>Feminists: Lizard-brained sperm-hunters
>
 |
| Men: Do not do this. |
Our good friend Herbal Essence — the Spearhead commenter, not the shampoo — is back with some profound insights into the true nature of feminism. Forget all the stuff you may have learned in your Women’s Studies courses. Forget what you read about on Feministing. “Feminism” is just a convenient rationalization for a primal female hunger. A hunger for cupcakes? A hunger for shoes? No, silly — a hunger for sperm. Feminism is all about getting hold of sexy, sexy sperm. Herbal explains, in a comment that garnered him 81 upvotes from the manly men on The Spearhead:
Feminism is not a worldview based on coherent thought. It is the desires of the female lizard-brain rationalized. Feminism is based on a woman’s reproductive strategy – my vagina makes me special, I must obtain sexy sperm, I deserve to be protected, and I deserve to get resources.
I don’t know about “protection” and resources for women and their special vaginas, but you might think that there would have to be a more efficient way for the ladies to get sperm. After all, most guys produce that sexy stuff by the bucketful, and the vast overwhelming majority of the poor little sperms that men produce so prodigiously end up dying unsung and unrealized in condoms or kleenex.
Apparently, though, feminists only want sperm when it comes as a part of a package deal which involves being married to a captive sperm- and money-producer. Because there is nothing — besides sperm, of course — that feminists like better than the traditional nuclear family. That way they can sit on their asses eating bon bons and trying on shoes — all paid for by their long-suffering husbands — while waiting for the next injection of sperm. (You thought feminists likes paying their own way and having their own careers? Ha! Shows how much you know.) Here’s Herbal again:
The whole of Feminism was designed to “free” women from the “restrictions” of traditional society so she could obtain sexy sperm, and then providing a social construct so she could get security and resources without being in the confines of a nuclear family. Thus making more sexy sperm and self-indulgence available. Lastly, that she “deserves” all that because she has a vagina.
And all those traditional-nuclear-family-loving women who claim not to be feminists? Fellas, they’re either lying to themselves, or lying to you.
Women don’t choose to believe in feminism. Feminism is a rationalization of their lizard brain. That’s why you can talk to women who will swear up and down they are not feminists, yet they refuse to give ground on any of the privileges that feminism gave them. The programming is already in her, feminism is just the means to make it a reality. You might as well try to convince female peacocks not to mate with males with impressive plumage.
Fellas, I think Herbal here has made it pretty clear why you need to protect your sperm from the feminists. If you make the mistake of actually having sex with one of these creatures, keep a bottle of tabasco sauce handy, and squirt it into your used condoms to make sure she doesn’t fish them out of the wastebasket later to use for her own evil ends. And if you’re jizzing into kleenexes, flush those down the toilet, pronto. If you just throw them out, beware: gangs of feminists rove the alleys of America, much like raccoons, raiding trash cans in search of sexy, sexy manstuff.
Be careful out there.
-
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Posted on March 5, 2011, in antifeminism, evil women, feminism, I'm totally being sarcastic, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, precious bodily fluids, the spearhead. Bookmark the permalink. 83 Comments.
