Modern Feminist Narcissism and the Sperm Bank

Originally posted by dawnstar

in islamic societies today, we sometimes read horrible stories where a girls school burns to the ground and all the girls die....because they were locked inside...lest their feeble little minds con them into doing stupid things and get themselves into trouble...
if you look into the history here in the US, you will find a story or two, where the factories burned to the ground, and many, many women, burned to death, or jumped out of 10 story windows to their death...because they were locked into the plant, lest their feeble little minds cause them to forget that they were their to earn their husband's an extra paycheck and they go wondering off!!!

find me a story, any story, were men or boys have died in like manner, lock into the buildings....lest their feeble little minds cause them to get into trouble!!!

This rambling bit sounds a little screwy to me and I am not quite sure what you are driving at here. Are you telling me that men have never died as the result of hard, dangerous, even criminal working conditions imposed by their employer?

As far as Islamic societies go, a few points there. First of all, we are not an Islamic society. Second of all, not all Islamic countries and cities practice the sort of cruelty against women that we are led to believe by western media.

It is true though, that modesty is a revered quality in Islamic culture. And it is not because "men say so." I dated a Muslim woman when I was younger, here in the U.S., who practiced modesty of her own accord, not because a man told her to.

It is also true, that in some countries adultery is a deadly sin. (Keep in mind that through history it has also been a deadly sin among Judeo-Christian faiths as well, at different times.) You will also notice in those countries that crime rates are low, family values are revered, bastard children are not wandering the streets and committing crimes. And, you don't see millions of unborn babies being slaughtered in abortion clinics every year.

One last point here too, on honor killings. This is not just a Muslim thing. In high school, there were a lot of Albanians and I was pretty tight with a lot of them. Very strict family rules, strong values and so forth. But they were not Muslim. In fact, they were atheists. Nonetheless, when one girl, Juli was her name, ran off with a boy, it was an enormous insult to the family. Her brothers found her, brought her home, and she was never heard from again. She was murdered by her father, in the family home.

Originally posted by dawnstar


we have a social welfare system that is so screwy that it will allow a very sick child to go untreated because the parents CANNOT afford the medical care, while claiming that those parents have so much money that hey, they should be able to give more, and then more....so that the single person down the street can run their kids to the doctors everytime they have a runny nose!!! I know of one couple that split up, mainly so that their premie baby could get the care that was needed!!!

I totally agree with you here on this bit. But this is just more proof of the social engineering program being carried out to destroy the family unit.

reply to post by dawnstar


As far as the rest of the material you posted there, it's propaganda. Were times different then? Sure. But trying to make it look like women and children were slaves while the men sat on a fence all day chawing is a complete falsehood. I am a keen student of history for one thing, and for another, I have talked with a lot of old-timers myself, and have a good sense of what life was like, right from the horses mouth so to speak, from the 1920's onward.

Originally posted by SomeEye


Proof? Or are we basing this on personal experience? If we are then may I share a story. A girl I've known since...hmm.. probably kindergarten. She was born to and brought up by her single mother. The girl was intelligent, kind, great at school, loads of friends, everything a kid should be. Hell, we're both 25 now and she is more successful then I am! And good for her. She had love and support and it worked. She is no different to me or any of our other friends who had a mother and a father.

I never said that a single parent can't raise a kid. I said it is not an ideal to strive for.

You want proof? Where was this poor little girl's father?

www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by SomeEye


Modern feminism isn't militant. You're mistaking an extreme take on feminism as the norm, which as most women like me would tell you, it isn't. I've been members of a few feminism communities on the internet over the years, small ones but enough to see that unfortunately that man hating, need to dominate males stereotype is sadly what most people seem to think feminism is all about now. Sort of like how Westboro baptist church do not represent all religious people. Extreme feminists don't represent the entire movement. Perhaps you've just had negative experiences I don't know? I felt a lot of resentment in your article.

Modern Feminism, as a movement, is a disservice to society, including women. Militant or not, supporting Feminism as a socio-politcal movement means that you are actively participating in these nefarious works that actually harm women and destroy the family.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by StigShen

 

What pray tell are those so-called "values"?

That it's ok to hate people because they're different? That they love homosexuals but they hate what they do? That god has a plan, blah blah blah.

I've seen/heard every single piece of Christian moral-values spiel over the years and my opinion of it is that it's total, utter, complete, grade-A bull#.

