated to improving the lives of women by making the choice of keeping a baby feasible through support and information. Few Yale women know how to find crisis pregnancy assistance, homes for children, day care centers and support on campus. Without this information, keeping a baby is difficult and stressful. Indeed, if a woman has no vision of the kind of support she could find, the choice to keep the baby is almost impossible.

Currently, Yale women lack the resources to make real choices. Not only do they lack information on crisis pregnancy resources, but they also lack the best intellectual and moral arguments on both sides. If the campus is hostile to that voice, at least the Women’s Center should be a place where women can consider the unconventional choice of carrying a child to term.

The Women’s Center should not hesitate to grant the appellation “feminist” to a group that seeks to remedy this situation. Instead, it reifies choice into an ideology that forces it to exclude pro-life groups from the joint project of improving the lives of women. It is not liberating to elevate the pro-choice convention to the status of an unquestioned truth. The Women’s Center is not living up to its name, or to the spirit of feminism.

In addition, the Women’s Center hurts the feminist movement by discouraging the silenced voices of pro-life women on campus. As expressed in their constitution, they themselves feel that, “one of the major themes of the Women’s Movement has always been to encourage previously silenced voices to speak and to assert the personal as political.” Because they mimic the framework of “grassroots politics,” residence groups were created to facilitate this encouragement: “Therefore, it is only fitting that one of the fundamental missions of the Yale Women’s Center be to provide a safe space and an open opportunity for such discussions to take place. It is in this spirit that the Women’s Center sponsors residence groups.”

It is exactly “in this spirit” that the Women’s Center should sponsor CLAY as a residence group. The pro-life women in CLAY face glass ceilings and tough choices as do all women. Like the women at the Women’s Center, they have theories about what can be done to improve the lives of women and energy to get it done. At least in the Women’s Center, their voices should be respected as much as those of pro-choice women. Under the umbrella of the Women’s Center, and within the “framework of a small group” such as CLAY, pro-life women could find the perfect place to develop their feminist voices.

Finally, by insisting that pro-life women cannot be feminists, the Women’s Center runs the risk of narrowing the appeal of feminism to the point of irrelevancy. A 2009 national Gallup poll found that 49 percent of women identify as pro-life while only 44 percent identify as pro-choice. No wonder the feminist movement has recently failed to be a national force — its abortion litmus test alienates nearly half of the women in the country. The Women’s Center should begin the process of resuscitating feminism by bringing feminists for life back into the fold.

I hope the Women’s Center reconsiders its rejection of CLAY, in order to help Yale women find the resources — material, intellectual and moral — to make the decision to carry a child to term a real possibility. Accepting CLAY as a Women’s Center Residence Group would invite a revival of the national feminist movement, encourage feminist voices and, most importantly, improve the lives of women.

Isabel Marin is a sophomore in Trumbull College and the women’s outreach coordinator of CLAY.

Comments

  • why

    why do you hate women isabel?

  • Yale 08

    This is sound.

  • Y11

    Well said. Being “pro-choice” should include the choice to *not* have an abortion. If CLAY provides the support for such a decision, it definitely should have a place in the Women’s Center.

  • PC ’10

    i totally agree. as a gay guy who typically identifies as pro-choice, i strongly feel that CLAY should be in the Women’s Center umbrella. regardless of how the ideologues feel, neither side has a monopoly on being “pro-woman.” if there truly is a dearth of resources for pregnant women at Yale that CLAY would like to help address, I don’t understand why the WC would reject them except for purely ideological reasons. Let’s focus on what we can do to improve the lives of women on campus, not solidify unhelpful ideological barriers.

    CLAY is right: if choosing to carry a pregnancy to term isn’t a viable option for women on campus, there is no CHOICE to be pro-choice about.

  • Dale

    As a pro life Yale Mom I am so gratified to read about CLAY. Women, especially young women far from home, in pregnancy crisis situations need all the support and information they can get. How can I help support CLAY?

  • YWC ’11

    “Pro life” women are barely female at all – rather, they’re subjugated pseudominds carrying out the infantile wishes of a patriarchy that engages in the shaming of natural impulses and the glorification of prudishness under the societal guise of ‘modesty’.

