Friday, December 6, 2013

The case against 'Go get a surrogate!'

This post is a knee-jerk reaction to a horrible image that popped into my head a few days ago.
You can blame PVW for this one.
(LOL, it is always someone else's fault, don'tcha know!).


PVW sent me this link:

I became fixated on one idea, and now I really cannot get it out of my mind.

Here is the source of my latest problem:


In that article the case of the fatherless daughter is put before us. And how unfair it is that she is barred from a father-daughter dance. Fair enough. It is not the daughter's fault for not having a  father. Perhaps Mum kicked him out. Perhaps Father was a dead-beat who walked. Perhaps he died tragically. But make no mistake - she will pay for this lack in her life. More on her later.

In that same article, the concept of mother-son events are also mentioned. But what of the boy with no mother? He would undoubtedly be barred from such events too! Again, not his fault he has no mother. He too will surely pay.

And in my overactive imagination I got to thinking...what happens when we have a world consisting solely of children missing one parent? What would it look like?

We already have plentiful fatherless children. No problem there...we could throw a lot overboard and we wouldn't miss them.

Don't understand that reference? It comes from a joke an Indian friend of mine made. Only an Indian could have made this joke, by the way. Anyone else would be 'racist', of course:

A British man, a Norwegian, a Swiss man and an American were on a boat with cargo representing their respective countries on board. Soon the boat started to capsize.
In an attempt to solve this problem, the men decided to offload the boat, starting wih the merchandise that was most common in each of their countries.

The British guy stepped up and said: 'Well, in my country, we have loads of tea, so let's throw all the tea on board out into the sea'. So they did. Things got a bit better, but they were still in trouble.

Then the Norwegian said, 'OK, in my country we have a lot of snow, so let's throw the snow overboard'. So they did, and thngs improved, but not by much.

Then the Swiss guy got up and said, 'we have lots of expensive watches, so we can afford to throw all the watches overboard'. So they did. Again an improvement, but something else had to go.

Then the American stood up and said, 'in the States, we have Indian computer engineers coming out of our ears, we can sure lose a few, no sweat'. So they threw into the sea the computer engineers.

Terrible joke, I know...but you get the picture...


And now, with all the negative consequences of feminism rapidly coming to light, men are responding quite logically with their own solutions...in an attempt not just to 'hurt' or punish women, but in some instances to nullify them. Indeed annihilate them.

I won't rehash John Galt's words here. A few posts back, I recounted my reaction to them. Chilling and disturbing.

The reason I found his words disturbing is not so much that I want to see women destroy society with no consequences. Being a woman myself, I do love other women, (because I love myself). But alas, not that much.

It's not all about us women. I hope that much is clear.

I do firmly believe that some women are just not suited to marriage, because they really are incapable of giving a man what he wants and needs. Such women should not be given the time of day by men. I fully believe that. The same goes for men who really are not cut out for relationships of any sort with women.

But the (right) solution to feminism and 'choice motherhood' is not surrogate mothers for single fathers, or worse, artificial wombs and the like.
Two wrongs definitely don't make a right.

In much the same manner as I felt strongly against the mother in this post, I think Cristiano Ronaldo's dodgy parenthood is also questionable...


We all accept that where one parent is missing, the child suffers in some way, even if there is a 'substitute' parent. Where is that substitute at 3am? The substitute is never as good as the original, as we all know. So why do we pacify ourselves with poor alternatives? (Rhetorical question).

We can spot the child of a singe mother (at least the worst kind) by now. Here comes the generalisation: usually narcissistic, they lack the drive that fathered children have. The women are poor examples of femininity and the men are overly supplicative, something which hurts their chances of success with women. These people are sorted as far as social skills go though, in the sense that they are usually extrovert. They identify strongly with the feminine, which explains why perhaps some of the men turn out to be 'manginas'.

But what about motherless children? This sample population is small, granted. But I think there are accurate characerisations of them in some films. Take 'Firelight' for example. Both Eliazbeth Laurier and Louise Godwin are motherless children, the former more than the latter, who gets a break when her mother shows up.
The kid in this movie is also a classic example.
Introverted, insular, generally highly principled, very disciplined, but alas, they have deep emotional issues.
These people identify strongly with the masculine: in Elizabeth's case, she very nobly decided to pay off her father's debts. In her era, the only option available to her was the 'surrogate mother' route. Have a baby for a strange man and give up said baby? No problem.
Ms. Laurier was thinking like a man. Nature taught her a feminine lesson she would never forget. She spends the next seven years searching for Charles Godwin and Louisa...
I daresay, a woman with a mother in her life from a young age would never do what she did.

In both cases of an absent parent, there is an imbalance in the child. Emotionally, psychologically, financially, whatever.

Life is sometimes unfair to some of us: sometimes a parent dies when a child is very young. Sometimes there are very serious reasons where a parent must be removed from a child's life. Barring these legitimate cases...