If I had kids, I wouldn't raise them as Christians. There's too much veiled hatred and hypocrisy in that religion.

This thread is not about religion. And I certainly don't agree with parents, married or not, raising their kids to be like some Westboro nutjobs, but that is really beside the point.

reply to post by kkrattiger


An excellent post. I am glad to see that some folks understand my meaning.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by StigShen

 

Nice try, pal.

Your posts prove that you resent feminists and you resent the idea of the "family unit" being destroyed by a bunch of militant women or flaming homosexuals.

I do resent Feminists. But it is not women or homosexuals that are destroying the family unit and upsetting the natural order of the human condition. They are being used by elites bent on carrying out a nefarious program of human enslavement.

Originally posted by dude69
You all know what Aaron Russo's Rothschild buddy said about women's lib. right ?

That the Rothschilds funded it...why?

1. They couldn't tax half the population...

2. To break up family units and make the indoctrination of the children easier

Just a little food for thought...

edit on 19-3-2011 by dude69 because: spelling

Somewhere I have some documents showing how the CIA provided direct funding as well.

reply to post by StigShen


You're kidding, right? Relationships, particularily with young people are rife with manipulation. Men will tell women anything to have sex with them. That they love them, that they want to be with them forever, anything. Now a woman is supposed to what, be able to read their mind, even if she is in love with them and absolutely know that the man is really not interested in anything long term? To suggest that a woman who becomes pregnant can with certainty predict the behavior of the man who fathered her child is nonsense. What about a woman who has a child with a terrific guy who turns into a drunk, drug addict or abuser? Is she a low-life as you suggest? Does she "deserve what she gets"?

Women, not often, get pregnant on purpose. Now should the man be able to predict that? Should a man who is victimized in that fashion be required to stay and raise the child? Not too sure on that score, but I think not as it is better for a kid not to have a father than to have a father that does not want him and will resent him (or potentially will resent him). What about a man who marries a woman who turns into a drunk, drug addict or abuser? Should he have been able to predict how she would have evolved as a human being and should he not do every thing in his power to remove her from having contact with her child? Of course he should cut her loose and if that means the child grows up without a mother in his life, well that is unfortunate, but it is a better solution.

Human relationships are complicated and are not black and white matters. You are attempting to apply absolute criteria to what makes a well functioning family with respect to raising a child and in my opinion that is foolish.

Originally posted by Bramble Iceshimmer
Why do you need a man around all the time? Do you know how much trouble they are to house train. I'll admit some of them can be an entertaining distraction once in a while but I don't want to raise one. I don't want to put up with the mess.

Shaddup and go make me a sammich.

Originally posted by TKDRL
Ok read it, there is one flaw that I noticed and would like to point out. Well when you say it is normal to have both a mother and father present in the family life, that is not really true. A lot of times, people that lived in small towns, the father would leave the family to work elsewhere, for long periods of time, while sending money back home...

Actually, what I said is indeed true. It is normal to have both a mother and father in the household. Now granted, there are many stories like the one you shared, where the father goes off the farm to go work in the factories and so forth, or where the father goes off to war. But that is still not the norm, and certainly not an ideal to strive for.

My brother leaves in 9 days for his seventh deployment to the desert. All seven times he left his young wife at home, and for the second time now he will be leaving a baby girl behind at home. And why does he do this? Because the government has things so screwed up that the man can't even earn a decent living Stateside. This is not an ideal to strive for, and I certainly am not about to defend that system, or sit idly by and pretend that this is the better way. It's not, and I have no problem saying as much.

And just as it is not the ideal for my brother to be going back off to war leaving a young family at home, it is also not the ideal for a single woman to bring a child into the world without a father. My brother and his family are making do the best they can. But at least he is there for six months at a time, and at least he is taking care of his family, not the welfare department. He also doesn't intend to keep this up either going back overseas. (The last tour was supposed to be his last, he missed his baby girl too much, but they just bought a house so he needs the money. This will probably be it for him though.)

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

That makes no sense whatsoever in this context. Are you trying to tell me that a one-night stand is solely the woman's doing? Or that a man who donates his sperm for the purpose of allowing women to use it has no part in the process? Men know very well why they are donating their sperm, and what purpose it is used for. If they had principles like yours, they would not donate to the cause. Fortunately they don't have your resentment for women and continue to help both men and women form families they could only dream of without this luxury.

