Modern Feminist Narcissism and the Sperm Bank

There is far too much to cover in one article regarding the modern feminist movement as it pertains to social engineering, the degeneration of the family unit, and many of the ills we see today in modern society. Suffice to say though, that the movement as a whole has been a great disservice to humanity, and even to women in particular. Fatherless children is only one aspect of a much, much larger agenda, and in this piece we will be narrowing the view even further to focus specifically on women who deliberately become pregnant by anonymous sperm donors. But just to be clear, when we speak here on “modern feminism” we are not speaking about all women, or against any women, but against the socio-political agenda of the feminist movement that has actually done a great disservice to women and society as a whole.

Full article at link:

marselusvanwagner.blogspot.com...

reply to post by StigShen


Can you please share your opinion and views on the information in this article? Thanks.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I am the author.

EDIT to add: This topic got touched on in another thread I was in earlier, so I figured I would share.

Oh. Glad to know that.

It sounds to me like you're pretty much blaming all the ills of society, including men with an "I want" attitude, on women and their quest to be treated equally to men.

The “I want what I want, and you can’t tell me no” mentality of our modern society, which is just as much a product of modern feminism as women wearing blue jeans.

And you show what you think of women in the statement immediately following:

Not that women in blue jeans is a bad thing of course.

Maybe I'm picking up something that isn't there, but it sounds like you're resentful of the fact that a woman can decide to have a child and do so without the immediate help of a man, by using a sperm bank. Where is your anger at the men who donate to the banks?

And then you seem to insinuate that a woman who hasn't secured a stable relationship before her eggs dry up is somehow probably at fault for the fact that she doesn't have her own man...

It seems there is a high probability that a child is more of an object or a prize to fill a void created by their own selfishness and lack of fortitude. Just because a woman can bear a child, does not mean that she will make a good mother. A woman who, for whatever her reasons, cannot maintain an enduring stable relationship with a grown man is hardly an ideal candidate to maintain a balanced and stable home for a child over the course of eighteen years, much less a lifetime of devotion that a good parent will often commit to.

So, a woman who wants to have a child by herself is probably doing so because she can't keep a man and also, she's selfish and is doing it for the 'prize' of having a child? My language may be a bit rough, but I think that's basically what you're saying.

That folks like homosexuals and others who are unable to maintain a heterosexual relationship are the gatekeepers who are destined to cease the perpetuation of inherited natural traits that nature sees fit to extinguish as we evolve.

....And that's where I stopped reading. I think it's pretty clear what I think of your piece. Sorry. I think it's disgusting.
.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Oh. Glad to know that...

I figured as much.

I'll be making a more thorough reply in a bit when I get back from the store. Thanks for having a read though. Or at least a partial read.

But for the moment, let me just say this. I am not a misogynist, and I think that in very limited instances this science can be a gift. I may have articulated that better later in the article.

Yeah, sorry, I didn't get very far, either.

A few things that caught my eye:

Children are meant to have a mother and a father. One can argue that point all day long in the interests of their modernist socio-political agenda, but the fact remains that our species, like so many others, reproduces sexually with both a male and female contribution of chromosomes.

Human children do have a mother and a father. Can't get a kid without both. The mother and father may not live together or even know each other, but they are both "there" genetically speaking. It almost sounds like you are blurring the line between biology and sociology.

Balanced children will grow from the guidance and nurturing of both a man and a woman.

There are also strong social complications that will distress a child as it grows up in a household with same-sex parents. First, confusion no doubt as to the natural order of things on a biological level, and a need for explicit sexual education from a very young age. There is also the outside social influences that will complicate matters, right or wrong. Even if one sees homosexual parenthood as morally acceptable, a good parent would never bring a child into the world to be used a pawn to enforce their socio-political views and willingly subject a child to undue hardship.

These comments seem to imply that a child growing up in a heterosexual household will grow up balanced while those growing up in a homosexual household will not. That is factually incorrect. Balanced and unbalanced children come from both heterosexual and homosexual households.

Further, while I agree that a good parent would not bring a child into the world for political reasons, your statement implies that such is the only reason a homosexual couple would want to bring a child into the world. Some homosexual people love and want to raise children, just like the hets, with no political agenda at all.

