‘Fewer men will be needed…Life will get better for women and women will embrace lesbianism, and eventually start reproducing together’
“The reason you guys are being kicked to the curb is because you, individually, aren’t needed any more. soon, as society becomes even more advanced…fewer men will be needed, until none are needed at all. Life will get better and better for women, and (when reproductive technology advances enough) parents will opt to have girls overwhelmingly instead of boys. Women will embrace lesbianism, and eventually start reproducing together.
“Sorry guys, but your time is up. Stop fighting already, and just accept your fate.”
One of my feminist readers comments on the recent Fathers 4 Justice civil disobedience at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC:
“Dressing up like a comic book character and causing a disturbance isn’t going to further your cause. You fools need to realize that no one cares. people aren’t going to have sympathy for you because men are not sympathetic figures. you’re not women or girls, and crying victim isn’t gonna get you anywhere.
“It’s not a coincidence that the rise of feminism coincided with the great technological leaps of the 20th century, or that the most advanced societies on earth are also the most feminist. Women are fundamentally more important to the survival of the human species than men because they can make more humans. Yes, men provide half the genetic information, but women’s’ bodies do all of the work. They get pregnant, they give birth, and they nurse the child through infancy you need to realize that men only exist to provide for, protect and support women so they can live and produce more humans. Once you’re no longer needed for that purpose, you cease to have a reason for existing.
“What men have done is essentially made themselves obsolete through technology. The reason you guys are being kicked to the curb is because you, individually, aren’t needed any more. Soon, as society becomes even more advanced (and your muscles become even more useless), fewer and fewer men will be needed, until none are needed at all. Life will get better and better for women, and (when reproductive technology advances enough) parents will opt to have girls overwhelmingly instead of boys. women will embrace lesbianism, and eventually start reproducing together.
“Sorry guys, but your time is up. Stop fighting already, and just accept your fate.”
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:55 am
Sounds like a very angry woman trying to lash out, I feel sorry for her. Sure it’s easy to play the xenophobe and target the ‘other’ as the cause of our personal and collective ills (and conclude we’d all be better off without that nasty ‘other’ around), but it’s an intellectually dishonest point of view. It’s also one that’s easily turned against you; technology will likely insure that BOTH sexes become irrelevant to the procreation process beyond the necessity for a genetic material donor. Having a uterus won’t protect women from procreative obsolescence in the face of an exponentially advancing biotech industry.
Additionally, intentional ignorance is the only reason I can come up with regarding why someone would think that the world is any less competitive (and dangerous) than it ever was. The role of men as the bedrock protectors and providers in society (police, fire, armed forces, miners, construction, etc…) is very safe. Those radical fundamentalists aren’t just going to go away because you’ve gotten rid of everyone that’s capable of protecting you from them.
Further, it’s been well established that MANY of the behavioral problems that we see in western society today are positively (and strongly) correlated with households lacking a male role model. That does not bode well for the child rearing success of our writer’s ideal world.
Finally, if sexual preference is something that can be controlled (to turn heterosexual woman gay) then I guess all those religious fanatics who have been telling everyone we can eradicate homosexuality through “re-education” are right after all ( I don’t think so). If sexual preference is indeed “genetic”, then our writer’s utopia is also going to be full of a whole lot of unhappy women.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:06 am
I read somewhere that modern science has proven that new humans can be created without women too. Just the DNA is necessary – it can even come from two males. I’m quite sure if they can do this, figuring how to grow the embryo without a human womb will be a breeze. So, I guess we’re all obsolete! Sorry ladies . . .
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:06 am
Apparently that woman is unaware of the research being done to create a artificial fetus incubator, to replace the mammalian uterus. One estimate has it that one will be developed within 20 years. I would also like to point out that if two women’s genes can be combined to create a female infant, then two men’s genes can probably also be combined to create a male infant.
Women like to complain about how much of a burden it is for them to be pregnant for nine months. If women’s only goal was to remove this burden, I would expect them to look upon this development with great joy and, consequently, to insist that it be greatly emphasized and highly funded.
However, I don’t think that women will react that way. Women seem to complain about pregnancy largely as an excuse to force men to cough up more money in compensation. But it is a basic principle of economics that if one financial alternative is too expensive, then people gravitate toward the other alterntives.
Oh yes, one more thing. From what I understand, lesbianism is a staple of male pornography so can we take pictures of you while you’re getting it on.