So, 'Children of women', meet 'Children of men'.

Trainwreck...

Do we really want this future? Aren't things already bad enough for us yet in the SMP? Do we really want to reduce parenthood into yet another 'his and hers' war?



The use of the phrase 'Children of men' was no accident on my part. The film with the same name is a truly chilling experience. Do we really want to go there?
(Rhetorical question).




So the feminists banished men from the home front and now there are long queues at the sperm bank.
And the response from men?
Get a surrogate!
Get an artificial womb!

Do you really mean this? Have you thought this through, all the way to the ugly and bitter conclusion?

Is anyone thinking about the children?
(Not a rhetorical question).














28 comments:

John Lord B3 said...

"..Do we really want this future? Aren't things already bad enough for us yet in the SMP? Do we really want to reduce parenthood into yet another 'his and hers' war?.."

Hi ST! I have no answers for now, but the scenario you painted in the article sounds chillin enough as a base for a film script. Something like "Gender Star Wars" :D . Maybe Steven Spielberg would be interested ;)

PVW said...

Hi, ST, if anything, numbers of them seem to adopt the perspectives of earlier generations of single and divorced mothers, that they "turned out just right." I wonder if numbers of men who adhere to that view are men who are children of divorce who themselves have issues with their mothers. A number of manospherian types fit that mold. They believe they can do a better job than the worst of the women out there, and they don't believe they can find the best.

As for exclusion, perhaps they will adopt as well some of the tactics the single mothers and gay fathers have used in those situations: end the traditional programming because it encourages (in their view,) "favoritism and discrimination". Or, open up the programming to more people who aid in the parenting of the child.

Ceer said...

@ ST

You see the call by men for use of surrogates and artificial wombs as a threat to the unique gift of women to bear children. It's a visceral feeling that you feel that if come true, will threaten a natural part of your existence, leaving you with a scar in your soul. That feeling is absolutely justified.

That's the SAME feeling men get when discussing divorce, stripping of children, and the humiliation of having his life turned inside out by a court. In the mannosphere, men are talking about sexbots because we recognize the potential.

Feminists have declared a gender war. The attitude of the most strident ones is to eliminate not only most men, but anyone who holds conservative beliefs. This isn't theoretical; listen to what they have to say for yourself. A massive divorce rate, rampant abortion, and unfair domestic violence laws aren't happening for no reason. These attributes of our contemporary society are nukes designed to destroy an ideology they hate. Again, they are at war with us.

Any concession, nicety, or retreat just emboldens them further. Any victory encourages cackling jubilation. Any compromise results in renewed attack. In the face of this implacable enemy who is engaging in an attack, do you think it is reasonable to make nice?

Someone who mentions sexbots is reaching for a weapon with witch to fight back. Like all violence, it's immoral, scary. In war, you don't reach for a safe nerf gun to fight off a tank. You reach for a howitzer. In war, the battlefield necessarily suffers damage. When the battlefield is our families, that means children are going to be in harms way.

My point is this...what options do we have? Give up, and let the enemy win? Take up nerf guns, and paper airplanes, hoping the cuteness will sweeten the enemy into surrendering? Or do we instead take up the weapons that will win quickly and decisively, hoping that the quickness of the war will mitigate the destruction? It's a hell of a choice.

metak said...

@ Ceer

I think that some men in manosphere are just wrong about artificial wombs.
First of all, most women simply don't care about it in any way because of how men have been portrayed throughout the media. You know, dumb idiots that can't do anything without their wife...
Even if they've heard anything about it they wouldn't believe that some men wold willingly choose something like that.
Most men wouldn't choose the latter option. Some would, yes, but not many.
When you talk with family oriented men you notice that it's very important for them to find a woman that would also be a good mother. Most men recognize this importance. Judging by the numbers of babies born to lesbian couples that were conceived in those sperm banks... or that latest article about introducing some kind of 'mentor-ship' program in schools to tech young boys certain skills because they have no fathers or any other male figures in their lives... I wonder if the same applies so much.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2525125/Male-teachers-instruct-boy-pupils-positive-role-models-life-skills.html

This is actually a 'very' funny story indeed about the artificial womb. Both sperm banks and artificial wombs seem to originate from 'trans-humanism' and judging by the looks of it, they're both intended for 'ordinary' people, masses, workers... 'animals' etc. at least for a while anyway. Then manosphere came along and adopted this idea that artificial womb will somehow give men an 'edge'. I think Barbarossssa and Stardusk talked about it? It's clear that the 'elites' have other plans for themselves. The idea of transferring human consciousness into some kind of artificial body (android or something) is at the forefront of it. At least according to Ray Kurzweil and others.

As for sexbots, I suggest you to watch second episode of tv series 'Almost Human'. That will give you an idea how it might play out... I can easily see this version of future coming to life because there is a demand for it and it's only a matter of time before someone makes a product of sufficient quality.