  • Matt, CLAY President

    Well done Isabel! @#5: Shoot me an e-mail (matthew.gerken@yale.edu). We love to hear from supporters.

  • certainly

    And the Af-Am House should include the KKK in their discussions of race relations and the status of minorities in society.

  • Hieronymus

    Brava, Isabel!

    By denigrating the pro-life stance, Yale (and Yale Women’s Center) are setting SOME women up for future–and unnecessary–pain and heartache. I thought they were all about REDUCING the need for future counseling…

    Side note: NPR just *officially* shifted from use of the phrase “pro choice” to “anti abortion-rights.” YOU figure out why that is outrageous.

  • ugh.

    Let’s be clear: “Choose” “Life” at Yale is not about choosing life. It’s about taking away choice. Crisis pregnancy centers are often more about spreading misinformation and scare tactics than helping women. And if there really is a lack of resources for pregnant women at Yale, I’m pretty sure that a bunch of undergrads with a political agenda is NOT the best group to address it.
    If CLAY is really about choice, they’d also support a woman who chooses not to keep a baby she can’t have if she wants to continue along one of the ambitious career paths most of us at Yale are aiming for. If they are really about choice, they’d support BOTH choices. Which is exactly what pro-choice people do.

  • @ #5

    If, as you say, “choosing to carry a pregnancy to term really isn’t a viable option for women on campus,” the inclusion of CLAY in the Women’s Center is NOT going to solve that problem. EVEN IF we assume that there are poor pregnancy resources available at Yale (an assumption I would certainly question), supporting a group whose “solution” is to force every woman to carry every pregnancy to term is NOT the answer.

  • @ Y ’11, #3

    Oh please. The “choice” in pro-choice already covers and considers valid the decision to keep the baby. The anti-choice “pro-life” movement is about forcing the wrong-minded, sex-negative ideal of treating all women simply as vessels for babies onto anyone and everyone.

  • Y11

    Well done. As a pro-life woman, I applaud the efforts of CLAY to reach out to the Women’s Center. There are a ton of things that combined the two groups could accomplish for the good of women, such as having the university make it more feasible to be a mother and a student.

  • Grounded for 18 years

    “Support for pregnant women”?

    REAL support is 18-years long. It takes over $400,000 to raise a child in America to adulthood.

    Most “support” stops after the “supporters” get the baby born.

    That’s just the beginning, folks.

    PK

  • ES ’05

    #6 is a parody, right?

  • @#10

    If the WC is concerned about CLAY spreading misinformation and scaring women, wouldn’t welcoming them into the WC allow the WC board to have more control over the veracity of information published? Also, CLAY has a political agenda but the Women’s Center doesn’t? Just because someone’s agenda is the same as yours doesn’t mean it isn’t an agenda.

    I don’t understand why we can’t recognize that there are intelligent, well-intentioned and well-informed people on both sides of this issue. Rejecting CLAY’s application only increases animosity between the two sides and hurts any chance for mutual understanding or collaboration.

    Get rid of the poisonous rhetoric for two minutes and you’ll see that both of these groups care deeply about the emotional, mental and physical health of women. They have different beliefs about a few core issues, but I believe that what unites them has the potential to be greater than what divides them. I’m sure, for instance, that both groups want to work to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. Kudos to CLAY for having the vision and hope to realize that. Women’s Center, you still have time to make the right decision.

  • think about it

    It’s interesting that on this campus, being pro-life can be considered anti-feminist or hateful. Most students know that the Yale health plan budgets in several abortions for each student – but who has any idea what support it provides for a pregnant student or a young mother and her child? Most Yale students would understand if a young woman decided to get an abortion – but how many would secretly ridicule her about hurting her career or yale experience should she choose to keep her child?

    True, the pro-choice movement sees abortion as a woman’s right. The pro-life movement sees it as taking away life. Seeing as they aren’t even working from the same reference point, how about we try to find a solution that works for everyone?

    Pro-life people don’t want to abuse or constrain women – they want us to life in a society that is responsible about sex, values new life whenever it comes, and supports those who choose to take their children to term.

