Since today is father’s day, I added a new page about how fatherhood and not marriage is essential for civilization. I’m disabling comments on this post because all of the content is on the new page. Follow the link or click on the tab at the top of the blog to read the page and comment on it.
Rmaxgenactivepua brought us this webpage where a woman talks about the fallout from artificial wombs. It’s an enlightening piece of women’s fear of artificial wombs. Just look at what the author has to say:
The current War on Women pales in comparison to the potential impact that ectogenesis, a technology in which a human fetus gestates completely out of a mother’s body, will have.
The war on women is a myth, but this means that anyone is who paranoid enough to believe in the nonexistent war on women will be deathly afraid of artificial wombs.
What does it mean to sever human “birth” from the human body? This connection, between women and babies, is one of the sole sources of power that women have in some societies.
That isn’t true, but most of women’s power is derived directly or indirectly from childbirth. From this and the rest of the article, it’s clear that the author realizes that with other options for children, plenty of men will forgo dealing with women which destroys women’s power.
Ann Oakley’s book The Captured Womb: A History of the Medical Care of Pregnant Women illustrates how ectogenesis would be part of a long-standing process by which virtually all male and often misogynistic medical cultures have taken control of birth and women’s wombs in the name of science. In this framework, ectogenesis will potentially exaggerate preexisting inequities and biases. In this equation women aren’t liberated, they are further subjugated and alienated from their own bodies and abilities. This Handmaiden’s Talescenario is fairly believable if you pay any attention to, for example, Rick Santorum’s antediluvian reproductive rights agenda and the number of people willing to vote for him.
Prominent feminists and activists, including Andrea Dworkin and Janice Raymond, have concluded that not only will women be further marginalized and oppressed by this eventuality, but they will become obsolete.
“Misogynistic medical cultures” produced things like the use of forceps in childbirth which saved many women’s lives. This tells us that what women are afraid of with artificial wombs is bigger than just artificial wombs themselves. What women are afraid of is the use of any technology in childbirth, even if they would otherwise die without it. What science and modern medicine has done is not just made childbirth safer for women, but it has also demystified it. That demystification has lessened women’s power even when it has benefited them.
Then it gets silly. The author starts arguing that Tradcons are going to merge with Transhumanists to create some sort of misogynist tradcon cyborg that uses artificial wombs to oppress women. It’s guaranteed that tradcons will oppose artificial wombs, and one of the reasons they will is because they’re white knights for women. What this really shows is that for feminists all opposition looks like a tradcon even when that doesn’t make sense.
Fertility, and the ability to be the species’ reproductive engine, are virtually the only resources that women collectively control, they argue. And, although women do have other “value” in a patriarchal society–child rearing, for example–gestation remains, worldwide, the most important. Even in the most female-denigrating cultures women are prized, if only, for their childbearing. If you take that away, then what? This technology becomes another form of violence.
Perhaps women will no longer be able to hide behind childbirth and child rearing and do real work for a change. Of course, to the author, this is “violence against women”.
Other feminist analyses takes into account the class and race implications of the enthusiastic adoption of assisted reproductive technologies by the wealthy. Some, eco-feminists, relate the eventuality to correlating a general campaign against nature. Ectogenesis also opens up the real possibility of men becoming mothers and primary care takers.
This is an admission of the author’s (and other women’s) real fear of artificial wombs. Men will have children on their own, realize that they can raise them on their own, and no longer need women to help them raise children. Then women have to contribute by doing other work which scares the crap out of them. This is what the author’s (and other women’s opposition) to artificial wombs (absent a “social justice framework” as she says later in the article which means control by women) is really all about.
People have talked about how feminism has exposed the full extent of female inferiority (moral, mental, economic, spiritual, civic, physical) far more visibly than was ever possible before feminism. The author of the page I linked to is clearly afraid the artificial womb will do the same to expose female inferiority when it comes to raising children. However, she is wrong because that process has already started without artificial wombs. Growing numbers of men are coming to the realization that women’s involvement in raising children is at least unnecessary and in a lot of cases harmful. Paternity testing has shown that many women can’t be trusted to have your children instead of some other man’s children. There are already commercials on TV advertising fertility clinics abroad to single men so that single men have their own children. Artificial wombs aren’t the beginning of the process of exposing female inferiority when it comes to raising children. They’re the end. The author and her desired “social justice framework” can’t stop what has already started.