That's my opinion on this subject anyway. Sorry for my English. :)

Spacetraveller said...

@ JLB3 and PVW,

It is indeed a chilling picture. Now, don't get me wrong.

I know there are men who make excellent single fathers. But here is another paradox: those men don't want to be single fathers. It was foisted upon them and they made a decent job of their situation.

As a child, I was a bit of a bookworm (this wouldn't surprise you, I suspect). One of the books that most touched my young heart was 'Silas Marner'. As an adult, I was delighted to recently come across the film (with Steve Martin in the starring role).

The story of Silas Marner is exceedingly heartwarming, I promise you. As indeed the story of women who become single mothers due to tragic circumstances, such as the case of war widows. Some end up remarrying, some don't. But the point is, these women do an excellent job of raising the child or children without the biological father of those children. The same applies to women who are abandoned by their hsbands. They confront every woman's worst fear and come out with their dignity and souls intact.

What I find deplorable by this whole 'single parent by choice' thing is that it is by design, in a deliberate attempt to freeze out the other party. At the end of the day, it is all so pointless because a lot of energy goes into hurting someone who may or may not care. But the ones who do care are the kids, and they are hurt very badly. God designed it such that both a man and a woman contribute something to a child's life. These gender wars we are so busy fighting result in unhappiness for all.

Ceer,

Your first statement actually may be true of many women, myself included, but the point is that it doesn't bother the very women who started this war. For them, devil may care, frankly.

Do we really want a situation where some feral women set the tone for all of humanity??

We are giving them the keys to the kingdom here!

What is the solution, you ask...

Freeze 'em out.

Remain steadfast in your own values.
Choose good women to settle with in your new village. If they are impossible to find, remain MGYOW. But do not espouse the ideologies of the enemy in order to get even with them.
Because in a twisted sort of way, that makes them the outright winners. And the sad thing is that they drag everyone into Hades with them.

This is the angle from which I approach this subject.

I suspect that indeed, it is men themselves (with their overall better sense of morality than women - except for sexual morality in young men) who will be sickened by this idea of artificial wombs. Right now, it is a knee-jerk reaction to feminist misandry. But it won't solve the problem of feminist misandry...

Sure, of course there will be 'collateral damage'. But the intended target of the poisoned chalice will not be the ones to drink it...

And it is MEN who will blink first - because the feminist women are too far gone for redemption.

If men remain steadfast in their masculinity, they win the war just by existing...


Metak,

I agree with you. The same machine that brought us feminism would be enthusiastically behind artificial wombs as well. Whyever not? It is part of the same package afterall. The descent to Hell starts with 'tit' from the women (LOL) followed by 'tat' from the angry men...

And round and round the helish carousel we go.

Ceer said...

@ ST

Our forefather's solution to feminism was to ignore it, poke fun at the feminists, and try to go on as normal. That got us to the point where we are now. Millions of abortions every year worldwide, rampant cuckoldry and fatherlessness. Women don't know these things are morally wrong. How did it get this way? Weakened signal.

As long as men withdraw from women, women won't think logically about their problems. There will be no introspection, only blame games. Men will be the ones picking up the blame. The most recent illustration of this goes back to a comment on Dalrock here: http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/12/17/progress/#comment-102288

The woman in question in this post clearly has never thought along the lines of innocentbystanderboston. Why? Is it THAT HARD for her to put herself in someone else's shoes? Solipsism must be king.

Something that interested me was that there WAS one of the women in that group who smiled knowingly...the married one.

How do we give them the keys to the kingdom, indeed?

As far as evolutionary force goes, the other side HAS their out, as you said...sperm banks. One man in a population of 150 or more could provide enough genetic material to continue in such a circumstance.

Full scale Christian/MGTOW retreat from the feminine world will serve to remove the only check on the advancement of evil. Running away is against the missionary nature of the Church. There is nothing like trying to fight the darkness by putting your light in a basket.

metak said...

@ ST

I have to admit that this whole idea of having a child via sperm bank or surrogate, repulses me. You're basically having a child with a 'complete' stranger except in cases where you might know the donor... The worst part of it is that you're intentionally depriving the child of his/her mother/father which is just cruel and selfish. Even if desire to have a child is so strong, then why not adopt one? There are thousands of them without parents or home. Not to mention that these sperm banks get their 'material' from dubious sources.
At least they can make a reality tv show where these kids go together on a quest to find their biological father, Donor no. 2533522... :-)

I agree with Ceer that MGTOW is BEST thing to do, but when it comes to how, I'll always choose the same way as my brother 'Down Under' from your MGTOW thread. This is what I wish for all men to do, choose happiness and enjoy life.

@ Ceer

I read that post you're referring to and I hope someone starts making a comic-book based on this whole thing. American women are hilarious with their complete denial of everything and their reliance on big daddy government to fulfill their every whim... I laughed really hard while reading it. :)

Spacetraveller said...

