|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL! I don't know whether or not to take this guy seriously or not. The author goes back and forth in the article as to which side JoeBlow is on. JB, almost uses a fear mongering bit to scare women into action against the 'artificial womb' which feminazis have been doing for years.
This technology is vital and it is true that it will give men more leverage at the birthing stake.
But I for one did not decide to wait for marriage because I can have free sex at any given hour. I saw what happened to my parents and I have seen what happens to others. It wasn't that men got raw deals, I figured that they were just to young to make a lifetime decision like that.
The whole domestic thing crowded one's wants and needs. The want to travel the world, the need for independance.
This article still makes men the bad guys or the "winners". Nobody wins in this gender warfare stuff, nobody. I don't blame kids for not wanting to go through such horrible events but by saying "well men can get sex without marriage" is just a load of shit.
This JB is more like a feminist that he/she realizes. But what he/she forgets is that the women are there the whole time having this pre-marital sex and enjoying it just as much. They too are putting off marriage for whatever reason( I blame highschool feminist indoctrination curriculims myself a great deal).
He is right that women are going to have problems at 40 having kids, but in the end, the article is women = victims, men = winners (abusers). Because if all the men are going for the same girls i.e. baby baring years wouldn't that make it very competitive for those women? Which it always has been anyways. It might explain the popularity in the "cougars" amongst young men.
Though this article is full of many , many truths, Im skeptical of its intended audience.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with some of your points, Dan, but I still think the article has some interesting takes. If women end up the victims in this case, they'll be the victims of feminism, not the alleged victims of all men.
In time we'll all be victims of the lunatic hatefulness of feminism -- women, perhaps, at least as much as men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like the article. It hits women where it counts, so to speak.
One reason feminism has been so successful is that it relies on men's natural tendancy to protect women at all costs. Men are afraid to criticize feminism because men are afraid to be accused of being anti-women. Feminism says, "if you don't give women this, that, and everything else, it means you hate women."
The views expressed in this article have the opposite effect. The article goes against women's natural tendancy to want children. This article is telling women that they will end up childless if they continue to support feminism. Women do not want to end up childless so they must stop supporting feminism - or at least that's the goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think its more a case of bad writing that anything else, but who knows.
It still makes men look a little like the bad guy as he gets his cake and eat it too, it doesnt explain why feminists were doing this nasty hateful thing to women other than to liberate them.
The artificial womb part was a bit fear mongering, but after reading the other article I see that its from the other authors veiws.
I have always felt that it was men who helped women liberate, because men loved them and also benifited from such freedoms. Men didnt do this because they hated them they did it because they loved them.
Most educated people were aware that such ends would only hurt both sexes in the long run. The iwf have been saying this since it began in 90. Unfortuanately feminists are stupid and unethical scientists to boot. Ultimately its probably about politics more than it is about the good of women anyways. The quick and easy lure and only last for so long eventually someone has to pay the tab. We shall see.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 27, @01:59AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
when the artificial womb comes along, makeing women "obsolete" "MEN are evil."
When artificial insemination came along, makeing men "obsolete", No one said WOMEN were evil.
Weird, huh?
Women gorge themselves at the table of Men's ingenuity, All the while curseing the founders of their feast.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the 70's radical feminists claimed that the reason there weren't artificial wombs already was... you guessed it, a male conspiracy to keep women down.
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Women gorge themselves at the table of Men's ingenuity, All the while curseing the founders of their feast.
Thundercloud.
That sums up the attitude of masters to slaves: the reward for good work is more work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like the article. It hits women where it counts, so to speak.
...
The article goes against women's natural tendancy to want children. This article is telling women that they will end up childless if they continue to support feminism. Women do not want to end up childless so they must stop supporting feminism - or at least that's the goal.
JB's article can be seen as wedge politics -- raising an issue which may not be your issue because you know that it will tend to divide your opponent's constituency. This is sometimes seen as dirty pool, but I'm glad someone's doing it. The alternative just leaves the field open for the radfems to spin the issue their way: it's all men's fault.