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:19 am
This is an absurd ill-logical notion. If anything, it is women who will not be needed. Soon we will have incubators that simulate a women’s womb. We will harvest human eggs from young females, and create human life from test tubes. Once that is done, females will be useless to society, other than sex of course. Government agencies the will raise our children. Women who are unattractive will be put in labor camps, or their organs will be harvested in favor of a productive male.
Hmm, I wonder how this vision of the future makes these feminist’s feel.
Touché
October 3rd, 2007 at 11:30 am
Well this certainly reflects contemporary feminist thinking, but in addition to the above flaws in the logic, some more questions I would ask:
- Who is going to do the work that involves more than pushing buttons and talking on the telephone?
- What makes you think matriarchy will succed now when it has failed every time in history that it has been tried? I don’t think male invented technology alone will suffice. What if the machine breaks? Who you gonna call?
- Who is going to pay child support and alimony? Yes, women are living large right now on the backs of their superior rights, but that’s because men are financing it by force of government.
- With the feminine in control of government, what is to prevent a foreign entityt with a proven superior model of patriarchy from raping, pillaging, and plundering this feminist utopia back into a burqa wearing barefoot and pregnant model?
- How could you break your addictin to victimology with no males to blame, and no males to come to your rescue?
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Jeeez, what a hoot. Another fat ugly woman heard from. Hey baby, cucumbers won’t listen to your stupid drivel at night and bring you flowers when it’s horney. No other reason to bring them anyway. Then again, who cares. So, we’re about to become obsolete eh? Well. when ole Mamouhd gets here, and he’s coming, the burka you will be wearing will probably match your one good eye sweetie. Hey, Lesbos have the highest rate of domestic violence over any pair in the known universe don’t you know. Besides, the broads I work with who proclaim women work better then men are generally ripping each other apart. Then the MAN boss comes around and makes them play nice. For a day.
Keep dreaming cupcake.
October 3rd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Continuing what DcFather said above, can anyone see a group of women putting together the space program/ or the Silicon Valley Revolution?
I don’t think so.
And frankly,I’m damned sick and tired of these fanatasies that were spawned by the Baby Boomers who still seem to suffer from them.
I have never heard dumber arguments than those put forward for feminism such as women will “catch up” biolgically with men (and this was said to me with a straight face) or (again with a straight face) “a woman is now the 13th fastest marathon runner in the world.
The problem, gentlemen, is that we have been too damned polite and not forcefully and vigorously pointed out that in the past 40 years of women’s liberation, they haven’t produced anything truly outstanding such as computers.
Women are equal before God and the law; after that name one who is the best in any significant field.
There aren’t any.
And when this gradually emerges into the collective consciousness, women are going to have very difficult time emotionally.
Book it.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Isn’t it interesting how seemingly opposing extremes seem to meet? It’s like in the old high school poli-sci classes introduction to the politcal spectrum where 1 is anarchy and 1000 is a totalitarian state. Both very destructive.
I think it’s interesting that this incredibly misandric retard and an incredibly mysoginistic retard are essentially agreeing that women are simple c*mcatchers.
If (as she is saying) women’s roles are DEFINED BY BIOLOGY what does this do to feminists arguments that women can be just as tough as men?
It’s so easy to pick apart feminists because they are such hypocrites on a monumental level.
You should email her back this discussion forum.
The simple fact is that women will NEVER wholesale abandon men. There’s just something primal that happens to a women when being oggled by a secure confident man that (I imagine) satisfies her at a basic level the way 30 lesbos staring at her body never could.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Good point DaveK about a feminist or woman run society being just as (or more dangerous) than a patriarchal society.
We have alive and well in the USA huge swaths of society that are dismally failed matriarchies. I am speaking of course about black inner city slums. Dads are nowhere to be found and look at the mess. Girls pregnant at 14, G’s running around screwing everything they can and high-fiving the more babies they father. And what a great sky-high limitless can-do environment for young girls! Staying at home watching Oprah and Dr. Phil pumping out baby after baby and nightclubbing! Wow! You go girl!
Everyone gets hurt in the failed feminist/matriarchal nightmare of replacing dads with checks.
October 3rd, 2007 at 1:12 pm
If there were fewer men, it would be better for those men, as they would be in greater sexual demand. if there were too many men, it would lead to increased male on male violence, and other risk-taking behaviour between competing males. Angry Harry (an anti-feminist MRA in the UK) agrees.