Ceer,

I love your explanation (as usual!).

But may I tackle you on something?
Our Dads stood by and let feminism go on without doing anything to stop it. I agree with you there. But WHY did they do it?

I was thinking quite deeply about this...

Here's a little theory I have.

I think our fathers stood by and let feminism go on its merry way to hell taking all of society with it, for the simple reason that they were ignorant about how bad it could get...

Let's face it - men and women both are opportunistic. And on the surface of things, feminism is one of the opportunistic movements for men...I mean, how wonderful to suddenly have women who no longer demand marriage before they um, dish out the goods...who insist on working to support themselves in the name of 'liberation'...who want to open their own car doors and kill their own snakes. Our fathers in the 1950s and 60s must have thought their ship had come in! They had died and gone to heaven! So of course they embraced this new movement enthusiastically. But of course, as we now know from our own retrospectoscope, it was a poisoned chalice. And like all poisoned chalices, it was laced with relish...

So they stood by and did nothing, and the giant Trojan horse rolled in.
The rest, as they say, is history.

And now, you the sons of these men, and us the daughters of these men, are finding out what a costly mistake Dad made, in not putting his foot down at a time when he should have.

May I call it the 'Adam and Eve' effect?

If Adam had said to Eve, put that apple down, now, turn away and walk away from that snake, perhaps, we would all be living in Utopialand by now...

But Eve made a mistake. And Adam followed her down the rabbit-hole. Both sexes sinned. And we continue to sin.

I agree that MGTOW sends out a potent message to women, yes.

But too many men are still going after the low-hanging fruit, so this potent message is very much diluted, to the point that it is confusing women! What did you call it? Weakened signal...

If Kim Kardashian can get a man to propose to her after all she is known for, what's to prevent an impressionable young woman from going down that path of lewd behaviour with no shame?

The message should be loud and clear and... consistent . Civilise us!


Metak,

Yes, the idea of sperm banks repulses me just as much as artificial wombs. This is why I don't really acceot the accusation that I am terrified of the idea of women's role in reproduction being nullified, because I don't like the idea of MEN's role being nullified either, which is what a sperm bank allows a woman to do.

It is fine if a man or woman or a couple decide they don't want children. But for those who do, it should be a joint effort wherever possible to give that child the best start in life.

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveller said,

"The message should be loud and clear and... consistent . Civilise us!"


Too late. Nothing that men say, or do, will change the vast majority of female opinions and halt the war on western culture. Why?


Because there exists an entire cohort of media and social commentators whose one goal is destruction of the last vestiges of that culture. Few, if any, women will pay attention to anything a man would say, unless it was in total support of their agenda.

Civilize us? Civilize yourselves. The alleged Patriarchy already gave you the civilization which has produced medical miracles, and nuclear weapons. Good with the bad, and all that.

I know, I know... not all women. Here is an idea for a future post:

Why is it necessary, for women to gain respect by destroying respect for men? Why is it necessary for women to gain education and advancement, by denying such, for men? Why is it necessary for women to have the freedom to exit a bad marriage by destroying the institution through legislation and media buffoonery?

Finally, at what point will the great unwashed realize they've been left completely out of the so-called benefits of this new social construct?

The Navy Corpsman

Ceer said...

@ Spacetraveller

Weakened Signal applies to men looking for marriage. The idea is that certain social cues will prompt men to prepare for attracting a woman by engaging in greater pursuits in whatever their chosen field is, thus creating the patriarchal dividend. The idea of weakened signal is the lessening of these social cues during a man's formative years. There are 2 general activities contemporary women engage in (that I can think of offhand) that have the effect of weakening signal:

1) Divorce - Marriage that isn't permanent requires a man to hedge his bets, both in terms of his emotions and investments.

2) Sluttery - Sex that doesn't require marriage sends the signal that men should be spending their effort in gaining charisma rather than raising children.

Your point to equate this to sexual signal to women is an intelligent one, but I think it may be inaccurate. Here's why. Men are the gatekeepers of commitment, while women are the gatekeepers of sex. If a man's signal is sex-based, shouldn't a woman's signal be commitment based? Based on this idea, the biggest threat to feminine signal isn't thirsty men, but government mandated welfare, alimony, and child support payments.

Now, on to the main point...
Why did our forefathers let feminism go on its merry way? Like any sizable group, men didn't act as a monolith. There were a variety of strategies, motives, and even actions. The aggregate response, I think, is what allowed feminism to flourish.

First, you have those opposed. The typical reaction was that feminists weren't much of a threat. After all, they're just women, what can they do? The typical response was actually similar to a red pill response of today...tease the women in an outcome independent manner. Overall, this strategy isn't a horrible one. It maintains masculine alphaness while providing social pressure against feminism.