I think Dan misses the point: JB's "Let’s party, dude!" tone of adolescent triumph serves the purpose quite well. It is to make women feel bad about feminists, not to make them feel good about men.
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"dude!" tone of adolescent triumph serves the purpose quite well. It is to make women feel bad about feminists, not to make them feel good about men."
I felt that the article made women feel bad about men, and gave them more reason to follow feminism, especially with the part about the artificial womb making women obsolete.
The first time I brought that up to a woman she competely lost her mind. "Its not true" blah blah. No one likes to feel inadequite. But I don't know the writer.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SOME women want children. It's incorrect to assume ALL women want children. And even if they did, it is incorrect to assume women aren't smart enough to figure out how to get one.
The whole recent brouhaha on women ending up childless and miserable is a charade, and insulting to boot, as if only women regret life choices. Plenty of people have regrets. Boo hoo.
Besides, it makes no sense to "blame" anyone if you decide not to have a child. That whole premise is just plain stupid. Regrets ok, everyone has them, but blaming other people or "feminism" for your choices. I doubt it. Only the lamest of the lamebrained indulge in that sort of whining. I think its wishful thinking to assume most women are going to blame "feminism" for the choices they made in life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Besides, it makes no sense to "blame" anyone if you decide not to have a child. That whole premise is just plain stupid. Regrets ok, everyone has them, but blaming other people or "feminism" for your choices. I doubt it. Only the lamest of the lamebrained indulge in that sort of whining. I think its wishful thinking to assume most women are going to blame "feminism" for the choices they made in life."
I actually kind of like blaming feminists for a lot of shit. If feminists are going around telling everyone on billboards and comercials and magazine ads that all men beat their wives and that no women ever hit their husbands or abuse them in any way whatsoever, well people might tend to believe it. Same thing goes for the bullshit of women can have kids in their 40s and they don't need kids, they shuld want careers.
Feminists have been oppressing women way more than any men ever did. Feminists took away women's right to choose. And they labled them man lovers, which to them is equal to nigger lover, of which I am both and proud of it.
.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 27, @10:51AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
The article says that women should be worried because the artificial womb will make them extinct. I say, who cares? Everyone who is born eventually dies. If women don't go extinct, every woman alive now will eventually die. If women do go extinct, the same thing happens. Preserving one's species does nothing for the individual. I'm going to be dead in 2102. Whether my gender is extinct at that time will be meaningless to me.
The world would be better with one gender, and this guy gives a bunch of reasons as to why. Men do not need or want women in their lives for any reason other than sex, and sex can be gotten from other men or from virtual reality holograms that will be a lot better than human women. All the holograms will be young, beautiful and perfect. They'll be ready for sex at any time, and will do anything you want them to do. Who wants a human when you can have that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Blaming men because they "can get sex without marriage" is absolutely ludicrous! Who on earth are they getting it from? Are women standing by helplessly, watching men who would otherwise commit pass them by, because these men can "get sex without marriage"? Why must the story be told from the woman's perspective, from the perspective of someone whose life is somehow compromised because of men? If anyone followed the logic of the pop-psychologists, the transactional "I'm OK, you're OK-er" and the Oprahs who cater to women, we'd be telling women that they're blaming men instead of confronting their own fears...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marriage should not be based upon sex but on factors which make individuals compatible as life partners . However, I agree that sex is not readily available to males, at least in North America. In the USA, we have the new Feminist Sexual Puratinism and laws which are intended to promulgate the same which are supported by tradtionalists which have the affect not of liberating males but of subjugating them economically through denying them a basic need, sex, which can only be obtained through capitulating to the exorbitant,unreasonable, and oppressive economic, social, cultural, and political demands of females who have created this sexual monopoly.