Over the years I have been talking about technologies like artificial wombs, I get people saying that artificial wombs and related technologies are bad because the two parent families are superior for raising children. While what they’re saying is technically true, it ignores several problems.
The worst possible situation to raise children is a single mother family by far. If we were just comparing single mother families to single father families, the single father families would be significantly better for raising children. The damage to society done by single mother headed families has been extensive and documented for decades so we know this to be true. My critics often would agree with this but point out that the 2 parent family is better than both single mother and single father families.
The problem with this is that for a 2 parent family to be better than a single father family, it must stay a 2 parent family. As we know divorce is rampant so at least half of 2 parent families will not stay 2 parent families. What happens during a divorce? A 2 parent family becomes either a single father family or a single mother family. As we all know, in almost all cases it’s a single mother family. This negates any benefit of a 2 parent family.
This is why we need to support single father families and ways of creating them such as artificial wombs in the future or international surrogacy now. A 2 parent family is no good if it just ends up as a single mother family, and that happens at least 50% of the time. A single father family isn’t going to become a single mother family except in some rare cases. Single father families may not be optimal, but given the current realities of divorce, on balance, it’s a lot better than any of the alternatives.
In the past I have written about artificial wombs and places like the Rotunda Clinic in India where anyone can go get a surrogate mother to have a child. It has come up in the past whether single men would really have children by themselves or not. We now have an answer to that question. I saw this commercial last night on TV.
While this commercial talks about surrogacy for “couples and singles”, it clearly features a single man getting a child via surrogacy. Don’t forget that I saw this commercial on TV last night. If there wasn’t a potential market for surrogate mothers for single men (even if it’s small), then there wouldn’t be commercials about it featuring what clearly is a single man on TV.
This is what I thought was the case, but I didn’t expect to see evidence of it such as a commercial like this so soon.
One way that the costs of misandry get transferred back on to women is by denying marriage and denying children to women. There is another aspect of this that deserves exploration. Denying marriage on children to women also denies grandchildren.
Most ways that the cost of misandry will get transferred back on to women avoid a group that bears a great deal of responsibility for feminism, our parents’ generation, in particular our mothers. Our parents’ generation had one foot in the old system and one foot in the feminist system. This meant that many of them have completely avoided the consequences of supporting feminism. I see this with my own parents who don’t particularly think of themselves as “feminists” but have effectively supported feminism all the same. They have experienced absolutely no consequences from their support of feminism. This goes for both my mom and my dad. I suspect it’s the same with a lot of your parents.
While many of our fathers have been negatively impacted by divorce, they still supported feminism. They just got married again and again. Even when a divorce happened they didn’t experience it as a consequence of feminism. It would be bad enough if the devastation from divorce in our parent’s generation was limited to our fathers, but many of our fathers still pushed for us to get married despite what they experienced feeding the machinery of feminism.
If there’s one group that needs to have the costs of misandry transferred back on to them but isn’t, it is our parent’s generation. One way to do that, possibly the biggest and best way to do that, is to deny grandchildren. Fortunately, it works as part and parcel of denying marriage and children. Most of our parents want grandchildren so denying them grandchildren really forces the cost of misandry back on to them. This is particularly effective when done by only children or by men who have only brothers. Even for men who have sisters, this can still be effective if it prevents the “family name” from being passed on.
I have supported use of surrogate mothers at places like the Rotunda Clinic for men who want children but want to avoid the feminist marriage/child support/alimony apparatus. Considering the importance denying grandchildren, I’m wondering if using surrogate mothers is a good idea now. On the other hand, having grandchildren due to us using surrogate motherhood instead of by “traditional” means may be in itself painful enough for our parents because our parents would then be put in odd situations like having to explain to their friends why their sons are single fathers since we weren’t married nor got our girlfriends pregnant (or avoiding explaining it to their friends and hoping it never gets discovered).
Regardless the idea of denying grandchildren as a means of transferring the costs of misandry on to those who caused it is something that needs to be explored further. We also should brainstorm other ideas on how to transfer the costs of misandry back on to our parents’ generation since many of them are getting off scot free for their support of feminism.
I found this comment at Roissy’s (thanks to namae namka linking to this blog in another comment):
“Why the difference? *Women are reproductively more valuable than men*.”