    Let’s accept that we’ll never all agree, stop worrying about the extreme cases, and for the time being make it so that women (at Yale and elsewhere) actually have both options.

    Sure, if CLAY had it their way abortion would not be legal. (But not because they want to force children and patriarchy on women, but because EVERYONE values each life enough to keep unborn children and support their mothers.)

    CLAY should be allowed to present the other option to women at Yale: To CHOOSE life at Yale, if that’s what they desire, and find resources of how to do so as a Yalie.

  • JM

    As a pro-life female alum, I was so glad to see this! I work in an industry where a glass ceilling is very real, and I am heavily involved in our company’s womens group. I was totally exciled from feminist groups at Yale as a result of my pro-life, socially conservative views – but in the end, we have so much in common. We all want women to have equal opportunities and to have real choices to be both mothers and career women if they choose to. We should work together towards these goals when we can.

  • ES

    @ #14: have you failed to consider adoption as a viable option? Many crisis pregnancy centers and adoption clinics will give a woman all the financial support she needs to carry a healthy baby to term; at that point, if money or career are enormous obstacles, she can choose to give the baby up for adoption and never have to spend another dollar on childcare. After the baby is born, the “support” in terms of money may stop, but there are thousands of American couples who would love to adopt.

    @ #6: I sincerely hope you are joking.

  • Yale 08

    The pro-life position is the only pro-woman position.

    Ignore the feminazis.

  • FES ’11

    It seems superficial to take an innocent life in order “continue along an ambitious career path” (#10). It seems profounder to watch a baby grow while on that career path, which conveniently helps support the baby and the mother financially. To share your dream job with another human being that you brought into this world. And as for being vessels to carry babies (#12), it is awesome to think that women are the carriers of the human race. Now if humans were worthless scum, I can see your point about carrying babies into the world. But with your logic, if we go back before the woman becomes a vessel of a baby, she was the vessel, rather the object of male domination. Sex is not bad, but often men take advantage of women and treat them like mere objects. I think a pro-woman stance would be to engage in pleasurable sex without holding back from parental responsibilities and saying no to sex when it places her in a merely objectified position. Great article, BTW, CLAY.

  • ALS

    As a pro-choice progressive, I agree with Isabel. The YWC’s mission is “to improve the lives of all women” and to “enable all students on campus to find their feminist voices.” While I disagree with them, the members of CLAY sincerely believe that their position is better for women, and given that the YWC officially recognizes that there is no one definition of feminism, I think CLAY deserves a place at the table. So long as the YWC umbrella covers the Belly Dance Society and Yale Men Against Rape, it seems reasonable that it should also cover CLAY.

  • @ ugh, #10

    “If CLAY is really about choice, they’d also support a woman who chooses not to keep a baby she can’t have if she wants to continue along one of the ambitious career paths most of us at Yale are aiming for.”

    I don’t think that pursuing an ambitious career path and choosing to be a mom are two mutually exclusive things. I am inspired by my own mother, who had me and my sister while finishing two professional degrees and working full time–she has always been a great mom and was definitely ambitious in her choice of career. I’m sure the choice to have a child as a college student is difficult in many ways I could never understand, but proper resources and support can only make things easier for women who WANT both, and CLAY is only trying to make that CHOICE a possibility. Thank you CLAY for the work you do to promote women on this campus! I hope someday the Women’s Center will acknowledge what a valuable resource CLAY can be for women at Yale.

  • Jenn

    Well said Isabel. Certainly people on both side of the aisle can recognize that being pro-choice is no choice at all if women are unable to keep a child they otherwise would choose to carry to term. For people who want more information, the group Feminists for Life has an excellent website that expands on how some women feel they have no “choice” but to abort. While the women’s center continues to provide information on how to obtain an abortion, it seems like it is in the best interest of women to present information on other options as well. Cheers to the Women’s Center for finally entering a discussion that puts true options for women above political ideals.

  • former WC board member

    CLAY, for years, this has been an issue. It is time for you to drop this issue and move on.

    The Womens Center’s constitution explicitly states that it is a pro-choice organization. They support a woman’s right to choice. CLAY, as portrayed in the oped, wants to give greater resources for women who want to make the choice to keep a baby. Great, fine, that is their choice.