Second, you have the businesses and tycoons who were elated to support the increase of labor in the market, thereby depressing wages. Never mind the social cost to a society that's not raising children... the ONLY thing that matters is the bottom line. From a Catholic perspective, despicable.

Third, you have the socially minded. Women who've slutted it up, leaving them with many children, all by different men are indeed pitiable creatures. Liberals called for child support. Conservatives called for church giving. Depending on your perspective, at least one was a laudable goal, but the aggregate effect was to provide too much safety and security by transferring resources from married families to broken ones.

Certainly cads chipped in and provided their share of the charismatic sperm dumping, but things couldn't have gotten so far out of hand with just them.

Your final point that men must civilize women just screams active involvement. Civilization itself is something built cooperatively over time, whether it's the Oracle at Delphi, the Hoover Dam, marriage, or contemporary American Society.

The Navy Corpsman is correct. At this point, I see very little men can do against the great tide of media. Individually, the typical woman believes feminism and feminine culture to be in her favor. About the only thing that can get in a point edgewise is a tingle generating alpha. An ARMY of these guys MIGHT make headway.

The last time a feminized society was set back on the road to patriarchy, it was well on the way to self-destruction with rampant abortion, infanticide, and child-maiming. There wasn't modern media as we know it today, AND the conquering culture had an army of alphas.

metak said...

What The Navy Corpsman said:

"Few, if any, women will pay attention to anything a man would say, unless it was in total support of their agenda."

This ^^^^, to infinity!

Spacetraveller said...

Ceer and NC,

Merry Christmas!

OK, I accept your finely aruged points. Because I cannot find a suitable and reasonable counter-argument to yours. So I admit defeat :-)

However, in response to NC and Metak,

Well, surely it depends what her agenda is. If it is a harmonious aganda that seeks to enhance everyone else's life, a clever man would go along. But if it is a selfish agenda that seeks to enhance only HER life, then may it be blown up to bits.

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveller said:

"But if it is a selfish agenda that seeks to enhance only HER life, then may it be blown up to bits."

Hence why men are considering surrogate wombs for potential children. Because that is the ONLY certain way a man can know his child(ren) cannot be taken from him. Because that is the ONLY certain person whom he knows will seek to enhance his life, AND that of his child.

The rate of unwed mothers of all ages and races has risen by 80% since 1980. Tell me, how many of those mothers have had all contact, all knowledge of their children taken from them?


Barring actual felony convictions: zero.

I've read some very interesting statements from the media in the UK, of late, such as the need for mentors for young males who have no contact with their fathers, and few known male role models since 90+% of all primary schools have fewer than three male teachers. And because research done by the feminist establishment is finally acknowledging the correlation between crime and fatherless families, it is politically correct to discuss males as doing something useful.

Meanwhile, some man in Britain passed by a child who later drowned, because he was afraid he would be accused of pedophilia. Another man quit coaching his daughters' football (soccer) team, because one girl told him she did not have to do what he said, she could just tell her mother that the coach touched her.

Do me (and other men you respect) a favor: Google Bijan Ebrahimi.

You want to be the good one, I get that. I'm about ready to tell you, you're too late, and nothing can be done.

The Navy Corpsman

Ceer said...

There's an interesting recent post on Sunshine Mary's blog. http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/12/23/withholding-2/

Her argument is that women are withholding femininity from men as punishment, while men are also withholding masculinity from women as punishment.

While I'm not sure she's accurate on men's reasoning, she seems to imply that the way out ISN'T MGTOW. Perhaps reading this post will give you ideas in the future.

Spacetraveller said...

Ceer,

Thank you so much for that link. It was enlightening reading!

I am in almost total agreement with SSM about the role of MGTOW on this, as I suspect you are too. She makes some excellent points. I just have one little bone to pick...

MGTOW as a 'political' movement is indeed ineffective, if its purpose is to 'teach 'em b*tches a lesson!'.

But for an individual man who really does not want marriage or female companionship for his own outcome-independent reasons, or for the man who really wants a good woman but cannot find one, or for the man who is unfortunately unattractive to all or most women, MGTOW is (albeit perhaps not the first choice) a reasonable solution. By the way, the same applies to women, although it hurts women more than it does men, and it really is never a solution a woman would choose, no matter how dire the circumstances (biology just doesn't allow it).

So there we are.

SSM is on to something...

Bellita once said that in the war between the sexes, one sex has to blink first. It is my humble opinion that it is simpler and more effective if it is women who blink first.

One's mile may vary though.

*shrug*

Great post. Thanks, Ceer.

Spacetraveller said...

NC,

Yes, I heard about Bijan Ebrahimi. Very sad story. What is surprising to me is that he was mistaken for a paedophile by a man, not a woman. Mr. Ebrahimi was done in by a 'white knight' who was whiteknighting where there was no need to whiteknight. This is one case which demonstrates that it is not just feminists who are the problem. Their hangers-on are just as dangerous.
Look, I am all for whiteknighting where it is deserved. I might even call it...chivalry.