The real problems are in those cultures who encourage FEMALE fetuses to be aborted, as this leads to unrest amongst the surviving overpopulation of undersexed males. So, when feminists cry about male child preferences, framing it as oppression of girls and women etc, their advocasy is (perhaps inadvertantly) helping to alleviate males’ heirarchical oppression of other males, and therefor, deserves MRAs’ full support.
October 3rd, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I would like to extend what DCF said above in post #5:
” With the feminine in control of government, what is to prevent a foreign entity with a proven superior model of patriarchy from raping, pillaging, and plundering this feminist utopia back into a burqa wearing barefoot and pregnant model?”
I had a very lively debate with a bitter feminist about a month ago at my blog (for all five of the parts, click 1 2 3 4 and 5). Basically, this radical feminist fantasy blithely ignores the fact that a society devoid of males would be easy prey for the stronger, male-equipped cultures that surrounded it. But that’s not all…absent a hostile, stronger culture nearby, a female-only society would be much less likely to survive as the female body is less much less suited to survival than a male body.
Moreover, if you are a believer in the Bell Curve, women are marginally (2 – 3 IQ points) less intelligent than men. This alone is important, but the effect of this fact is dwarfed by the effect of the narrower distribution of intelligence scores among women compared to men…meaning less idiots AND less geniuses in the population. Such a society would be outstripped technologically by its neighbors, meaning that a female-only society would become a comparatively less attractive place to live over time.
Lastly, life would most certainly not get better for women in a women-only society. The history of feminism has shown it to be very anti-freedom, murderous, and totalitarian in nature. I think that women will find that Big Sister is a much more cruel and demanding task master than is a mildly misandrist Big Brother.
October 3rd, 2007 at 4:00 pm
I would like to extend what DCF said above in post #5:
” With the feminine in control of government, what is to prevent a foreign entity with a proven superior model of patriarchy from raping, pillaging, and plundering this feminist utopia back into a burqa wearing barefoot and pregnant model?”
I had a very lively debate with a bitter feminist about a month ago at my blog. Basically, this radical feminist fantasy blithely ignores the fact that a society devoid of males would be easy prey for the stronger, male-equipped cultures that surrounded it. But that’s not all…absent a hostile, stronger culture nearby, a female-only society would be much less likely to survive as the female body is less much less suited to survival than a male body.
Moreover, if you are a believer in the Bell Curve, women are marginally (2 – 3 IQ points) less intelligent than men. This alone is important, but the effect of this fact is dwarfed by the effect of the narrower distribution of intelligence scores among women compared to men…meaning less idiots AND less geniuses in the population. Such a society would be outstripped technologically by its neighbors, meaning that a female-only society would become a comparatively less attractive place to live over time.
Lastly, life would most certainly not get better for women in a women-only society. The history of feminism has shown it to be very anti-freedom, murderous, and totalitarian in nature. I think that women will find that Big Sister is a much more cruel and demanding task master than is a mildly misandrist Big Brother.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:26 pm
a usefull topic at the dinner table for sure. dad and son to take on mom and daughter. fly on the wall for that one.
October 3rd, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I think the canine is barking at the mirror in regards to diminished mental capacity. Somehow he missed the point, but oh well.
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:38 pm
I certainly HOPE this prediction comes to pass. We can put down our tools, sit on our fat male asses for awhile and relax. When (in a generation or two), we ge bored, we can pic up our tools, get on the technology we created (probably space flight) and move on to a new location without feminine, or feminist, and do it all over again.
AND HERE? They be extinct as soon the the fridges at the supermarket run dry.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:29 pm
‘She’ says “Women are fundamentally more important to the survival of the human species than men because they can make more humans”.
Oh yeh? Feminsist oppressed societies, like ours, just don’t reproduce sufficiently to last more than two generations. Then what? Import Mexican women to have more ‘humans’ for them?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Feminist Leadership Fragments Group
“The top bishop in the Episcopal Church has made it clear that she supports same-sex unions. A leader among conservative Episcopalians says such a stance illustrates why many people are choosing to leave the American contingent of the worldwide Anglican Communion.”
http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/10/conservative_pastor_faults_epi.php
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:29 pm
I guess getting rid of men is easier to contemplate for feminists than finding a way to have to toilet seat automatically return to the closed position. That is one of the crimes men are being put out to pasture for, isn’t it?