    But really, this is not your message. As you say on your website “CLAY seeks both to spread the Pro-Life message on campus and cooperate with the Pro-Life movement as a whole.”

    You are not about promoting choices, actually, which is what the WC does and are bound to do by in their constitution.

    It is admirable if you want to expand resources for women who face this difficult decision. And you, as an organization and as individuals, are entitled to your opinion on if you think it is right for women to have the right to choose.

    The WC as an umbrella organization shouldn’t choose to expend their resources on you if you do not also support fundamentally a woman’s right to choose.

    This doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be information ON CAMPUS, PROVIDED BY YALE UNIVERSITY HEALTH about the choice to be a pregnant student and keep a baby. Just as there should be more information about abortions and other options.

    But your insistence on gaining the support of the WC, and then dragging the rest of the excellent and really underrepresented work they do through the dirt, is a little weird.

    Continue a dialogue with the WC. Have a conversation with the Deans Office.

    Don’t resort to crass op-eds that bash so you can get publicity. It’s cheap, wrong, and is the stuff that makes your message seem weak and didactic. Grow up and get over it.

  • Natural Law Dude

    If folks could only wrap their heads around the gravity of removing an unborn baby containing the entire blueprint of a one-of-a-kind human being who will remain unique within the history/annals/ages of the roll-call of humankind, no person would ever do anything to interfere with the right of that individual-in-the-making to be simply just born to live his or her life!(not to diminish the inherent associated challenges of carrying life to birth/fruition).

  • Letsbehonest

    Nobody likes the Women’s Center…completely arbitrary use of Yale reources.

  • @ #25

    “It’s cheap, wrong, and is the stuff that makes your message seem weak and didactic. Grow up and get over it.”

    So Marin is the crass one, hmm?

    I imagine #25 has also never felt the overwhelming pressure a woman finds herself in when she learns that she is pregnant and her boyfriend forcefully pushes her to get an abortion.

    Hillary Clinton posits that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. Perhaps the WC can help out this third point by extending this vast umbrella over the heads of CLAY.

    But I’m sure the WC will do no such thing. Perhaps this is why they have earned their reputation on campus.

  • Alice

    The Pro-life’s ‘pro-woman’ stance has been taken as a purely political move. This has been admitted by countless leaders within the movement, and it is visible in the rhetoric of Isabel’s reprehensible depiction of women. There are plenty of resources for adoption and carrying babies to term because the LAW IS NOT ENCROACHING ON THOSE THINGS IN A MANNER WHICH DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WOMEN, particularly those who are disadvantaged financially or otherwise. All you need to discover them is the internet, and an ability to read.

    Anyone interested in the ideological history behind CLAY’s and other pro-life groups’ attempt to move into the realm of ‘feminism’ should consult the work of Reva Siegel, the Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law here at Yale.

  • DQDLM

    Face it, Women’s Center:

    You support abortion in order to enable equal opportunity for women in the workplace. You thereby implicitly defend the patriarchal notion that women must either work, or mother. Real feminism would affirm the ability of women to do both, and attack the economic structures that make career incompatible with family. There will be no dignity for women as long as they must kill their children (or content themselves with lying barren) in order to work.

    When confronted with this fact, you hide behind your constitution? With every passing day you better resemble the ossified patriarchal institutions you supposedly seek to supplant. Change the constitution, and let CLAY in. CLAY doesn’t have all the answers, but you haven’t even been asking the right questions.

    My rhetoric is harsh because you are asleep at the wheel. Wake up!

  • 2014

    What if a woman just.doesn’t.want.to.be.pregnant? We know that even with every precaution taken, sex can still result in pregnancy.

    @ #17, you said “Sure, if CLAY had it their way abortion would not be legal. (But not because they want to force children and patriarchy on women, but because EVERYONE values each life enough to keep unborn children and support their mothers.)”

    I’ll agree that it’s probably not most people’s intention to “force children and patriarchy on women,” that still may be the product of making a woman feel bad for choosing an abortion for whatever reason she wants.

