Sperm from Stem Cells

It is entirely in the realm of possibility, I believe, that if we don't do ourselves in via one means or another, in 300 years (or less-- I think we'll see major developments on this topic before 2100, heck, maybe even before 2050) humanity will have messed with itself genetically so badly that we may well be unrecognizable for what we are today. I could see what's left of us or some portion of what used to be human beings getting engineered right out of the "mainstream" genetic loop. The sexes themselves may not be readily identifiable as such, much less the act of sex.

Don't think it's possible? Consider this: a mere 30 years ago the idea of a doppleganger-type android was sci-fi 100%, virtually unthinkable as a possible reality. Today, it's getting closer and closer to being a reality and I foresee a day when a combination of android engineering and genetic engineering will produce "Humans v. 2.0". Another thought for you: one MB of memory cost $200,000 a mere 30 years ago, owned and stored in a large room by only gov't agencies and a few educational institutions. Now you can buy a 2 GB "stick drive" for $30 on the Internet, another invention hardly thinkable back then.

thats it....absolutely disgusted....the acceptance of reversed sexism is out of control...

...who will the bitch sue for support? Or make false accusations against? Won't it be nice when "people" like this have absolutely no way to file claims for a free ride, all because they spread their legs for a few minutes once?

Oh, and I notice that in typical fact-free, reality-challenged feminist style, the hatemonger writing this piece neglected to mention that there were substantial birth defects in the mice. So, I guess if you want another retarded, self-obsessed, greedy skank (sorry, "feminist") wandering the Earth, wow, has she got a solution for you!

Something that always kills me about hate pieces like this: women naively assume we want something to do with them. Or that we need them for something. Sorry girls, but I can't think of a single, solitary positive thing you have to offer us, aside from grief, financial ruin, STDs and a lifetime of misery. How about you try offering us something for a change, instead of bleeding us dry all the time?

To the morons that find pieces like this entertaining, I say this: when the male pill levels the playing field again, you can quite literally go fuck yourselves. Please, leave us the hell out of it.

Ahhh. Much better.

Agree with your sentiment completely, but not the wording. When you accept the term 'reverse sexism' (or 'reverse racism'), you have, inadvertently, bought into the assertion that 'sexism' is only committed by men against women; this assertion is already a form of very subtle anti-male bigotry.

No offense meant,
BK

I have yet to find her (Vanessa Feltz) take on the news article in it's original form. Could this be a fake, or, are my surfing skills slipping?

She seems to have a show on the BBC radio. I checked part of the broadcast for Monday the 10 nth.

They seemed to be talking about the old Englishwoman who had a baby at 65. They talked also about soccer. Since I did not want to listen to the whole 3 hours broadcast, I do not know if it is there.

http://tinyurl.co.uk/2zb5

Vanessa Feltz will be well known to UK readers. She is as rabid a sack of bloated man-hating bile as you are ever likely to come across in your wildest nightmares.

She has pulled off a great con-trick by managing to promote herself as some kind of authority on everything, and gets herself aired on UK TV and in the press on a regular basis. God knows why, unless it is because she is seen to represent a particular breed of modern women with whom readers of this site will be all too familiar - loud, mouthy and with an uninformed opinion on every subject under the sun which she fervently believes the rest of the world is dying to hear. Either that, or editors are too scared of what she might do to their bollocks if they dare to unplug her.

I believe she had an acrimonious divorce some years ago, and has blamed every man on the planet for it ever since. Her favourite subject is how bad all men are, and she never loses an opportunity to remind us of it. This article is absolutely par for the course.

It seems like there's a whole sub-genre in pop journalism about the demise of men. We're always about to be replaced by robots, or Japanese sex-pillows for women, or artificial sperm cells.

Actually, I enjoyed this Brit fem's vicious honesty, so far as her expression of hating men and wishing them extinction.

I'll take her any day over the fawning chameleon political faux-MRA gold-diggers and iFeminists who masquerade as men's lovers and allies. (Wendy McElroy lost an eye to a former abusive partner, and she's been writing about men without perspective ever since...)

The U.K. authoress stumbles in her premature celebration of a feminist utopia when she writes -- "guys of any description were 100% unnecessary." (Ummm, what about the male scientist who invented the procedure, and the male politicians who would have to make it legal?)