I wonder how true this is today though. Clearly in today’s world the need for reproduction is very different than before (no need for more hands on the farm, etc.); and, for certain segments of the population society would probably benefit from their non-reproduction.
In fact, I think the obvious gender-wide frustration of women today can partly be explained by this lowered value of children/reproduction altogether. Women understand that their primary purpose will always be tied up with reproduction and not civilization-altering achievement; now that this purpose has been largely removed, what do they have left? Female claims of males becoming increasingly ‘redundant’ are classic cases of projection: men are as useful as ever, whereas women’s role as child-bearer is rapidly becoming unnecessary and in many cases even harmful.
How much longer will women maintain these privileges after reproduction gas little place in society?
Plus, the older privileges were predicated on women’s willingness to become mothers at a young age to bear healthy children for tribe; how many of today’s women fit this description? If you don’t measure up to the job, you shouldn’t get the benefits…
The bold was added by me. Namae namka responded to that part with a link to my post on feminist paranoia about artificial wombs and other reproductive technologies and with good reason. Before even our current level of technology, women were in complete and total control of reproduction. Women could get knocked up by one guy and claim another guy is the dad and there was no way of knowing what the truth was. First came increased scientific knowledge about reproduction. Before that the process of reproduction would have been considered to be almost magical given women room to exercise total control. This lessened women’s control over reproduction. In the 20th century came paternity testing so men could know without a doubt who a child’s father is. Now women have no room to hide except that the law allows for paternity fraud. Eventually we will have artificial wombs which will allow men to have children without women if they so choose. The artificial womb represents control of reproduction being wrestled away from women. This is a pretty direct progression of how women become less and less necessary in reproduction.
However, there are other angles to what is going on here. One thing technology has done is allow more babies to survive birth and survive childhood. Before modern medicine if you wanted 2 or 3 children to survive to adulthood you probably would have to have six or more babies. Having that many babies was the only way to be sure to enough survived to adulthood. This is still the case in many places. If you know that to have 2 or 3 children survive to adulthood, you only need to have 2 or 3 babies, then that’s a lot less time spent on reproduction (and associated child rearing). And we don’t need to breed more hands to work on the farm either. This is another angle of how women are less necessary for reproduction.
Knowing this the socon and tradcon call for large families becomes a form of white knighting for women. Having only 2 or 3 kids nowadays leaves a lot of time before and after children. What are women doing then? (Sending women to work is obviously not an answer as the last few decades have shown us.) Large families are the socon/tradcon attempt to (unconsciously) paper over this problem.
The last part of the comment that I bolded says that women’s role as child bearer in many cases is becoming harmful. This is obviously true. All the pathologies caused by single mothers do not need to be repeated here. Beyond single motherhood take a look at younger women in their 20s. How many of them would you really trust to be mothers even if divorce wasn’t an issue? Take a look at the current crop of teenage girls, and it’s clear they will be even worse for motherhood than women currently in their 20s. Don’t forget all the misandry that these women carry which will have a negative impact on any sons you might have with them. I have taken flak for talking about alternatives for men to have children such as artificial wombs in the future and surrogate mothers in places like the Rotunda clinic in India. All things being equal the two parent family is probably better for raising children, but all things are not equal. Because of divorce the two parent family can become single motherhood at the drop of a hat. Single fatherhood from the beginning is better than that. Even without divorce women are increasingly unqualified to be mothers. And if you have sons you will be introducing misandry to them in your home. We are getting to a point where single fatherhood may be the superior system of raising children, especially when it comes to raising sons.
Thanks to everyone who has been helping with my search to find out if Andrea Dworkin was afraid of men being able to have babies without women via technology. It looks like the answer was yes. It was probably in her book “Right Wing Women”. Unfortunately I can’t get an exact quote since that part of the book isn’t online, and I’m trying to avoid actually paying for a copy of that book. However I was able to find something that pretty much confirms that Dworkin did say something like, “As soon as men have figured out how to have babies without women, it will be the end of women kind, it will be the coming gynocide.”:
It’s not just Dworkin. There is a lot of feminists who are paranoid of artificial wombs and other reproductive technologies. I spent a long time laughing at “spermocracy”.
While I would like a direct quote from Dworkin, I think we have an answer.
