Modern Feminist Narcissism and the Sperm Bank

reply to post by StigShen


Sounds like someone is bitter and/or resentful towards women.

You're not alone there. However, if I were you, I wouldn't blame the feminist movement for your ills and those of society.

I'm an unapologetic asshole when I want to be. That's cost me plenty of potential relationships with women.

If you're going to blame someone/something, blame yourself.

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.

I want to ask you, how do you feel about Christian parents that force their kids to go to anti-abortion rallies or go door-to-door to sell the "good news" to others?

Aren't they also using their children as socio-political pawns?

Originally posted by StigShen

Originally posted by SomeEye

Aslong as a child is brought up with love, then they will be fine.

No, it won't. You're not 14 years old anymore.

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.

Your personal view of feminism is not the social, nor legal norm. Modern feminism is militant and has nothing to do with equality, nor genuine feminism. True feminism doesn't mean trying to be a man.

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.

reply to post by The Sword


Read the article. Has not a thing to do with resentment of women.

reply to post by StigShen

oh...and don't forget.....
real life experiences!!!
many of us have had the experience of learning that the new guy who just came into the shop who knows absolutely nothing about how to do the job he was hired to do.....is making more money than them, when they know how to do the job, have been doing the job for years!!!!

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!!!

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!!!

let's see, stay together, life in crap, substandard homes, go without medical attention, each every other day because there's not enough food in the house, freeze your but off in that substandard house because you can't afford to heat it,.....and walk outside and see your neighbor with all the windows open in her house...."airing the place out" and know...
YOU CAN'T AFFORD YOUR HEAT, BECAUSE YOU ARE PAYING FOR HER TO "AIR HER HOUSE OUT!!"

I bet ya ten to one....
that large arse gap between being poor enough to be considered worthy of gov't aid and earning enough to actually be able to afford to live has created more single parent households than the feminist moverment!!!

but, oh ya...
things were so much better, when dad's could send their kids far away from home, to a farm or to a bar, to a factory to earn him another paycheck...when they could be locked into the factories and burn to death....earning him another paycheck....

Nature has clearly made the mother the guardian of the child; but man, in his inordinate love of power, does continually set nature and nature's laws at open defiance. The father may apprentice his child, bind him out to a trade or labor, without the mother's consent — yea, in direct opposition to her most earnest entreaties, her prayers and tears. He may apprentice his son to a gamester or rum seller, and thus cancel his debts of honor. By the abuse of this absolute power, he may bind his daughter to the owner of a brothel, and, by the degradation of his child, supply his daily wants; and such things, gentlemen, have been done in our very midst. Moreover, the father, about to die, may bind out all his children wherever and to whomsoever he may see fit, and thus, in fact, will away the guardianship of all his children from the mother. The Revised Statutes of New-York provide that every father, whether of full age or a minor, of a child to be born, or of any living child under the age of twenty-one years, and unmarried, may be his deed or last will, duly executed, dispose of the custody and tuition of such child during its minority, or for any less time, to any person or persons, in possession or remainder. (2 R. S., page 150, sec. 1.) Thus, by your laws, the child is the absolute property of the father, wholly at his disposal in life or at death.

www.emersonkent.com...