The British Men's Group, Angry Harry, believes that technological advances and the increasing awareness of males of the unreasonable attitude of females towards males will ,in the not to distant future, result in a dramatic drop in the socio-economic-political-cultural status of women.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is also readily apparent that an informed, intelligent, and mature man would have to be insane to risk everything by getting married today. The risks greatly outweigh any potential gains and it would entail at least going through the motions of growing up. Why even bother? As the younger generation says, "Let’s party, dude!" Thank you, feminazis.
Joe Blow has a point: today's feminist has made herself uninteresting for the long haul, if not repulsive altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Joe Blow has a point: today's feminist has made herself uninteresting for the long haul, if not repulsive altogether. "
I rather like those girls who wear tight jeans and halter tops who give it out on the first date.
Well actually I would have to have ask her for a date to make it an official date. I guess its that first night I got drunk and sat next to her on the couch and told her with glowing drunk eyes- "you know, your pretty hot when you're naked". Let's party , dude. Fuck you feminazis.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. This article (and a recent rash of others just like it) is stupid to the max.
99.9% of sex in our country is consensual. That means both parties agree to it (whatever their reasons). Why can't the idiotic columnists get it through their thick heads that women are having sex because the WANT to have sex. Women are living with men outside of marriage because they WANT to do this. Ditto the men.
Apparently, there is no shortage of people who will grumble and complain if people act out of free will to do what they WANT to do sexually. Why does there have to be something wrong with wanting to have sex, and deciding to have sex?
Furthermore it's insulting to imply women should withhold sex for marriage. Frankly, if they wanted to do that, they'd be doing it. Ditto for men. It's obvious neither sex is all that desperate to get married.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 28, @12:35PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
The artificial womb, IVF and all this other technology raises many ethical issues. Is the presence of a mother and a father essential to a child's development, or can a child do just fine when raised by a mother only, a father only, two women or two men?
Also, we've seen negative effects caused by fatherlessness. Would motherlessness cause the same effects, or do children only need fathers, but the absence of a mother would be unnoticed? If we decide we want to study this, would it be ethical to purposely create motherless children so that we can study what happens to them? Would the benefits of this study outweigh any risks?
For me, the question is not whether women need men or men need women, but whether children need a male parent and a female parent. My thinking is that they don't, provided they don't have both genders as parents at birth. I think if a child is born to only one parent, or to same sex parents, the child never knows the difference. OTOH if a child is born to a heterosexual couple who splits up later, the child does know the difference and develops problems.
What does everyone else think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 27, @04:25PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
I may be reading you wrong, Anon, so if I am I apologize.
The fact is I don't personaly want ANYONE to "Die out."
A Female 'Anon', recently, on another thread Got upset with Me for jokeing about the irony of the 'artificial womb'. She thought I REALLY wanted to see women go the way of the dinosaurs.
In actuallity, I thought (Think) that the artificial womb thing is a slap back at the feminists and many women who were celebrateing the "Dawn of MEN'S extinction" when artificial insemination was consieved. Via the media and other outlets, the feminists and "accomplice" women were just rubbing men's noses in it, EVERY chance they got.
Now, if we play this right, We can shove this 'Artificial womb' right back in THEIR faces. I know it's a bit childish, But a part of me DOES get some satisfaction in saying to them; (feminists and many women in general) "THERE, how do YOU like it...?!?" It would be great to see these smarmy, self-righteous, holier-than-thou Marx-fems laughing out the other side of their faces.
Any way, sorry I got carried away. I'm just saying that, I really DO get annoyed by alot of women and their attitudes, But I DO still love women.
I don't want to see them die.
But I keep reading posts that seem to suport the idea. There's something very un-setteling about it.
Yeah, we all ARE going to die. Men and women, ALL humanity will eventualy join the Do do bird, bell bottom jeans, and Disco on the extinction list. But why HELP it along..?
Maybe, this is the thing we men have been needing to give women a real perspective on reality, and shake them out of their, "We Women are supirior and are going to take over the universe as soon as we can figure out how to kill all you Men..." attitude.