A clarification might be needed about my last post. When that fruitcake Warren said that there were government (or NWO or Illuminati) agents in the MRM, it wasn’t about government agents that are here to destabilize the MRM and destroy it. (While I sure that the idea that government agents would infiltrate the MRM to destroy it has been advanced in the past, that wasn’t what was Warren talking about.) What he was talking about was closer to the idea that the NWO creates a “fake NWO” for people to attack. The “real NWO” embeds itself in the “resistance” to the fake NWO so when the fake NWO is defeated, the “real NWO” is ruling everything by default. Here is an example of a proponent of that theory talking about it.
Feminism fits into this theory as being part of the “fake NWO”. That means that according to this theory the MRM has been infiltrated by the NWO, and the MRM defeating feminism is part of the “NWO plan”. Effectively this becomes a defense of feminism, and there is a good example of this from the David Icke Forums: (There is a picture at this link that may be NSFW.)
That IS very disturbing indeed. Also ridiculous, because the elite actually want to destroy women, not men, so they can build the homosexual utopia where men can reproduce without the use of women. As the late Andrea Dworkin said: “As soon as men [this being the NWO] have figured out how to have babies without women, it will be the end of women kind, it will be the coming gynocide.”
This image is a distraction, the elite projecting unwarranted powers onto those they plan to destroy. It will be piles of dead women in the street, with “men” (the NWO) being the post-sexual cyborgs with artificial wombs.
As the MRM becomes more well known and starts having more successes against feminism, expect more misandrist conspiracy theories like this.
At Hidden Leaves, I found this story about a mom who is way too involved (because she is involved at all) in trying to find her son a woman. If this works for the son it will only be because he was on TV. Comments like does this guy own his balls or his mom have already been made so I don’t feel the need to revisit them. What got me about this story was how it made me think of what would happen if my mom tried to get involved in finding me a woman. It scares me to think what my mom would find for me if she found anyone at all. If I was lucky these women would be half right for me but the half wrong part would be a disaster. More importantly my mom doesn’t understand what has happened between men and women in the last several decades despite being a part of the problem in some ways. (She lived through the 60s.)
I’m glad I live hundreds of miles away from my mom. She might be inclined to try something like the woman in the link although I suspect she would just bother me more about finding a girlfriend. My mom (and my dad) don’t even know about Sabrina. They didn’t know about Kristen or Rachel either. I don’t tell my parents about Sabrina because that will give them false hope that I will become a “normal person”, get married, and give them grandkids. None of that is going to happen with marriage 2.0 being in place. My parents don’t talk about this subject that often but next time they do I think I will shock them by telling them about the Rotunda Clinic in India that will take a man’s sperm with a surrogate mother in India and produce a kid. I doubt it’s what my parents had in mind for grandkids. (I don’t mean the racial aspect. That doesn’t matter to them.)
That is why we need transhumanism.
When women reward serial killers far ahead of, say, engineers, women are the obstacle to civilizational advancement.
Sure, NAWALT. But that there are even some women who put gina tingles ahead of their own safety (let alone the safety of others) casts serious doubts about their fitness to make decisions.
I don’t like talking about “transhumanism” because it has some philosophical baggage I’m against but a lot of my ideas about using technology to liberate men are “transhumanist”. The commenter is right that women are the obstacle to civilizational advancement but the problem is worse than that. Women are threatening the foundations of civilization. This is why we need technology to buttress the foundation of civilization, anti-aging technology, artificial wombs, sex bots, VR sex, considerably more advanced genetic engineering, etc. All of it will help.
If you still don’t believe this, just consider the effect of paternity testing and where we would be without that technology.
Recently, the New York Times had an article on paternity testing which has already been commented on by our own Roissy and Female Masculinist on their respective personal blogs. The men in the NYT article are all the victims of fraud. In any other context, the legal system would consider this a case of outright fraud. What this means is that the simple technology of paternity testing has acted as the light of truth exposing the entire family law system from lawyers to judges as corrupt and supremely dishonest.
The other area where paternity testing has shown the light of truth is with female behavior. Before paternity testing the only way a man would know for certain if his wife/girlfriend had committed paternity fraud against him was if he was away from his wife/girlfriend for an extended period of time when conception would have taken place. Now, it’s possible for men to know the truth both individually and globally. Depending on who you ask the cuckoldry rate is somewhere between 1% and 30% with 10% being a commonly cited number. Without mandatory paternity testing it’s impossible to know the exact percentage. However, the exact percentage doesn’t matter so much since paternity testing has shown that paternity fraud does happen enough that every man should be concerned about whether his kids really are his kids.