    Because she decides that it’s not what she wants or needs at any particular time to be pregnant and deal with all the physical, emotional, etc stress that pregnancy can bring on one’s body, doesn’t necessarily –and I’ll venture to say that probably almost never, does it mean—that she doesn’t “value life.”

  • Branford ’10

    No matter how they try to spin it, CLAY is inherently anti-woman. They exist to try and force women to adhere to their ideology. The pro-life movement is rooted in the idea that a woman’s greatest purpose in life is to be a mother. Feminism and the women’s center is about opening up opportunities to women so they can choose their own path,and not be forced to adhere to what CLAY decides they must do. And yes, pro-choice includes the choice to carry a pregnancy to term and/or raise the child.

  • BR ’10

    Crisis pregnancy centers should not be supported in any form. They spread misinformation, both about abortion and pregnancy and about the basic scientific facts about birth control. They are manipulative, disingenuous, and downright scary.

  • Yale ’11

    After reading this, I’m fully in support of CLAY, despite being pro-choice. However, commenter #25 raised some points I’d love to see drawn out. Perhaps the Women’s Center could write an op-ed explaining their decision so that we can see the other side of this debate and if being “pro-choice” is actually in their constitution.

  • oh

    If the WC constitution actually says that it is only pro-life and thus can’t allow this, I say Yale should either a) pull their funding or b) make them accept CLAY. And I love abortions! But the WC is bad.

  • Normal Girl

    Seriously, Clay doesn’t offer impartial advice. If you approach it to ask about pregnancy, you might get offered support during pregnancy (not for anything after pregnancy . Once the foetus is actually a human, they couldn’t care less). But you’ll also get told a lot about how you’re a murder if you chose termination – a very frightening experience that the Women’s Center should continue to fight against, not facilitate, Women’s Center resources should never be used to frighten scared vulnerable pregnant students.
    And @27 – maybe the Women’s Center won’t be relevant once 50% of the portraits on Yale’s walls are of female role models, and mainstream sexual culture actually treats women with respect (see Kate Maltby’s column today). But until then, I’m damn grateful it exists, even if they get it wrong for time to time.

  • Yale 08

    The Women’s Center realizes that abortions disproportionately target female babies, right?

    RIGHT?!?!

  • feminism???

    Just another example of the women’s center trying to promote their radical agenda. Nobody will ever take them seriously until they treat all other viewpoints with the respect they think they deserve, whther it be CLAY, athletes, or just men in general. I implore you not take anything they say seriously until they drastically reevaluate their radical positions.

  • BR’10

    This seems like an obvious issue:

    CLAY would like to FUNDAMENTALLY revoke a woman’s right to choose. This is FUNDAMENTAL restriction on women. We should not live in a society where LEGAL restrictions such as this exist on a whole class of individuals.

  • Hieronymus

    Does anyone else find humor in referring to the Women’s Center as the “WC?”

  • Pro

    Too bad the baby never gets the chance to choose.

    Too bad the mommy doesn’t get to hear words of love for her baby.

    Too bad “choice” on campus means that mommies are subject to groupthink, perhaps lacking strength to do anything other than what is “expected” for a “young woman of potential” (with no regard for the potential of the baby, of course).

    Too bad.

  • @#39

    Why should the Women’s Center support a viewpoint that they find antithetical to their mission? It’s not like they’re lobbying Yale to shut CLAY down; they’re simply saying they don’t want to be affiliated.

    And honestly, the anti-choice movement cannot call themselves feminist. This article is deluded and misleading. They’re appropriating the rhetoric of choice in order to seem sympathetic to the pro-choice crowd, but that’s simple subterfuge. They are not in favor of choice, and inherently cannot be. They don’t want to help pregnant students make choices; they want to revoke their choices. It’s anti-feminist in that it flies in the face of the values of personal autonomy to which every human is entitled, and it buys into the ideology of culpability that suggests women who get pregnant deserve it. They argue that removing a small cluster of cells from a uterus is murder, but allowing a defenseless child to be born to a young parent who admits she is unfit is just fine. This side is staunchly pro-fetus, and simultaneously anti-woman and anti-child. It’s absolutely disgusting, and if the Women’s Center thinks it would be dangerous to validate it, then more power to them.

  • really?