Ah, but when the asteroids start hitting the earth and the electricity stops flowing to the vibrators, then what? Chaos! And what happens when both of the lesbians want to be on top, with the strap on, and the cops come, who will they arrest then, the hairest woman or the one with the most bruises the shape of the dildo still being held by the other? Life will be far more complex than this Nazi bitch thinks (Nazi, – that’s the first time I have ever called a feminist a Nazi but she thinks like one, so, there it is.)
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 pm
The “Can’t Understand Normal Talk” that wrote that bit of feminazi fantasy about men being superfluous obvious has less of a grasp on reality than on her own ideological dogma.
Women will undoubtedly need men as they always have, albeit through different means to the same ends.
That particularly sorry bitch was undoubtedly a militant lesbian, with no PERSONAL need for men…….
…….. and little sexual attraction to men.
However in her little misandry-laden fantasy, she glosses over the fact that the vast majority of women ARE heterosexual.
Then there’s her assumption that a modern, technological society “doesn’t need men”.
Again, she fails to gloss over a few pertinent facts:
- no technology is foolproof.
- men are generally, albeit not always the ones called upon to repair, adjust, modify, and create new technology.
Perhaps the next time that silly sow has her automobile break down, she should spend time shopping around for repair services that hire only female mechanics.
I am reminded of the W.A.G. who quipped once that an all-female civilization would be an example of paradise on earth, with every woman living in harmony and peace with one another, all their needs fulfilled, free of fear, free of violence, and free of those pesky men………….
…….. right up until the plumbing breaks down!
And if women don’t “need” men, that’s fine by me.
By all means, do away with the vaginamony and child support laws since men are not “needed”!
The feminazi that wrote the bit of misandry quoted has nothing on Josef Goebbels………..
October 4th, 2007 at 3:00 am
In a strange way, I admire this woman.
She is honest as hell. She directly states what most feminist obfuscate.
Men exist to serve women. They exist to be used by women. What is important is not equality or fairness or anything noble — what is important is women. Period.
Men have no value other than what they can do for women. If women can get along without men, then men can simply cease to exist.
This is kind of what happens in divorce. The man has no significance and his needs and well being is unimportant. If the woman feels her well being will be higher with him kicked out in the street, then he is kicked out in the street (or made a slave, etc.). His well being doesn’t even factor into the equation (niether does her promises, agreements, etc.)
Evey man considering marriage should read this article and realize that most women think much like this at least around the time of divorce.
By the way, virtually no male not even rabid MRA types ever goes as far as females in their disdain and abuse and mistreatment of the opposite sex.
The law is so hung up on the most trivial of DV (mere expression of anger — no matter how justified — invokes the DV Army) yet totally ignores the abuse that women routhinely inflict on men often using the government has hinchman.
October 4th, 2007 at 5:05 am
Interesting note: Apparently via some ad-bot, there are two ads appearing below my comment here as I type.
1. “CARE” tells us that most of the poor and starving people in the world are women, with a picture of a woman that appears to be African. While I don’t believe any such statistics about women in the developed world, because virtually all social programs are designed to benefit women (and sometimes children), I do believe it about third world countries. Why then, is this the case? Answer: Matriarchy. With no familial ties to women, men can take care of themselves, and women cannot. So on the one hand we have an article promoting the joys of matriarchy while on the same page we have an ad asking for help for those misfortunate enough to live in it. Ironically, the slogan appealing for donations is “You have the POWER to help her do it.” CARE is appealing to the “power” and “empowerment” trip feminists live for. In other words, women “empowered” by the redistribution of wealth in successful patriarchal cultures should spread that money around to the matriarchal failures, either to prop them up as if they can somehow function on their own or just because feminists allegedly “care” about such female suffering, which they of course do not.
2. Another ad appears entitled “Feminist Social Work”, with a link to CourseAdvisor.com. WTF? No wonder when my ex-wife was proven to be a pedophile, the so-called “Child Protective Services” were capable of responding with nothing other than a witch-hunt against the father, leaving the children to be abused, neglected, and molested by the mother sheerly out of hatred for men. Sadly, yours and my tax dollars go to the ignorant and hate-filled “Women’s Studies” to do “social work”, which explains why they are all such a total dismal failure at accomplishing anything other than promoting the total misery of matriarchy established in the prior ad.