So long as by your laws no man can make a contract for a horse or piece of land until he is twenty-one years of age, and by which contract he is not bound if any deception has been practiced, or if the party contracting has not fulfilled his part of the agreement — so long as the parties in all mere civil contracts retain their identity and all the power and independence they had before contracting, with the full right to dissolve all partnerships and contracts for any reason, at the will and option of the parties themselves, upon what principle of civil jurisprudence do you permit the boy of fourteen and the girl of twelve, in violation of every natural law, to make a contract more momentous in importance than any other, and then hold them to it, come what may, the whole of their natural lives, in spite of disappointment, deception and misery? Then, too, the signing of this contract is instant civil death to one of the parties. The woman who but yesterday was sued on bended knee, who stood so high in the scale of being as to make an agreement on equal terms with a proud Saxon man, to-day has no civil existence, no social freedom. The wife who inherits no property holds about the same legal position that does the slave on the southern plantation. She can own nothing, sell nothing. She has no right even to the wages she earns; her person, her time, her services are the property of another. She cannot testify, in many cases, against her husband. She can get no redress for wrongs in her own name in any court of justice. She can neither sue nor be sued. She is not herd morally responsible for any crime committed in the presence of her husband, so completely is her very existence supposed by the law to be merged in that of another. Think of it; your wives may be thieves, libelers, burglars, incendiaries, and for crimes like these they are not held amenable to the laws of the land, if they but commit them in your dread presence. For them, alas! there is no higher law than the will of man. Herein behold the bloated conceit of these Petruchios of the law, who seem to say: "Nay, look not big, nor stamp, nor stare, nor fret, I will be master of what is mine own; She is my goods, my chattels; she is my house, My household stuff, my field, my barn, My horse, my ox, my ass, my anything; And here she stands, touch her whoever dare; I'll bring my action on the proudest be, That stops my way, in Padua." How could man ever look thus on woman? — She, at whose feet Socrates learned wisdom — she, who gave to the world a Savior, and witnessed alike the adoration of the Magi and the agonies of the Cross. How could such a being, so blessed and honored, ever become the ignoble, servile, cringing slave, with whom the fear of man could be paramount to the sacred dictates of conscience and the holy love of Heaven? By the common law of England, the spirit of which has been but too faithfully incorporated into our statute law, a husband has a right to whip his wife with a rod not larger than his thumb, to shut her up in a room, and administer whatever moderate chastisement he may deem necessary to insure obedience to his wishes, and for her healthful moral development! He can forbid all persons harboring or trusting her on his account. He can deprive her of all social intercourse with her nearest and dearest friends. If by great economy she accumulates a small sum, which for future need she deposit, little by little, in a savings bank, the husband has a right to draw it out, at his option, to use it as he may see fit. Husband is entitled to wife's credit or business talents (whenever their intermarriage may have occurred); and goods purchased by her on her own credit, with his consent, while cohabiting with him, can be seized and sold in execution against him for his own debts, and this, though she carry on business in her own name. No letters of administration shall be granted to a person convicted of infamous crime; nor to any one incapable by law of making a contract; nor to a person not a citizen of the United States, unless such person reside within the state; nor to any one who is under twenty-one years of age; nor to any person who shall be adjudged incompetent by the surrogate to execute duties of such trust, by reason of drunkenness, improvidence, or want of understanding, nor any married woman; but where a married woman is entitled to administration, the same may be granted to her husband in her right and behalf. (7 Howard's Practice, Reports, 105, Levett agt. Robinson and Witbeck, sheriff, &c.)

There is nothing that an unruly wife might do against which the husband has not sufficient protection in the law. But not so with the wife. If she have a worthless husband, a confirmed drunkard, a villain or a vagrant, he has still all the rights of a man, a husband and a father. Though the whole support of the family be thrown upon the wife, if the wages she earns be paid to her by her employer, the husband can receive them again. If, by unwearied industry and perseverance, she can earn for herself and children a patch of ground and shed to cover them, the husband can strip her of all her hard earnings turn her and her little ones out in the cold northern blast, take the clothes from their backs, the bread from their mouths; all this by your laws may he do, and has he done, oft and again, to satisfy the rapacity of that monster in human form, the rum-seller.

www.emersonkent.com...