Yes, a one night stand is solely a woman's doing. If she doesn't want a bastard child, she should not be having one night stands, or better yet, she should be taking the necessary precautions to avoid pregnancy.

If I go buy a bottle of booze, drink it down, then go smash my into a school bus, is that the fault of the liquor store who sold me the booze?

As far as men who donate to sperm banks, they really don't know how it will be used. It might very well be used to help a married couple have a child. Which, as I said, I am not entirely against, though it does still pose certain dangers that must be considered carefully.

But I am not hypocrite, and I do have principles. I would never give my sperm to a sperm bank.

I have no resentment of women, I have a resentment of poor choices and the destruction of the family. It's not okay to be a single parent be choice. It's not okay to have a child that is a bastard.

reply to post by StigShen


Good counter argument. I hope that is his last tour too, and not because he came home in a box draped in a flag.

reply to post by StigShen


You just keeping digging a bigger hole with some of your posts.

Feminism was created to destabilize society? Christianity has contributed more to that over the years than feminism ever will!

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

Originally posted by StigShen

Since when do "men" own sperm banks. And the last I checked, we live in a democracy. An equal rights democracy. Men don't "make the laws."

Are you suggesting that there are no sperm banks in existence which belong to a person(s) of the male gender? We all have equal rights now, but that wasn't the case a few decades ago...which is my point. Men do indeed make laws. Men have been creating laws for centuries. It is a fairly new phenomenon that women now also participate in the process,.. at least in the U.S.

Are you saying that there are no sperm banks owned by women, that women don't work at sperm banks?

A few decades ago? Try nine decades ago. Women voted before that as well, but the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920. The same year that Prohibition was passed. So don't try to act like women are still living in 1899.

What Women Never Hear: REspect for Women Before Feminism

reply to post by StigShen


Suppose the Rothschilds had never funded it? Would it still happen?

I think so. Women didn't need Rothschild money back then to know that they were getting a raw deal.

I really don't even know where to start with all this.

First of all - there is no Feminist plot to gain more tax money - that makes no sense. If one person earns enough to "support a family" - say 100K, and if two people together make 100K - the same amount of tax is collected.

And any kind of "Greedy Big Biz" agenda is going to *promote breeding*, not working women. This produces not only exponentially more tax payers - but also more consumers.

Families tend to spend more money than singles also. And they have ever increasing and perpetual needs. A single person can live on next to nothing, if they want to.

Those with kids *spend more*. If there's any plots out there its to get people to breed, not the opposite.

The rich aren't going to make money off those who can't, and don't, spend. People with kids are *forced to* spend - so yeah - that looks more attractive, profit wise, doesn't it?

And why in the hell would the wealthy and/ or those in control want to destabilize society? For war profits, maybe, in other countries, but outside of that - you have to figure that they want people calm, consuming, and breeding more consumers.

Another angle we have to consider is - just because things might be the way someone perceives they ought to be - this is NO guarantee of a "happy life".

If Feminism was erased right now - you're not automatically going to become an Executive like the Dad on Leave It To Beaver and live in a nice house with a good looking wife and easy to manage children.

Just like for me - if people suddenly stopped making Dumb Blonde jokes - that does not mean I'm going to win a Nobel Prize next Tuesday.

Another idea that strikes me as crazy: Various people who think that - for whatever reason - if society was no longer "modern" - everything from nuclear war, loss of government, an electromagnetic pulse event - anyway - many of these men who bring up these "doom" scenarios seem to think that if 'whatever' happens - we will automatically revert to a "cave man" society and women will be forced to have "a protector".

This is ridiculous. And the pathetic part is that you can clearly tell that such people who bring up these ideas *want* such a thing to happen, they are salivating at the thought of it and not thinking at all.

No, we won't revert to 'caveman days'. Do you think Japan is going to revert to such a culture after all their numerous disasters? Of course not. Because so many of us still remember *now*. And recent things.

Some guy said in some other thread once, something like - oh there will be an EMP event and we'll see what the women will do then when they have to go dig ditches with a pick axe, like the men will have to.

Something along those lines. It was so ridiculously stupid, I don't even want to try to find it to quote it. And - I have seen many, many thoughts like this.