Sorry ad-bots, but I don’t hate men and I already pay heavily to support the matriarchy in America.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:28 am
I actually came across the rantings by ANOTHER female journalist ranting about the “PAIN” their poor sex have to suffer in childbirth and Men could not take 1/10th of that pain (this is from a just married female, babyless), apparently the poor dear as usual are blinded by thier own ignorance as the majority of women giving birth these days are so medicated by either drugs or have a ceasarean birth. Neither come near that lunatics ranting…
But they suffer so much…
Meanwhile I sat and watched my Dad stitch up his arm after cutting a gash of 2 inches, used a sewing needle, cotton and not one anesthetic in sight…
October 4th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Glenn Sacks,
As far fetched the idea seems it likely is obfuscated reality couched in feminist terminology. One female counselor who lived with a woman told a client “You’ll never be happy with a man”, Now some women are saying “All men are s…”.
But who is going to do the heavy lifting of manual work if men become extinct like the Dinosaurs?
October 4th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Heavy lifting is only a miniscule consideration where males are involved. Men are samrter than women and hold the majority of invention and discoveries.
Families fall apart wihtout a Father as much as they would like to say it does not.
Women themselves (the non-feminised smarter ones) testify that life with other women is just too much to take (Lesbian relationships are more abusive than hetero relationships by 2/3).
Women prefer the stable, rational and un-emotive attiude that most males introduce into the mix.
So in reality, they’re dreaming as feminists do. They want their sexism and verbal abuse while anyone else has no right to even talk or have a differing opinion out of turn..
It really must take a major effort to be this blatantly obnoxious.
The hallmark of feminism.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Interesting observation snootfish. I guess it is kind of refreshing for one feminist at least to wear her bigotry on the outside, instead of wrapping all their anti-male rhetoric under the nice-sounding falsehood of “protecting women and children.”
What’s interesting to me is that she blatantly states that 1. once technology makes men redundant (by allowing any1 to squish bugs, repair cars, lift heavy objects) she HOPES men will be tossed aside, and 2. she’s essentially stating that this SHOULD BE THE CASE.
If she believes (as you aptly put) that men are here ONLY AND SOLELY for whatever benefit they generate for women, and she believes this viewpoint is valid, then she ain’t got jack sh*t to say about a man who thinks the same and sees women as only tools to provide himself sexual enjoyment.
These are the men feminists love to hate: goes on a cruise and claims he’s a doctor, lies preponderently to get into women’s pants (I love you baby, we have somethings special, I’ll call you tomorrow I promise). This women is (unknowingly) legitimizing the most chauvinistic pig to toss away conquered women as disposible j*zz rags.
When you switch the genders in their statements and viewpoints is when you really start realizing how bigoted and truly insane with hatred these women are.
And a number of very successful ones like Dworkin have swindled their ways into the halls of power to pass incredibly misandrist laws.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
Men ought to be honored today.
For the past 10,000 years men have protected their families, lead, invented, designed, built, maintain, and replaced stuff that women take for granted.
Without men in man holes, climbing electric poles, repairing streets, designing and building homes, inventing and manufacturing appliances, developing new technologies in electronics, physics, and chemistry, among other things, the world would look and feel different.
Further, men are the largest contributors in ideas like philosophy, religion, and psychology.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
This femi-hog reminds me of odor girl!!
October 4th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
If there were no more women, how would I know that I was wrong?
October 5th, 2007 at 5:06 am
If there were no more men around, who would do all the work???
women would definately not have any better of a life…In fact it would be much much worse!!
October 5th, 2007 at 6:46 am
The main thread in all these fantasies is the concept of ‘automation’. Feminists are waiting for the day when all physical labor is ‘automated’. They’re hilarious!
Even a vending machine needs a man to refill it once a month. Not only do they not get technology and how it works but they don’t even get simple ideas like “if you don’t clean your keyboard once in a while it will stop working”.
Not to worry guys – the automated utopia of this ignoramus’ fantasies will never exist because it can’t – it’s physically impossible. Now if we could just figure out how to do without women :O)
October 5th, 2007 at 8:30 am
college activist (29) have you seen this story
“Where the Boys Are… Not on Campus” and how is in in your experience?
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1812890/
October 5th, 2007 at 10:32 am
Bill Clinton’s 20 bodyguards (read: men). Men who would take a bullet for another.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=485696&in_page_id=1770
How many women are in the picture.