Now, do you candidly think these wives do not wish to control the wages they earn — to own the land they buy — the houses they build? to have at their disposal their own children, without being subject to the constant interference and tyranny of an idle, worthless profligate? Do you suppose that any woman is such a pattern of devotion and submission that she willingly stitches all day for a small sum of fifty cents, that she may enjoy the unspeakable privilege, in obedience to your laws, of paying for her husband's tobacco and rum? Think you the wife of the confirmed, beastly drunkard would consent to share with him her home and bed, if law and public sentiment would release her from such gross companionship? Verily, no! Think you the wife, with whom endurance has ceased to be a virtue, who through much suffering has lost all faith in the justice of both Heaven and earth, takes the law in her own hand, severs the unholy bond and turns her back forever upon him whom she once called husband, consents to the law that in such an hour tears her child from her — all that she has left on earth to love and cherish? The drunkards' wives speak through us, and they number 50,000. Think you that the woman who has worked hard all her days, in helping her husband to accumulate a large property, consents to the law that places this wholly at his disposal? Would not the mother, whose only child is bound out for a term of years, against her expressed wishes, deprive the father of this absolute power if she could? For all these, then, we speak. If to this long list you add all the laboring women, who are loudly demanding remuneration for their unending toil — those women who teach in our seminaries, academies and common schools for a miserable pittance; the widows, who are taxed without mercy; the unfortunate ones in our work houses, poor houses and prisons; who are they that we do not now represent? But a small class of fashionable butterflies, who, through the short summer days, seek the sunshine and the flowers; but the cool breezes of autumn and the hoary frosts of winter will soon chase all these away; then, they too will need and seek protection, and through other lips demand, in their turn, justice and equity at your hands.

www.emersonkent.com...

please note, this speech was given long before there were communists out to destroy the american way of life!!




if you are a bible believing person, go back and reread the story of that virtuous women......and see all that she is spending her day on, and then well, read the last few lines and see just what her husband has been spending his day doing!!

in another speech, I believe was given by S. B. Anthony, which I cannot find at the moment, well....she gives basically the same description of what the women were doing, and what the men were doing!!
And, well, if you want my opinion, many men would still be doing the same danged thing....sitting on their arses, gathered at the gates of the city, jawing away, while the women and children worked their arses off to provide their kings with their hearts deisre!!

ah..yes, things would be so much better if feminism never took hold...for all those men out there who want to escape the responsibility that they have to their families!!!

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS

MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

Originally posted by The Sword

I want to ask you, how do you feel about Christian parents that force their kids to go to anti-abortion rallies or go door-to-door to sell the "good news" to others?

Aren't they also using their children as socio-political pawns?

edit on 19-3-2011 by The Sword because: (no reason given)

Yes they are, and I dont agree with that either. But at least they are instilling their values as a matter of natural order. They aren't using cow cells to spawn chimeras.

reply to post by StigShen


You're not making any sense.

I would quit if I were you.

Ill be back tonight folks. Cheers.

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.

Where I'm from and where I live now (one state, in the SW USA) it seems as though women from the time they were girls see many many many many MANY examples of single-mother families and not as many examples of 'traditional' ones. That's expanding the meaning of 'traditional' to include families with both parents in the home, or with the noncustodial parent still maintaining a meaningful, regular role in child-rearing. Heck, let's include '"Mom married or Mom's with some other dude, but he's been a father to me" in the meaning of 'traditional' too. Yet I maintain the observation that quite a few females here *may not understand that "doing it alone"
(raising a family "providing for the kids" putting food on the table keeping clothes on their backs etc)
isn't SUPPOSED to be done alone, as is generally accepted wisdom, and not supposed to be done via welfare. That is a stopgap measure, but it is perceived as a livelihood, a monthly paycheck by whatever means. It ought not to be expected or normal for a woman to get on foodstamps, supplemental benefits or whatever, a housing program, etc, because after all, she's raising a kid or kids "alone". An exception becoming a rule, that's not a good thing for the county, state, country or world.

Barring socioeconomical indicators trends parallels etc, barring political classist racist extrapolations from census data or other 'facts'/studies/experiments..... be they reasonable or no, the opinion above is based on what I see and feel about this particular area/state. Thanks for the topic, although the OPs demeanor at times seems counterproductive (or is it)

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.

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...

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.

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.