Before paternity testing women and male white knights would claim that “women would never lie about paternity”. Since paternity testing has proven this to be a myth, they have moved to “biological/genetic connections don’t matter” and shaming language. Take this quote from Carol McCarthy, an officer of the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
“Having been involved in cases like these, I think the answer to ‘Is it my kid?’ is irrationally important to the cuckolded husband. My own biases are going into this because I’m adopted, so I’m real into ‘your parents are the people who raise you.’ I couldn’t care less who my biological parents are.
First, take notice of the shaming language. Beyond that this quote is incredibly self serving. I would bet serious money that if McCarthy had a medical problem that was inherited or otherwise required family medical history she would change her tune really quick. And what about all of those adopted children who go searching for their biological parents? According to her that shouldn’t happen. It’s all just more proof that McCarthy is claiming that fatherhood doesn’t matter and engaging in anti-male shaming language.
If a genetic connection doesn’t matter for fatherhood that why does it matter for motherhood? The article points out that hospitals go to great lengths to make sure that the baby a mother gave birth to is the baby she leaves with including footprints, matching ID bands, guarded nurseries, surveillance cameras, etc. If genetics does not matter then why doesn’t the government take all babies after they are born and randomly reassign them to parents? It’s because genetics does matter. Every other position is self serving shaming language, and paternity testing has exposed this.
Mandatory paternity testing will probably not happen in the future since women and male white knights will oppose it. However, that does not matter since the most significant change from the creating of paternity testing is the knowledge men now have that cuckolding is a serious problem. Men are now aware of the need to make sure that his kids are really his, and nothing is going to put that genie back into the bottle.
(As with all spearhead posts, comments are disabled so comment at The Spearhead.)
Glenn Sacks recently has this post on his blog about the recent “controversy” about artificial sperm. He’s got few good links about the current research in this area. Glenn also makes two very important points:
- While men aren’t going to be made redunant anytime soon, this proves that most women are igornant.
- Men created civilization and created everything in civilization. Women have done nothing. Here’s the direct quote from Glenn on this point, “The fact is that practically every single thing that we call progress, everything that makes life good – from art to science to technology to medicine to spirituality – has been invented, created, discovered, made or imagined by men.”
A while back I talked about how men had taken over cooking and other domestic tasks because women felt doing things like cooking was sexist. I pondered if this would lead to men taking over raising kids entirely using artificial wombs as the end result to have said kids. Amy brought up an interesting observation of how at her local park that it was mainly fathers and grandparents who brought their kids there. The few mothers who brought their kids generally ignored their kids unlike the fathers and grandparents.
Get into any discussion about men and getting laid and/or reproduction in many cases the terms, alpha and beta will come up. I have used these terms (and will continue to do so in the future), but have never felt really comfortable with them since I don’t feel that they describe what is going on with male/female relations. A comment over at Welmer’s described my issues with the alpha and beta concepts:
There are a few *real* alpha males out there, but they are childless playas’ who make good money that can endlessly lead women on and pump and dump them.
To be a real ALPHA male with our legal system the way it is, a guy has to have a good job or business making lots of money, and then would have to have a surrogate mom give him a few kids that were his ALONE, and then he could play the field with a vengance———telling women lies until old age pumping and dumping them while getting to raise HIS kids the way he sees fit. That guy would NOT be in submission to the matriarchy the leftists wish to impose. There probably aren’t 500 of such men out there in the U.S. tonight though, but it could be done.
Today is Father’s Day in the United States. That means we can expect the usual shaming language from politicians like Obama and Biden and in sermons across all churches where men will be told that they aren’t grown up until they become fathers such as how Boundless Brainless claims. Of course, you will hear nothing about how women use divorce courts to throw out fathers or how women make false claims of child abuse to throw out fathers. Instead lots of shaming language will be used against responsible men who make logical decisions to avoid divorce courts, false allegations of abuse, and perhaps women in general. Many fathers on Father’s Day are unable to see or talk to their kids.
The two most important technologies for male liberation that haven’t been invented yet are sex bots and artifical wombs.