An earlier piece in a U.K. paper wrote --

"The discovery that sperm can be grown from embryonic stem cells raises the prospect- though still distant - of a cure for male infertility. But it also raises the spectre of a baby born without a father.

If it is possible to create sperm from a collection of embryonic stem cells grown in a laboratory, then men may be redundant - a species who have served their time and are now discardable. Using stem cells in this way, even were it technically possible, would be illegal in the UK.

Yesterday's discovery offers no quick fix. There are many technical, ethical and safety issues and there is a long way to go before these techniques are likely to be used in humans."

http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article1171391.ece

I'm with RandomMan on the issue of just how much women actually want to face a world without men.

That would be a horrible descent into .... equality?

Imagine a world of ONLY WOMEN.

OK, now try to imagine a FUNCTIONAL world with running water, electricity, and a 3000% greater regular supply of tampons.

Men will truly become redundant when women clamor to die in combat, dig coal out of the ground, move mountains of garbage to landfills, vacuum city sewer systems, and .... well, maybe write a little difficult philosophy that matters.

never thought of it that way

thanks

You know, who cares? How long do you think it'll be until we can make new human beings, babies or otherwise, without having to get anyone else's body involved at all? Ok, so women want to experience motherhood all alone and in a sterile fashion? As long as I don't have to pay for it, go right ahead! No father = no broken family = no cs pension = no broken lives. Wanna be single hermaphrodite-like mothers? Pay for it yourselves, that's all I ask, don't come asking me, the state or whoever else to help you because you're raising a child all on your own.

Moving on, the author of this text, should it be true, assumes two things:
1) women "bear" having sex with men mostly for the sake of getting pregnant.
2) men want to have sex with women so much they'll do stupid stuff just so they'll spread their legs.

Now, last I heard, there were male gigolos making a buck off of women who want sex, and they weren't doing it on the premise of getting those women pregnant. So, point 1 is not really a point. Nowadays women already want sex just for pleasure, not only for getting a new toy to give their life meaning when flirting and dieting lose that teen-punch.

As for point 2, reality check! Men already do stupid stuff to get women to have sex with them, what kind of comment was that? You been to nightclubs at all? Nothing of what you mention represents change, except you seem to add a twist of degradation and humiliation and subjugation or something that conveys similar feelings. Your diatribe makes it look like men are getting the better part of the "deal" nowadays but in the future, because they won't be needed for conception (the true motivation behind all one-night-stands, as per your logic), men will be having sex but somehow not coming out of it completely satisfied or something... like, they get laid, which is what they wanted all along, but they have to court and parade for women, which ranks an F in your imaginary scale of macho achievement.

Know what I'm gonna do? Buy shares on whatever company industrializes the process. Least I can do is get rich on people like her.

After all, everything's some man's fault, right?

"The discovery that sperm can be grown from embryonic stem cells raises the prospect- though still distant - of a cure for male infertility. But it also raises the spectre of a baby born without a father."

Just as artificial wombs raise the "spectre" of a baby born without a mother. If you can make a sperm you can make an egg. The question, of course, is why the hell would you? Is sex really that distasteful to these nutjobs? Sure, plenty of them think that just lying there is "having sex" (oh, sorry "rape"), and even with all the power, choices and support women have, they "fear" it, but come on. What kind of friggin' lunatic spends hundreds of thousands of dollars and puts a child at risk of serious birth defects and abnormal social development (i.e. without one of the two parents we're meant to have), all to avoid sex? They don't need artificial sperm: such people need therapy. It's quite another matter when someone doesn't have the ability to have a child, and wants one, but who would voluntarily do this, when they can simply have sex? Women in particular! Men, I can see - you get to have (and pay for) a child that no woman can arbitrarily steal from you, but women? We end up paying for the kid regardless. They have a 95+% chance of being involved with the child all the way, whereas we run 35-45%. I think they're trying to replace the wrong gender in this equation, personally.

As for this actually becoming a common thing, I don't think so. Remember how sharply divorce rates fall when a presumption of equal parenting and therefore, equal support (i.e. no "mommy support") is introduced into a region. A sizeable chunk of women aren't interested in having anything to do with men, they're only interested in a sperm donor and a paycheck. (Remember - a vasectomy means never having to say "yes, your honor"). How many women would be spawning if we weren't forced to foot the bill? Not friggin' many.