My grandfather for example. He had 11 kids lol, crazy stuff. Well they lived in a small town in canada, not much work outside of the fish factories. His brother had moved to the US a few years earlier, and sent him a letter telling him of the many job opportunities in his area. So he left the family and joined the brother. It took ten long years, before they were able to afford to move the rest of the family there to join him, it took 5 years just to get all the documentation in order for them to move there. The same story for a lot of canadians in the area as well. Some of them moved to the US, others out west to the bigger cities etc. But all of them were without the father figure for many years. The kids turned out fine. I would assume this happened all over the place as well, as people turned away from farming and took on other job roles.

Plenty of kids without father figures as well during the times of war too no? I don't think it is as cut and dry as you think, not that I don't agree that there is definitely some deterioration of society as the traditional families become less common over time.

Originally posted by StigShen

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

What about the man who had the one-night stand with the woman? Are you offended by him? You do realize it takes a man AND a woman to produce a child... right? As for the sperm bank,... a man went and donated or sold his sperm. Are you offended by him? What about the men who own sperm banks? Are you offended by them? How about the men who make the laws and allow sperm banks to exist? Maybe you fail to realize that both men AND women created the society we now live in. Women only strive to be able to enjoy the same freedoms that you enjoy.

There is a bottle of bleach under my counter. Is it really my fault if you go an drink it?

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.

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.

Women HAVE the same rights and freedoms that I enjoy, and then some. Women are shown favoritism as a designated minority. Favoritism is not equality. You want to be a man? Then step up and walk the talk.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I have read this entire post and posted my opinions on the first page regarding the article. We can run around in circles here forever, arguing over who is right and who is wrong, but that will solve nothing. Obviously we all have different view points on the subject, some right some wrong but at the end of the day we are just spinning wheels.

To move towards a resolution we need to understand the common ground of the argument. Understand that some people will have more passionate view points in certain areas than others, simply because of personal experience. So lets not rip each other apart every time someone make a blunt point.

The question is....who is fit to be a parent and who isn't??

In my experience, being raised by my mother, I never questioned her parenting skills. I could have used a steady father figure but she was an excellent mother! Thats a positive in my corner but I can't say that for everyone.

Responsibility needs to be called into question. People are having kids younger and younger every year, these people are barely able to wipe their own a$$ and they are attempting to raise children.
A man or a woman who can't hold a relationship is another example of someone unfit to have a child. Just because you have the desire to have children doesn't mean you are fit to be a parent. If you are unable to maintain an adult relationship, with someone whom you would have a child than there is a good chance that something is wrong with you.

I sit on the fence regarding this subject. The world is already overly populated, I don't understand why its so difficult for people to realize that they are only hurting themselves by having children and than feeding off the government because they can't handle the responsibility.

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by StigShen

 

oh...and don't forget.....
real life experiences!!!
many of us have had the experience of learning that the new guy who just came into the shop who knows absolutely nothing about how to do the job he was hired to do.....is making more money than them, when they know how to do the job, have been doing the job for years!!!!

As if men have never had that experience. Come on now. Cronyism is cronyism. But if you want a real-world experience, try this one on for size.

I was homeless, trying to get back on my feet, working at a motel. After I had been working there for a few months, they hired a woman part-time who wanted to pick up a few extra dollars outside of her regular full time job. Until she got fired from that job another few months after that. Suddenly I get called into the office and told that my position was being eliminated in order to give this woman more hours. "Because she has a child to support." Never mind the fact that she gets section 8 subsidized housing, food stamps and undeclared child support from the father whom she was never married to. I on the other hand, had absolutely no other source of income and no place to live except for the motel rooms that I had been renting for half price. So not only was I being discriminated against as a man, but because I was more responsible and never brought a kid into the world hat I couldn't take care of.

There have been other times too when I have been discriminated against because I was a man, but that one really took the taco.

Women, and other minorities are quick to assume that they are being discriminated against because of the gender or race or what have you. But often that is not the case at all, and in fact, non minorities are discriminated against because of affirmative action. Often the less skilled, less qualified minority candidate will get the job for that reason.