And finally:

As politically incorrect as it may sound, homosexual couples are not ideal candidates for parenthood any more than a one-armed man is an ideal candidate for the NY Yankees.

I could care pppfffft about policial correctness. But what criteria is being used to determine the "ideal"-ness of a particular couple for parenthood? This statement implies that the single criteria is the relative plumbing of the people involved. And I can guarantee you, there are other, more important factors in the suitability of parents than whether or not one is an inny and one an outy.

That's about where I stopped. Not sure what the intent of the article is, and I see several factually incorrect statements and inappropriate assumptions.

reply to post by StigShen


What about a married couple where the man is infertile? Is there a problem with them using donated sperm to have a child?

What about a single woman or man who adopts a child and gives them a loving home (same with same sex couples)? Are those folks doing something that harms society?

Well adjusted, happy children that will be serious contributors can be raised in any household and our society benefits from every one of them. I would much rather have a ton of single women having children using donated sperm than having women have children with men who are not intent on being fathers.

It is far easier to explain to a child that their mother wanted them so much that she took a sperm donation from a man who donated it so that someone could have a child and bring him or her into a loving home than it is to explain to a child why his/her father abandoned them.

I doubt that there is enough quantitative data to support a study, but I would guess that the children of donated sperm are more well adjusted and have fewer problems such as drug and alcohol abuse than those children who have a "real" father that has abandoned them. Parental abandonment is something that a person does not truly get over - ever.

Thanks for the interest guys. I will be replying in detail momentarily. But please keep in mind that this piece was meant to be as provocative as it is logical. The brain resists that which goes against the imprinting we have all been exposed to in the nefarious social engineering projects of the last century.

I have mixed feeling about this article. I truly believe that the degeneration of the family unit is well under way. I am from a split family (3 times over), and was raised by my mother. She is a dynamic woman, and the hardships that she has experienced in her love life have only driven her to bigger and better things for her and her family. I would never wish for a different child hood, but understand the effect that not having a consistent father figure can have on a kid, especially their biological father.

The majority of people these days are interested in one thing and one thing only, instant gratification. Men have been creatures of this habit forever (I still am), only over the past couple generations have we seen this trend in women as well.

*Much like this article, these are broad statements based on a trend that is being documented in society everyday. This in no way reflects the great marriages and relationships that still exist....

In the past women were the glue that held a family together, they were expected to be strong and diligent, while still being warm and loving. Many men, not all, abused this to the point of destruction. We forced women to live a sheltered life with very little access to the outside world except for running errands and the occasional dinner out.
Women rebelled... is that really a surprise? Speaking relatively, this is no different than teenagers rebelling against their parents oppression.

So as you can see I am a male who has had a strong women in his corner since I was born. What you wont hear from me is blame, I do not blame women and I do not blame men, for the # families that are raising children improperly everyday. What I can't stand, is this slippery slope that we have been trending towards this last 30+ years. No one holds themselves accountable for anything, anymore. Everyone points blame at the other....

People need to make a stand for The American Family and most of all a stand for human dignity. This problem will only magnify itself, if it is not addressed. Communication and accountability are two ingredients that can start us on the path of healing. Tell your spouse they offended you and why, don't scream at them follow it up with a friendly comment or chuckle. You may realize they respond better when your not jumping down their throat every second.

People need to stop being so selfish and understand we are only hurting ourselves and our future. Understand that todays youth is our future, start acting like an adult and be a role model!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Oh. Glad to know that.

It sounds to me like you're pretty much blaming all the ills of society, including men with an "I want" attitude, on women and their quest to be treated equally to men.

The “I want what I want, and you can’t tell me no” mentality of our modern society, which is just as much a product of modern feminism as women wearing blue jeans.

Not at all. There are many factos which contribute to the ills of society. Fatherless children is one of them. And often times, that spoiled "I want" attitude that we see displayed in some men, you will notice comes from younger men, who were raised without fathers in the home or proper male role models.

And you show what you think of women in the statement immediately following:

Not that women in blue jeans is a bad thing of course.

How so? Because I find it perfectly reasonable for women to wear pants, or because I think women are hot in blue jeans?

Maybe I'm picking up something that isn't there, but it sounds like you're resentful of the fact that a woman can decide to have a child and do so without the immediate help of a man, by using a sperm bank. Where is your anger at the men who donate to the banks?