>“The fact of the matter is, most non-feminist men don't want to have to worry about birth control. They'd rather shove the responsibility, not to mention the side effects, off on women. “You have any evidence to prove this, or do you just assume feminist males are more enlightened then everyone else? Pretty misandric to claim most non-feminist males have that opinion.“my name is spelled briget not bridget, please spell it right.”My apologies. I have a friend named bridget (my best friend finance in fact), so it is habit to spell it that way. I will make a concerted effort to correct that.“what I do not support is women being forced to:1) carry a pregnancy to term because the father didn't want her to have an abortion only to be told the day of the kids birth that he isn't going to support the child”I virtually never see this come up as an MRA argument, other then to point out how unfair it would be to do to a woman, so why is it not only acceptable, but legally enforced to do to a man?“2) have an abortion to make his life easier. “I’ve never seen this suggested except by feminists who claim that is what MRA’s seek.“Far too many men feel like they have the right to do these things.” rebut tableCan you support that assertion? I think some men (abusive men) feel they can do these things, but I know of very few instances where these kinds of arguments occur. What I do see most often is what you have actually agreed upon. What is described under “reproductive rights” under the men’s rights page at wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights#Reproductive_rightsAnd what you will find under virtually every result of a “male abortion” search on google. Your points 1 and 2 are not things men argue for, they are strawmen made by feminist opposition to make the men’s rights sound extreme and unreasonable. And you will see it very clearly if you are willing to, in any future debate on the subject (or even going back to past discussions)."Individual women may wish to prevent their ex-spouses from having a meaningful role in parenting (for either good or bad reasons), but I've never been aware of the feminist movement as a whole pushing the idea that fathers should be excluded from child rearing."NOW, the National Organization for Women, as well as the Woman's Bar Association, both actively oppose efforts to establish shared parenting as a rebuttable presumption in divorce… I repeat, a rebuttable presumption (this is an important part of the proposed bills. if you don't understand it, look it up before replying). NOW also have made active attempts to actually ban the term “parental alienation” from courtrooms, as well as efforts to deny it even happens, as well as opposes efforts for family court reform that would result in more court enforcement against custodial interference. Note that these problems are suffered by woman as well as men, so there should be no reason for NOW to oppose these, except that men suffer more, and therefore the solution is more beneficial to men (and children) due to their current lower rate of primary custody.
>"What is described under “reproductive rights” under the men’s rights page at wikipediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights#Reproductive_rights "Seems I missed the side mention of the claim "There are also those who consider it a father's reproductive right to veto the woman's option of abortion."I examined the article sourced/cited for that quote, and the call for Veto is actually from Pro-lifers against abortion, not men's rights activists. it's actually a compromise for pro-lifers, saying that "an abortion should be stopped if ether party is against it, but can proceed if both parties agree". But overall, I (and pro-choice MRA's) disagree. Being the one to incur the pregnancy comes with the benefit of getting to keep the baby, even when the man absconds, while not allowing a man the same option, because otherwise would be unreasonable, but allowing a man to abscond would not impose an unfair will upon the woman, and should be allowed. IE, give as many equal rights as can be given without trampling the rights and health of the other party.
>The problem with Kratch's scenario is that he wants men to have all rights and no responsibilities. If a fetus and child is solely the responsibility of a woman for all points after conception, why should she not have the right to deny any access if the child is born if he has the right to deny any responsibility? Why should a woman have to take all of the responsibilty but loose partial rights when the man wants them? If allowing one's body to be used to gestate a fetus automatically means sole and total responsibility, it should mean sole and total rights. Let me say this again, responsibilities are the flip side of rights.You are upset because you cannot get pregnant and hence cannot get an abortion? Well, suck it up and get over your womb envy. You don't have control over a fetus while it grows in another's uterus? Cry me a river.
>Steve-as I thought, he insulted and refused to prove his claim.He did not however run away. I suppose that is something.
>Briget and/or Elizabeth, if truly agree with what's been suggested, perhaps you can answer DarkSidecat's concerns?
>Well, Kratch, your going to have to give me some kind of citation there, since I haven't been able to find anything via Google. A bill, an article from a reputable source…something. I need to know the context here, and I'm not an attorney. I'm not asking you to do research for me, just give me a place to look. Thanks.
>Bill A330 has apparently garnered an action alert from NOW New York in the not to distant past. As has HB 5267 from Michigan's NOW. However, NOW doesn't seem to keep archives of action alerts.Here is an Article by NY NOW president Marcia Pappashttp://www.nownys.org/fathers_resp.htmlHere is an article by Michigan's NOW president Gloria Woods http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.htmlThis books footnote (35) identifies NOW NY as one of the organizations that opposed shared parenting Legislation, according to Governor Carey.http://books.google.ca/books?id=WrrsVQWYPb8C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=National+Organization+for+Women+on+Shared+parenting&source=bl&ots=I48VYfOuiZ&sig=Nh3hUyCuczslfqFRSWsUELHrdQk&hl=en&ei=i-h2TbSTE4WNrQH3moHjCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=falseA search on the NOW website for shared parenting will lead to a link herehttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/those-jointcustody-studies.htmlThese may all be a few years or more old, but I have not seen anything to make me believe they have changed their opinion on the matter.If you are seriously asking me for evidance of NOW's opposition to Parental Alienation, then you haven't even tried. Here's a hint, you'll see their alienation opposition on the results for shared parenting search.