But where it is not warranted or necessary, it really does not need to be done. And for sure, no-one should be losing their life because someone else has an overactive imagination...


Anonymous said...

First, we need to assume that a reasonable ideal family situation consists of two parents and child(ren). Second, we need to assume that, although less ideal than both parents, one parent is sufficient, given a decent job of parenting. Certainly, we can agree that a child needs at least one parent, and an orphan, either by accident or design, is in desperate straits.

Can you then see, a man who trusts himself to at least try very hard to be a good parent, is unwilling to commit to a relationship where he knows there is a significant chance that he will be removed from the family? And by extension, he knows that his parenting attempts will be dismissed, his parenting wishes ignored, and his raison d'ĂȘtre quite possibly completely nullified?

When the war is no longer for equality, but for supremacy, when the target is not rights-giving, but rights-taking, when "5000 years of Patriarchy" justifies nullification of 49% of the population, when YOU begin to find reasons to justify MGTOW... all while searching for a man to call your One And Only...


I find surrogacy and artificial wombs to be an entirely logical flanking maneuver, which is exactly why I brought up the false accusations of pedophilia. Can you imagine what would happen? The USA recently passed stricter laws on American men marrying foreign women, ostensibly to protect those women. Never mind that there were only three anecdotal stories about some freak who killed his mail-order wife, we have to stop this kind of thing from happening!

Is it less than ideal? No more so than 40% of all children born to unwed mothers, no worse than Octo-mom getting eight embryos implanted at taxpayer expense. But yes, it is less than ideal. Is it moral, ethical, RIGHT?

As your Pope recently said so eloquently, "Who am I to judge?"


(As an aside, I like your new Pope way way more than the last five Popes, combined)

When you treat all men as potential rapists, no man wants to help stop rape. When you treat all men as potential pedos, no man wants to stop pedos. You do NOT get allies by accusing them of complicity in crimes they do not commit.

When you treat all men as criminals for being men, they do not accept your accusations... they plot your downfall. And we have both the means, and the motive to do so. Ask King George III for advice on this one.

What better way to create a Brave New World than to create children without those women who hate men?

Finally, can you see that most ANY man, including myself, sees how fucked-up this idea is, and is repulsed by it... yet is so desperate, is still thinking it is a possibility?

Can you really understand how badly men want to be fathers of their own blood? Do you actually buy into the tired old rhetoric that men are simpletons who are vaguely aware of short people running around the house?

There is no reason for me to condemn or condone artificial insemination of an unmarried female, or surrogacy for a homosexual couple. They're both legal and fait accompli. I do not care.

I'm not going to tell 100 million men that they cannot enjoy the same legal status as unwed mothers and homosexual couples. No, Miss Spacetraveller, that is your privilege. I'm not going to pretend that human males have no biological imperative to reproduce, I know too much science.

There is no way I am going to convince you that surrogacy is at least neutral. There is no way you're going to convince me that it is wrong, in this present society. Weep, if you must, for the conditions that make this idea a real topic of concern.

I stopped weeping about five minutes after I read about Thomas James Ball. I stopped weeping again, about five minutes after reading about Bijan Ebrahimi.

Now, I have no more tears, save for me and mine.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

NC,

I get it. But part of 'getting it' is the realisation that I would never be able to convince you that I 'get it'. So I shall hold my peace.

All SSM and I are saying on this issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. It makes a whole new third wrong...

Let's hope we can enjoy the incoming New Year over a pint. It's on me! (All in the name of 'equality', mind).

Or we could go the traditional route where you buy me a pint and I cook ya one of my legendary plate-lickers (with Mrs. NC's permission of course. She is cordially invited to the meal).

Deal?

:-)

Happy New Year to you and yours!

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveller said:

"All SSM and I are saying on this issue is that two wrongs don't make a right. It makes a whole new third wrong.."


A bit late to retreat to morals, isn't it?

Or is that the entire idea? Team Woman gets their whole list, and men react and respond, which is immediately condemned as immoral. Brilliant.

And they say women cannot play chess well. Try this one on:


You reap what you sow.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

NC,

My point was not a moral one, I don't think.

It IS indeed late in the day for any party in the SMP to resort to morals...which is why I haven't.

My attitude towards this whole mess is rather, 'so women have failed badly, the evidence is overwhelming, but where do we go from here?'
It's more a problem-solving strategy than taking the moral high-ground. I absolutely agree with you that that (moral) ship sailed sometime in the 60s...well before I was born.

I don't always agree with SSM, but on this issue, I think I ought to respect her opinion. This is a woman who walks the walk, not just talk the talk. Don't you know her story? Her husband was a serial cheater (something like 30 times over if I am not mistaken?).
Even the Church would gladly grant her a divorce under these circumstances. This woman said no to all that. Because two wrongs don't make a right.