Not resentful, though I do see it as immoral in most cases, contrary to social health, and contrary to the mental health of the child. As far as men who donate go, I do find fault with them too, but just because someone is selling something, doesn't mean you should buy it.

And then you seem to insinuate that a woman who hasn't secured a stable relationship before her eggs dry up is somehow probably at fault for the fact that she doesn't have her own man...

It seems there is a high probability that a child is more of an object or a prize to fill a void created by their own selfishness and lack of fortitude. Just because a woman can bear a child, does not mean that she will make a good mother. A woman who, for whatever her reasons, cannot maintain an enduring stable relationship with a grown man is hardly an ideal candidate to maintain a balanced and stable home for a child over the course of eighteen years, much less a lifetime of devotion that a good parent will often commit to.

So, a woman who wants to have a child by herself is probably doing so because she can't keep a man and also, she's selfish and is doing it for the 'prize' of having a child? My language may be a bit rough, but I think that's basically what you're saying.

I didn't insinuate anything, that is indeed what I am saying, so I take no offense to your response. Though I will concede that there are exceptions of course. But women who are devoted to a career, or who are unable to maintain a stable relationship with a man are hardly the ideal candidates for a lifetime commitment of devotion to a child.

That folks like homosexuals and others who are unable to maintain a heterosexual relationship are the gatekeepers who are destined to cease the perpetuation of inherited natural traits that nature sees fit to extinguish as we evolve.

....And that's where I stopped reading. I think it's pretty clear what I think of your piece. Sorry. I think it's disgusting.
.

edit on 3/18/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

I have no problem with folks who choose to carry on a homosexual relationship. I do not agree with homosexuals creating children by artificial means however. Homosexuality is quite natural. What is unnatural is homosexuals producing offspring.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

Human children do have a mother and a father. Can't get a kid without both. The mother and father may not live together or even know each other, but they are both "there" genetically speaking. It almost sounds like you are blurring the line between biology and sociology.

Don't blame me for blurring the lines. Human embryos no longer require a human male sperm cell...

The creation of combined human-animal embryos under licence will be popular among stem-cell researchers, including a team from the North East England Stem Cell Institute, which has submitted plans to create a human-cow chimera embryo. However, it will be bitterly contested by reproductive ethics campaigners who brand such ideas "abhorrent".

Fatherless babies in fertility revolution

I will reply further in a moment.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
These comments seem to imply that a child growing up in a heterosexual household will grow up balanced while those growing up in a homosexual household will not. That is factually incorrect. Balanced and unbalanced children come from both heterosexual and homosexual households.

I believe that when you make the choice to bring a child into the world, you do so giving them all possible advantages. A responsible person will choose to NOT have children in the face of serious disadvantages that may seriously impact a child's development. Homosexuals should not be seeking to have children any more than someone on welfare. Can a poor person raise a good, stable child? Sure. Is it responsible to go out and deliberately get pregnant if you can't even afford to take care of yourself? No. Homosexual couples are not natural parents. There is no way around that. Biological fact, which should continue to translate into social truth.

Having worked group homes though, with so many kids that want to be adopted into a good home, I would much rather see them raised by a caring homosexual couple rather than in a state-run institution.

What about the narcissism that men have exhibited in the last few centuries? Maybe men need to look at their oppressive history and realize that women are simply reacting to the newfound freedoms they are beginning to enjoy. The pendulum is in full swing now, but eventually it will balance out.

Men have spent centuries being able to say, do and write nearly anything they wished. They enjoyed freedoms women could only dream of. They were respected for their talents, for their opinions and leadership decisions. Women sat back and looked pretty. Sure they offered their opinions with their husbands behind closed doors, but that was hardly liberating. If a woman wanted to be heard or read, she had to hide behind a male, fictitious name in order to be published. I won't go on with endless examples of how women lived under the boot of men, but just know that this is the past that many women of today are trying to run away from.

I agree that a child benefits most from a loving family composed of a mother and a father, but there are millions of children who were born to families with a father and a mother, and endured a terrible childhood despite it. Sometimes a child is better off having only a mother or only a father if one of them are irresponsible, cruel and violent. I think a homosexual couple is just as capable of raising a normal child as a heterosexual couple.