>Thanks, Kratch. A brief review of what I've found so far-there's a lot of information there, obviously-suggests that the issue isn't quite as clear cut as you make it out to be. With regard to the efforts to institute a Rebuttable Presumption of Shared Parenting as the standard in divorce cases, there are reasonable arguments for and against. It is worth pointing out that this standard would replace the current standard in most jurisdictions, which is the Best Interests of the Child. There's a reasonable debate to be had over which is the best standard to apply in divorce cases, but to say that NOW's opposition to the presumption of shared parenting represents hostility to shared parenting by father's across the board is a bit disingenuous. With regard to the use of the term Parental Alienation, I assume you are referring to the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome in court cases. PAS is not recognized as a bona fide mental disorder by the mental health profession, nor is it supported by substantial research; thus, it should not be granted that status in a legal proceeding. I believe it is still permissible in court cases to talk about parental alienation as a general concept, but not to elevate it to the status of a recognized mental disorder.In sum, my general impression is that NOW has stood in opposition to pet policy initiatives of the Father's Rights Movement, for a variety of reasons, but to say that NOW and feminists generally are hostile to fathers' equal participation in parenting does not necessarily follow.I thank you, however, for the links, and I will follow up on those as time allows.
>The argument against shared parenting is only reasonable if you are willing to believe that all divorce involve an abusive man and a victimized woman (and child). If you acknowledge that not all men are abusive, in fact, most aren't, then arguing against shared parenting is simply blaming all men for the actions of a few, and punishing those men and their children for it.But what's most important is if you acknowledge that sometimes woman are abusive too. In this particular case, arguing against shared parenting is to argue that abusive women should be granted 100% control, and the power to hurt the fathers that contains, and the child gets little or no time with the father for him to notice any abusive markers. All this power for women to be abusive all so that a handful of men can't be (despite there being a built in clause in the shared parenting legislature to protect against that very thing)."my general impression is that NOW has stood in opposition to pet policy initiatives of the Father's Rights Movement"Shared parenting is a "pet project"? I was under the impression it was the EQUAL thing to do. To allow fathers access to the caretaker gender role, instead of being relegated to provider (and being denied protector for those that want it)."but to say that NOW and feminists generally are hostile to fathers' equal participation in parenting does not necessarily follow."You are welcome to provide me sources to show your case. I would be happy to see examples of actions feminists and feminist organizations have taken to improve fathers rights, or even suggestions to make shared parenting work (that don't completely overturn men's right to due process). Otherwise, I can only see feminists as being apathetic at best, and hostile at worst.
>"if truly agree with what's been suggested, perhaps you can answer DarkSidecat's concerns?"Didn't think so.DarkSideCat. There is a distinct difference between rejecting something and denying it from others.Under the current system, a woman has a choice to accept or reject parenthood, but she also has the ability to deny men the choice of rejecting parenthood, and only gives him the choice to accept it if she herself wants to allow him.Under the suggested system, Women would still have the choice to accept or reject parenthood, but now she could not deny the man the choice to reject parenthood as well. A man still couldn't accept parenthood without her first accepting, largely because to allow that would be to allow men the ability to deny women the choice, and in the case where one getting the choice denies the other the opposite choice, being the one to carry the child should have it's privileges.overall, however, your concerns have already been addressed. Just re-read the debate above.
>All I can say is, the General better keep a close eye on his mason jars.
>This kind of paranoia reminds me of General Ripper on Dr. Strangelove. He kept worrying that the fluoride was added to our drinking supply to corrupt men's "precious bodily fluids".
>Oops, sorry, I am new to your blog so I didn't know you had already made a Dr. Strangelove reference.