These people are essentially forgetting the ENTIRETY of human history! We'd not revert back to Neanderthals, those people died out anyway. We might go back a few notches - but um - DUH - people are going to think to use other manual tools to 'dig a ditch' besides a pickaxe.

Even during the Middle Ages - and even Dark Ages - there was commerce, they had fairly sophisticated trade and banking networks, women *and* children often worked, had shops, etc - these people went through the Dark Ages, various plagues, wars, widespread exploitation of the under classes - did they fall back to a caveman society? NO.

And neither will we. We have too much intelligence now. And we have, for thousands of years. We were not "cave people" yesterday.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
They have those freedoms now, but again... that was not the case a few decades ago. Women don't want to be men, they just want the same opportunities that men have been taking for granted all these years.

Nine decades ago.

I never said there was anything wrong with women having opportunity. Let's not forget though, that with rights, come responsibility. Something that women need to stop taking for granted. Having a child out of wedlock is not the act of a responsible parent. You don't see men going around looking for surrogate mothers so that they can be single fathers do you?

Women talk about equal rights and equal opportunity, then demand child support payments and alimony while being granted custody by default.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Am I claiming that having one-night stands, or getting accidentally pregnant while partying is a good thing? No. I'm not. However don't ignore the fact that men must participate in these same activities for that to happen. The responsibility of broken households falls on both the woman and the man who makes poor decisions. There are plenty of men and women who make responsible decisions together and take the precautions to avoid creating a broken household. To blame women for the ills of society is ignorant and short-sighted.

The responsibility for pregnancy is the woman's responsibility. If the man is not a good man, if she knows that he cannot provide, if she has no intention of staying with him, then she should not get pregnant by him, simple as that. It is HER choice to sleep with him. It is HER responsibility to take care of her own body and take whatever precautions are necessary, from insisting on a condom, to using any one of the many many other forms of birth control available to women exclusively. It is HER responsibility to know when she is ovulating. And ultimately it is HER choice, and her choice alone, whether or not to carry out an unplanned pregnancy.

I have said it before and I will say it again, if there were a pill for men, abortion clinics and welfare offices would be out of business.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Through the comments you left for me and for other posters in this thread I get the feeling that you are not very fond of women, or you've been turned down by many women in your life. It seems as though you harbor some intense resentment toward them, which isn't at a healthy level. To blame one piece of the puzzle for all the problems society is having is clearly illogical. You want to blame somebody? Blame the particular men and women who make poor decisions. It took both of them to get them where they are.

What does ANY of this have to do with my fondness for women? This is about taking responsibility and making the right choices, not how many women I have slept with.

But since you asked, no, I don't usually get turned down by women because I am not a whore. I only sleep with women that I am in an established relationship with, as a general rule anyway. But even the occasional non committed liaison is with women I know and that I am friends with.

Originally posted by Flighty
This thread just reminded me of an article that I read today about an Australian TV personality called Sami Lucas who is 41 years old and is doing the sperm bank route.
She said and I quote " I have all my life to find Mr Right but have only a year or two to have a baby"
End quote.
She also said although she doesn't blame any of the men that she has been involved with over the years for it not leading to a family, she did say that she wishes she hadn't have wasted so much time with those who didn't want to marry and start a family.

I bring this up because it seems that men have to shoulder just as much blame as women when it comes to the social situation we currently have.
Feminism could've been blamed 20 years ago but things have moved on since then.
It seems we also have a lot of men who don't want to get married and are quite happy to remain single and fatherless until into their 30s and more commonly 40s.

I don't think women can be blamed for that. Obviously men are making choices these days themselves and are opting out of getting married and starting a family until later on in life as well.

So blaming Feminists is putting the head in the sand and totally ignoring the other side of the equation.
Men these days like travelling the world and doing other stuff and aren't as quick to commit like in the past.

So now it's the fault of men that this woman chose to waste her years with men who didn't want to marry her and have kids with her? At least the woman in this article didn't blame those men and saw that it was her own choices. Instead of dealing with the consequences of those choices though, she would rather bring a bastard into the world. Again, the "I want what I want" rather than face the consequences of your own choices.

With the hypocritical narcissistic ways of so many women today, it really is little wonder why good, responsible men want nothing to do with them and that women are beginning to have trouble finding men. It is the good, responsible men who are selective about who the mother of their children will be. More selective now than ever before. It is the good, responsible men who will wait to have children, will wait until their lives are in order enough to properly provide for a good stable home.