In the words of our esteemed Pope, who am I to argue?

Anonymous said...

But it is difficult to extend one woman's decision to work on her marriage, to condemning a large proportion of men to a childless future.

I truly commend Mrs SunShineMary for her commitment to her marriage. It is both admirable and noble of her to do so. But, as you say, even a church would grant her a divorce.

But tens of thousands of men will never even get the chance at fatherhood, regardless of whether or not they married. Even if they pass their genes on to a child born out of wedlock, we all know that does not confer fatherhood upon the men.

And yes, Miss Spacetraveller... it is both unfortunate and difficult. There are no easy answers, but I will defend the rights of men to have children without the interference of divorce and government in their lives.

Because, in the end, that is what will happen. People such as yourself, as well as feminists responding in fury when their uteri become irrelevant, will go screaming to the government to make surrogacy illegal, and once more men will lose rights over THEIR reproduction.

Do I know if men can be better single parents than women? No. But I do know, they cannot be much worse.

And, I know they have a right to be a parent, if they so choose. Just because the means is toxic for you, does not necessarily remove it from the realm of possibility. I also know anecdotally that a single father has almost no chance to get married. I've known three such men, and none of them ever got remarried after their wives died, not from lack of trying. All three searched desperately and proposed to more than one woman.

For all the condemnation of men not wanting to raise another man's child, women are far less likely to raise another woman's baby, at least in my experience.

Two wrongs do not make a right? Since the first wrong could easily be corrected, it stands to reason that such a correction to equal rights would be far smarter for everyone, especially the children. Yeah, right... like that will happen.

You've made your case, and I, along with most men, disagree. Destruction of the family, you say? Won't someone think of the children, you ask?

As you rightfully pointed out, most of this started before you were born, and much of it started before I was. Many people asked those same questions in the 50s, the 60s and 70s.

Clearly, no one gives a damn. Meanwhile, a million children will continue to be fatherless. Will a million motherless children fix that? Hell no! It isn't meant to FIX the family. It's meant to give men children they would otherwise never know.

And that, Miss Spacetraveller, is not a wrong.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

NC,

A very good case you do make too!
You definitely win this one. But you know me. I use all the tools at my disposal to argue a case as best I can before letting it go :-)

"For all the condemnation of men not wanting to raise another man's child, women are far less likely to raise another woman's baby..."

Oh NC, you may well have anecdotal evidence to back this up, but surely you know this statement is patently untrue!

A woman is MUCH MUCH more likely to raise another woman's child than it is the reverse. This happens ALL the time in polygamous families, in 'harem' arrangements and increasingly in 'baby mama' situations.

Women by their very nature have no problem in raising children not their own, especially of course if she does have children of her own, but this applies even if she is single. Leaving aside the problem of sharing the resources of the provider with his children from another relationship, it is not an ideal situation, but most women will still consider it provided the resources can go round. This is normal female thinking/behaviour.
A woman with children is much less likely to successfully remarry, because her assets in the marriage market lie in her virginity/near virginity and certainly not 'baggage' no matter how delightful this 'baggage' (i.e. children) is. Again, normal male behaviour in seeing women (at least those putting themselves forward for marriage) this way. It is wise indeed for men to think this way precisely because mothers do prioritise motherhood over the man (which is of course unfair to the man, and ALSO to the children, which is precisely why a woman with children should do her best to stick with the original father...). Those who don't are the anomalies, and those are the ones whose children sometimes wind up dead or battered - ever heard of Baby P?

Men with children? Somehow they are better at compartmentalising fatherhood and their love life, in general. Which helps.

Remember that the story behind 'The Sound of Music' is not fictional. (LOL, I just watched it on TV - for the 300th time probably). A man with seven rowdy children? No problem. He is still a prime catch for a young virginal novitiate confused about her calling :-)
A woman with seven children? Widow or not, I don't think she can easily bag a Baron...

Let's be fair here.

The problem of your friends who are fathers and cannot find wives is part of a general problem to do with the SMP and NOT because they are fathers.

This is a very important point which is why I labour it.

But otherwise, as I said, you win. Truce?




Spacetraveller said...

Where a man does raise another man's child, it is generally due to cuckodry he is not aware of. But a man is much less likely to choose to raise another man's child. This is just biology and is a well-known phenomenon.

A MAJOR difference between the sexes.

Anonymous said...

Spacetraveller said:

"A woman is MUCH MUCH more likely to raise another woman's child than it is the reverse. This happens ALL the time in polygamous families, in 'harem' arrangements and increasingly in 'baby mama' situations. "

Polygamy-illegal
Harems-illegal

I have no idea what a baby mama situation entails.

Will women adopt a child? Sure, if she cannot have one of her own.

Will grandma raise her grandchild? Sure, if her daughter gave birth to it... blood and kin.