    A small cluster of cells? Do an abortion image search.

  • Yale 08

    Pro-lifers have demographics on their side.

    Pro-aborts keep aborting (not to mention contracepting and gay “marrying”) themselves out of existence.

    Pro-lifers with big families are the future of America.

    I can hear the liberals cry.

  • Feminism

    Feminism is not simply about choice. No one argues that a woman should have the choice to murder an adult. The anti-abortion/pro-abortion debate is about whether abortion is murder. Anti-abortion people are still pro-woman, they simply place killing a unborn child on the same level as killing an adult. They can care about adult women (and female unborn children!) while still trying to stop women from committing murder. The WC should allow this discussion to take place within their walls without calling the anti-abortion side “anti-feminist.”

    There is really no need to call someone anti-feminist just because they think that female and male unborn children should be valued just as much as born female and male children. Here is an analogy:

    There can be very good consequences to killing your unborn children such as making your career path easier. But then again, so would murdering your sexist manager. You don’t call people who try to stop you murdering your sexist manager anti-feminist! In fact, those who try to help you deal with a sexist manager (giving that job to someone else who wants it, aka. adoption) should be considered feminist!

    @Normal Girl: Have you ever gone to a CLAY meeting or approached any CLAY member? You obviously haven’t. CLAY has never tried to frighten a woman into keeping a child. Also, CLAY helps you find support AFTER the birth of your child, as well as before the birth. Also, as stated previously, adoption is ALWAYS an option.

  • @#44, Yale 08

    Joke’s on you!! Pro-lifers with big families are actually the largest beneficiaries of *welfare* in the country. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

  • redneck

    “Too bad the mommy doesn’t get to hear words of love for her baby.”

    “with no regard for the potential of the baby, of course”

    “lying barren”

    “It seems profounder to watch a baby grow…”

    You’d think having a kid was the only worthwhile thing out there. The pro-life word choice is creepy and downright medieval.

    “lying barren”? Well we’d better stuff ‘em up! Give me a break.

    Using the word mommy also bothers me. It’s creepy, condescending, and disrespectful.

    And this idea that a mother (really any primary child caretaker) can have a real career and a baby too? Sure, if they settle for a part-time, local day job. What if they had dreams of becoming a National Geographic explorer? Well I guess watching a baby is more profound.

  • Bim

    To #44: Don’t count on children sharing their parents’ philosophy.

  • hulu

    just like Tyriesias (don’t comment on the spelling, this is how my version spelled it) the womens center is blind and yet they are would be prophetesses

  • classicist

    Erm, 49, Tiresias was a great prophet who gained insight in return for a) his blindness and b) hermaphrodism. Not exactly a great analogy for you, huh?

  • DirStud 09

    Tiresias was also the only one who could see, despite being blind, the truth of the situation.

    So I guess it works, but not in the way you meant. I think Cassandra is a better model, though — always tells the future correctly, never believed.

  • no

    This is an absurdly stupid argument. Choosing to carry a child to term, if you want to, is not difficult. Sure, those women need resources/info/help if their circumstances aren’t conducive to raising a child. But it’s a pretty common decision. Hence the expanding population.

    Women who do not want to keep their small clump of undifferentiated cells have no need or desire for the type of “information” you’d like to provide them with. The choice comes before the support that follows the choice: this is freedom for women, this is feminism. No, you don’t get the right to help them choose. They don’t want your help choosing, they want your help with the aftermath of that choice. And for women who chose not to carry a child to term, fine, you can refuse to support them. But don’t call yourselves feminists. Interfering a woman’s right to choose is not feminism.

    Why can’t you admit that it’s about your Christianity? Don’t try to say that it’s a feminist mission. It’s simply a mission.

    Nice try.

  • voiceofreason

    To think, if members of the Women’s Center would just make up with their fathers, we could use that valuable funding for something a little more productive!

  • ES ’05

    I posted a while back (#15) with a comment making fun of poster #6.

    #6, I apologize for not responding to you civilly. I suspect we disagree on a great many things, but that’s no excuse for incivility.

  • @54

    Actually, you were sort of right. YWC ’11 is a troll. Best just to ignore him/her.