We've always been disposable to society, and little has changed. This angry hag's lunatic ravings are nothing more than a "sign of the times". Why do you think women really oppose shared parenting? Why, because it's a threat to their gravy train, of course! If society starts treating men like human beings, then where would they be? Someone might actually expect a woman to take responsibility for her countless reproductive choices, and as we all know, there's nothing an average woman fears more than responsibility for her own decisions. The "everything is rape" hysteria doesn't even come close.

Until the baby boom women (i.e. those who were spawning in Solanas' day), who automatically hate men and blame them for anything and everything (including their own choices, weaknesses and paranoia) start to die off, MRAs and men in general can't make any real progress. These sows are still very much in positions of influence. Still, Roy, I have to say that Wendy McElroy's writing is somewhat more pleasant than the likes of this hag, wouldn't you agree? Sure, a feminist is a feminist, but at least she's abandoned the blind man-hate of her predecessors and contemporaries.

As for women who claim they're feminists, but not "like that", my very brief, one-time conversation with such creatures inevitably goes something like this:

"You're a feminist, huh? You want equality for women, eh? So, why is it that you feel that all women and only women are at a disadvantage? Oh, right, you think men are scum and society is a patriarchal conspiracy against you. Thanks for playing anyways, grrrls."

Still, I'm encouraged by the fact that some younger women don't share the automatic "it's men's fault, because men are scum" attitude of their mothers. Sure, they've been conditioned to think that way, and women will be women (selfishness and narcissism clearly develop from the X chromosome), but there's certainly less of it. The reason? In a society that coddles women, gives them better protection, healthcare, education and choices, it's difficult for a rational young woman (I know, I know, it's an oxymoron), to see men as "oppressors", despite the best efforts of the dying feminist rear-guard.

As for replacing one gender or the other, there's plenty of reasons why this technology will never become a reality. The biggest is women's own lack of responsibility: why derail their own gravy train?

Hi, just want to clear up your suspicions! The article is for real. It isn't available online (at least I couldn't find it) so I copied the article word for word out of the newspaper!

RK

It's not that I thought such outlandish thinking was uncommon among certain females. When I couldn't find the article after exhaustingly searching the web, I became suspicious. I thought how embarrassing it would be for someone to email her or the paper if it was a set-up!

Here's a mug-shot of a chronically malcontent, man-hating, warthog:

here

and

here

The similarities are astonishing!

These are the kind of views that are deemed un-PC and "ok to say on the media."

You always hear about how this talking head or that idiot on the TV is sick of political correctness in the media, and then they go on to say something so offensive... yet utterly, completely politically correct and probably vetted by 4 focus groups.

Indeed, Wendy McElroy has been publishing more balanced, contemplative pieces of late.

But you can’t take her public words as any actual barometer of her politics and i-Fem ideology.

To get the real Wendy, you have to pass a series of highly subjective tests on her web site’s forum, to be admitted into the "inner sanctum" of Wendy-approved posters.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ifeminists/

"On this moderated email list, ifeminists can focus on discussing the important issues without distractions." (A moderated email discussion for ifeminists to explore how to establish better understanding and good will between the two genders.)

Back when this forum was active (it's declined from 655 posts in 6/01 to "O" posts (as in "zero") in 6/06.) -- there was quite a flap about about Stalinism as a principle for moderating "free speech."

Sadly even Wendy's open public forum is --
"currently unavailable" @ http://www.ifeminists.net/interaction/

Like RM, I prefer pleasant feminists to the unpleasant ones, though my take on Ms. McElroy is that being pleasant is a strategy for keeping her iFeminist "brand" somehow legit to MRAs.

This impression is bolstered by her need to always pleasantly define what men should think and pleasantly instruct them as to why.

Can you locate any of her op-ed pieces where she expresses the need to understand how men might have differing opinions from her own?

Has she ever written about men's legitimate perogative to command their own discourse without Trojan Horse feminists inside their tent? (Do iFeminists believe that men have an inalienable right to dismiss iFeminists as temporarily irrelevant potential allies until the men’s movement has progressed?)

Wendy seems like one of those "well-meaning" feminists who views herself as the antidote to radical-fem misandry and also as the ideal first Director for a federal Department of Men’s Issues.

The irony of that appointment would never occur to an iFem.

That’s what the "I" (caps are more honest) in I-Feminism is all about.

Deleted