The Trapp family? Really? Err, you do know that was 1937, correct? The Baron Von Trapp was a man with enormous socio-economic status. With twenty children, he would still attract women. Hypergamy is what it is, even with seven kids. A Baroness with seven kids would attract just as many men, with almost no chance of her actually marrying any of those suitors.

Unless he was a Duke. Or a King.

I do agree with your point about cuckolding, but all one has to do is look around you and see plenty of men have married single mothers. Part and parcel of the whole red pill concept is for men to recognize that they are failing at their biological imperative to pass on their genes, unless said single mother is still capable of having children. Which is near impossible by the time she is 35.

Lastly, about the SMP. I dislike the term, even though it is rather accurate about the mindset of general society. I'll agree that the fathers I mentioned were definitely at a disadvantage due to the SMP. But, every one of them told me that ALL the women they proposed to, told them they did not want to become an instant mother. None of the men were told why, only that the women did not want to be mothers immediately. In one case, the daughter of one of the guys started calling his girlfriend "Mommy", and she bailed on him.

How else can I interpret such events? All of the men were 'good catches' in that they were pre-qualified to be good fathers, good husbands and good providers. Maybe they were ugly, maybe their status was not high enough to risk marriage to them, I just do not know.

I acknowledge that single mothers had problems in the past, finding a husband, but in the 50s, it was less due to a divorce than a death, or something else.

But, with the things are in society today, far fewer men are single fathers... only in the case of death of the mother, or a woman so unfit to be a mother that even the government cannot deny it.

I know of six such men, single by widowerhood, or by their ex-wives being batshit crazy. All six have given up on dating, after years of women not wanting to be instant mothers, or any other reason.

Maybe it is different in Europe. Maybe the men I know made poor choices to which they proposed marriage.

Or maybe, this is a truth that NO one wants to acknowledge.

As for the truce, of course. It wasn't a war, Miss Spacetraveller. It was a simple assertion that surrogacy is not ideal, but it must be allowed to go forward. When feminism finds out that they can be made irrelevant, it's quite possible some might start looking at a red pill. Men might even be considered to be humans, again.

The Navy Corpsman

metak said...

@ The Navy Corpsman

"But, with the things are in society today, far fewer men are single fathers... only in the case of death of the mother, or a woman so unfit to be a mother that even the government cannot deny it.

I know of six such men, single by widowerhood, or by their ex-wives being batshit crazy. All six have given up on dating, after years of women not wanting to be instant mothers, or any other reason.

Maybe it is different in Europe. Maybe the men I know made poor choices to which they proposed marriage."


It's not that much different in Europe. You have women in almost all the positions that decide about the custody of children and rest of them are filled with the so called 'white knights' etc. What this means is that a woman would have to be considered as a total failure as a mother before they would even start thinking about the father. Single father will most definitely stay single, but as you've said it, hypergamy changes things.

Maybe you'll have some opposition from certain women, but on a larger scale surrogacy will be allowed to go forward I believe. They'll finally 'finish' what they've started decades ago. Nowadays women are increasingly seen as prostitutes for sex and wombs for rent to put in eggs from yet another woman... If women want to be treated this way, that's fine by me. As expected, governments are already starting to put in more and more laws and regulations to gain control over this new growing 'industry'.

http://world.time.com/2013/02/15/why-people-are-angry-about-indias-new-surrogacy-laws/
http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/surrogacy-in-india-government-moves-to-ban-foreigners-403702

I had some doubts and theories that gay men would actually become one of the worst enemies of modern women while pretending to be their best friends... it's mostly thanks to them that surrogacy is becoming more popular and accessible. I mean why not? They already don't look at women the same way and they'll support any law that will make it easier for them to use women as a means to an end, while pretending to be a supporters of women's rights and whatnot... it's actually quite brilliant, evil but also brilliant nevertheless... wolf in sheep's clothing... :-)

Spacetraveller said...

NC,

Ah, yes indeed it was circa 1937!
My bad...!

But female biology hasn't changed, I reckon.

I respect your argument.
But...

You see, in effect, what I am saying is that feminism has been one long 'fitness test' for men. And I fear that men are failing it by living life 'as a logical conclusion' to feminism.

This spells bad news for the very men themselves.

Forget the feminists - men themselves are throwing themselves under their own bus. At the behest of feminists.

This is my concern.

Anonymous said...

Want to know my concerns?

Family, as we understand it, will cease to exist. Destroyed by the very people we thought would love it the most.

If that means men must try and salvage something, raise up a whole new generation of women with better values, then we men are willing to sacrifice ourselves under that bus.

And, like always, history and the Creator will judge us all, whether we succeed, or fail.

If you have another option, do tell.

The Navy Corpsman

Spacetraveller said...

NC,

"If you have another option, do tell".

I don't, which is why you win this argument.
:-(