I guess I'm just trying to say, We all thought it was wrong when Women were talking about commiting "Genocide" against men.
So how is talking about "Genocide" against women any BETTER?
Thundersloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe I'll be revealing profound ignorance here, but I don't understand how the development of the artificial womb threatens women with extinction, anymore than I can see how artifical insemination threatens the existence of men. After all, just as there has to be a source for the sperm to be used in the a. i. process, the eggs used in artifical wombs will have to come from somewhere.
The most I can see is that these techologies might remove the need for the sexes to have anything to do with each other. Maybe we could split up the world 50/50 between men and women, with neutral territory in Geneva or someplace for a yearly exchange of sperm and eggs...:)
Anyway, if there is something I'm missing here, I await enlightenment!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After all, just as there has to be a source for the sperm to be used in the a. i. process, the eggs used in artifical wombs will have to come from somewhere.
No.
Cloning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually we need eggs to clone.
But not necessarily human eggs.
And we also can gestate a humnan baby in another species if we really wanted to.
Its true we can do away with either sex if we wanted to. And actually could have for a while now.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually we need eggs to clone.
I'm not an expert in reproductive technology, but I wouldn't be surprised to see cloning done with stem cells in the not too distant future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm not an expert in reproductive technology, but I wouldn't be surprised to see cloning done with stem cells in the not too distant future."
They are doing that with organs, I could be wrong about them not being able to do that with humans. I don't think so though.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cloning is far from reliable, and, even if it were it would be unsafe in the long term. Mueller's ratchet and the Red Queen would both come into play.
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly animal eggs could be used. The nuclei can be removed and male DNA used in the role of both mother and father. Alternatively ovary tissue could be cultured in vitro, or large number of human ovaries could be farmed in animal hosts.
In practise as long as there is a free market in gametes and gestatory services such extreme measures are unneeded. There are 100's of millions of women in the world who are or would be willing to sell one or both, so men need only earn the necessary cash to make their own babies.
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When cloning the zygote is always removed.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 28, @10:16AM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, gender separatism is the more likely scenario. Men won't be the only ones using this technology.
Even if you and I are wrong, so what? I don't care about extinction, and I've never understood why anyone else does either. Someday I am going to die, and my gender going extinct or not going extinct has no impact on this. There is no such thing as immortality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are many cultures that live in sexual harmoney. Ours seems to rally back and forth.
The womb is what make women seperate from men, and allow women the rights of children. I E women and children first. Fembots know this, and are threatened by it. Irrationally of course, but when its your only claim to superiority you might want to keep your eye on it. Religeous Zealots probably have stunted this aswell. But Farrell states in his book its the fembots.
The problem with cloning will be the continual denigration of our species. People in horticulture call this 'genetic drift'. Which also can occure in interbreeding.
What we have is what we need, there is no doubt about that.
The occurance of the artificial womb gives men a better bargaining piece. But ultimately it allows couples who would not normally have children to have children. It will wind up in the arena of moral ethics as well as the arena of 'ownership' of the child. How could one say that a woman is more in tune with her child than a man, if the child actually came from an artificial womb? She is then reduced to an egg doner and her rights usurped by differential opinion.
I see it no different than having a surrogate mother. Although I do fear for the rights of those children in future generations, which I believe is our concern.
,
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 28, @10:12AM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't WANT anyone to die out, I'm just recognizing that it will eventually happen. Humans will all eventually die out. The only thing this technology does is make it possible for one gender to die out before the other.
I don't see this as genocide. Genocide would mean killing all the women currently alive, and that's not what this technology does. It just makes it possible for women to be phased out. When the women currently alive die, they won't be replaced. That's extinction, but not genocide.
In 2102, I'm going to be dead no matter what. If my gender is extinct at that time, it won't mean a hill of beans to me. I'll still be dead. What happens in this world will no longer matter to me.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