In some cases I start to believe that a child who grows up with a homosexual couple may actually end up with a better childhood, simply due to the fact that two homosexual men or women cannot accidentally produce a child they may not want! A homosexual couple must think things through and must feel ready to become parents before they go through hell trying to adopt or give birth to a child. All a heterosexual couple needs to do to have a child is get drunk and have a one-night stand. Do such parents seem better-capable to raise a child than a couple who adopts or gives birth with full intent on being a parent??? Food for thought.

Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic

I could care pppfffft about policial correctness. But what criteria is being used to determine the "ideal"-ness of a particular couple for parenthood? This statement implies that the single criteria is the relative plumbing of the people involved. And I can guarantee you, there are other, more important factors in the suitability of parents than whether or not one is an inny and one an outy.

That's about where I stopped. Not sure what the intent of the article is, and I see several factually incorrect statements and inappropriate assumptions.

No, "plumbing" is not an exclusive criteria, but it is however, the natural criteria. Nature's law, not mine.

A stable, well-balanced child needs both a father and a mother, the masculine and the feminine. Having two men, or two women raise a child is as poor a choice as a single man or a single woman raising a child.

As I said above. I have worked in group homes. We have seen many of our kids go on to be successful grown-ups. But that hardly means that we should be working toward raising MORE kids in group homes. Because I can tell you this much too. For every success story, I can give a few really sad stories.

I see a lot of comments here that I want to address. So please be patient. I may not get to all of them tonight.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by StigShen

 

What about a married couple where the man is infertile? Is there a problem with them using donated sperm to have a child?

I am not entirely against surrogate reproduction in cases of infertility, But at the same time, it can cause difficulty for the child. I have seen what it has done to some friends of mine when they learned that their father was not their natural father. It can be devastating, especially in the teenage years when a child is already grappling with so much identity crisis issues. It is my opinion that in such cases, the child should be raised with that information being talked about openly right from the start, or, waiting to share that information until the the child has grown to a fully mature stable adult. For myself, I would not have been able to process such information properly and constructively until about 25. I know this because as a teen I stumbled across something that led me to believe that my father was not my father, though I later found out that he is in fact my biological father.

In the end though, in such cases, I still see it as that the mother-father male-female influence as role models is a distinct advantage to the child. Biological parentage or not. And for that matter, as homophobic as it may sound, I do believe that a hetero couple should be given precedence for adoption over a homosexual couple, if both sets of parents are otherwise equally qualified.

Originally posted by dolphinfan


What about a single woman or man who adopts a child and gives them a loving home (same with same sex couples)? Are those folks doing something that harms society?

I would much rather see a caring single parent or homosexual couple adopt a child, rather than see that child raised in state-care.

Originally posted by dolphinfan

Well adjusted, happy children that will be serious contributors can be raised in any household and our society benefits from every one of them. I would much rather have a ton of single women having children using donated sperm than having women have children with men who are not intent on being fathers.

It is far easier to explain to a child that their mother wanted them so much that she took a sperm donation from a man who donated it so that someone could have a child and bring him or her into a loving home than it is to explain to a child why his/her father abandoned them.

I doubt that there is enough quantitative data to support a study, but I would guess that the children of donated sperm are more well adjusted and have fewer problems such as drug and alcohol abuse than those children who have a "real" father that has abandoned them. Parental abandonment is something that a person does not truly get over - ever.

That goes outside the scope of this article. But I will go down that road here and allow the conversation to expand.

Women need to make better choices when it comes to who they let father their children.

In most of these cases where the father "abandoned" the woman and child, the men never made any promise to actually be there. It was the woman who chose to get pregnant and go through with that pregnancy, despite the fact that she was not married, the guy was a known deadbeat, etc. Really, the only time I have sympathy for a single mother is if she was married to some loser who walked out. Short of that, it was HER choice and responsibility.

But back to the topic of the sperm bank again. How do you think a kid will feel when they learned that their mother DELIBERATELY chose to deny them a father.

Okay, I have to step out for a smoke.

I hope by now that some folks have put aside their knee-jerk hatred for me and see that I am a reasonable person, with well thought out opinions on the matter founded on much research, contemplation, and personal experience.

Feminist are full of crap and have destroyed American society. They will never have a successful marriage!


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com