Latest Posts
Showing posts with label elusive wapiti. Show all posts
Showing posts with label elusive wapiti. Show all posts

Ovaries Does Not A Leader Make..

Possessing ovaries does not a better leader make. Especially when those ovaries are artificially inseminated like cows are with bull sperm. Not a nice way to begin life in my way of thinking. I can see it now, "mommy, where do I come from" and the response would be "a bottle, dear (as I could not find an appropriate sucker)"..

Tossed from Office 2011
Charming how those women have no problem bringing a child into a lesser world minus a parent, where it's entire young age will consist of listening to a post-everything mother. There should be a law against it..


Brave New Choice Mommy World

The mind reels at the potential adverse consequences incident to choice mommyhood of the sperm donation variety:
Cynthia Daily and her partner used a sperm donor to conceive a baby seven years ago, and they hoped that one day their son would get to know some of his half siblings - an extended family of sorts for modern times. Today there are 150 children, all conceived with sperm from one donor, in this group of half siblings, and more are on the way. "It's wild when we see them all together - they all look alike," said Ms. Daily, 48, a social worker in the Washington area who sometimes vacations with other families in her son's group.


The Worst STD of all..
As more women choose to have babies on their own, and the number of children born through artificial insemination increases, outsize groups of donor siblings are starting to appear. While Ms. Daily's group is among the largest, many others comprising 50 or more half siblings are cropping up on Web sites and in chat groups, where sperm donors are tagged with unique identifying numbers. Now, there is growing concern among parents, donors and medical experts about potential negative consequences of having so many children fathered by the same donors,

Well at least the child will experience some reality with an extended set of step-relatives to cheer him up, whoopee..

Male Hater Featherstone..
Anyway, back to that nasty bit of work by the name of Lynne Featherstone(Blog), a liberal democrat from England who blamed men for all things under the sun simply because that's what feminists do as they really do not have any other alternative but to wave the magic "V" flag as the answer to all questions and answers. Just ask them or their worshipping manginas while you are at it..

But, occasionally, sanity does prevail and this happens now more often than not as more and more people send out the message that they are sick to death of feminists and their endless unreasonable demands plus their endless male-bashing and truth denying antics..


Having ovaries doesn't make you a better person
Elizabeth Day
The notion that women would make a better fist of running the world than men is risible
Her actual argument, delivered to a fringe meeting, was that if you leave things to men, "you get terrible decisions". "Look at the mess the world is in, and look who has been in charge," she said.
Leaving aside the fact that, over the past 50 years, there have been quite a few women running fairly important things like, um, countries (Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, the newly-elected Helle Thorning-Schmidt), what galls me most about Featherstone's comment is that it falls into the trap of inverse sexism, of treating women and men as a homogenised mass of "femaleness" or "maleness".

Man-Bashing On The Road to Serfdom..

One does have to wonder if the backlash will or does have a more sinister side than originally anticipated. A female relative to told me last week that she had been verbally abused and that had never happened to her before, ever..

This idea lasted about thirty seconds,,
Apparently, she was waiting to slip into a parking space and was apparently holding up traffic in the process. She was approached by an individual who said "you won''t fit in there you dumb bitch, just keep moving"..

Now the place where I hibernate wallows along in second gear and nothing is that urgent that it can't wait until tomorrow, so for this comment to be vented out aloud and in public, one must wonder if the general respect for females may well be deteriorating and it may indeed be some cause for alarm as I must say that I have never witnessed that before either..

Food for thought..


 -----------------------------------------------------------------

Man-Bashing On The Road to Serfdom

by Elusive Wapiti

Selwyn Duke postulates the theory–misandry leads to authoritarianism–thusly:
[W]hat would you do if you wanted to grow government? I think you would try to remove any hope in women’s minds that they could find security through a husband. You do this by destroying the man. You need to make him look weak, ineffectual, feckless, and buffoonish.
Here is how you would proceed: Portray men in sitcoms, movies, and commercials as inept, foolish, and pusillanimous. Make sure these overgrown Hollywood boys are always outshone by the female characters. Also ensure that there are at least as many female characters in action roles as men — and don’t neglect to make them as hard and as tough, if not more so, than the fellows. And definitely show them beating men up as much as possible. Then men certainly won’t seem very strong.
This perception is far easier to instill if you can actually bring men and boys down. To this end, make sure you feminize the curricula and atmosphere in schools so that boys receive neither the stimulation nor the discipline they need to succeed. And when these little outside-the-box male creatures’ (boys are more likely to be revolutionary-minded, for good or for ill) energies are misdirected due to this lack of discipline, you can pickle their wills in psychotropic drugs such as Ritalin. The idea here is to lower boys’ grades and college-graduation rates so that they’re less capable of being a family’s breadwinner. And then they certainly won’t seem very intelligent.
There must also be institutionalized discrimination against the lads. So be sure to have affirmative action, quotas, and set-asides for women. For instance, you can have government aid for female-owned businesses but not male-owned ones; if this is done right, a situation might even arise in which women start four times as many new businesses as men do [Ed: they already start twice as many]. The idea is to, as much as possible, work towards a point where men aren’t very wealthy or powerful.
By sexualizing everything in society and presenting girls as objects of pleasure, we can instead make the boys more predatory. Then they will leave a trail of broken hearts in their wake, ensuring that girls’ hopes of bonding with a man are crushed; this causes women to harden their hearts to avoid being similarly hurt again, which reduces the chances that they will ever truly bond with a man.
The result of all this will be men who seem weak, powerless, and unintelligent, and who are poor. Women must feel that the only reliable source of security and resources in their lives, the only strong man, is Uncle Sam.
In other words, misandry is functionally the same as hating freedom. If you love freedom, then you fight misandry wherever you find it. If you love liberty, then you labor tirelessly to restore and protect the position of men as fathers and as patriarchs of their families. If you crave independence, then you work to foster durable marriage and ensure interdependence between husbands and wives.
On the other hand, if you welcome the yoke, if you want your sons and daughters to be serfs, if you enjoy the boot heel of authoritarian rule pressing against your neck, go ahead and suppress men, masculinity, and dispose of patriarchal marriage and family.
I’ve argued before that while women are the center of gravity of a civilization, it is individual men operating within a framework of other men who transmit the technology of civilization from one generation to the next. Reading Mr. Duke’s line of reasoning, it seems I need to extend my argument a bit and claim that it is the male-led family structure that enables freedom and liberty and that the female-led family drives a society toward tyranny and serfdom. A society based upon the female-headed family fails to bring men into the fold of marriage and family, fails to secure their investment into their children, and fails to direct men’s surplus energies toward socially productive ends sans the use of government force.
It is this failure to capture male investment that makes Mr. Duke’s observation about sexually predatory boys and hard-hearted girls especially salient. For our society is increasingly failing to efficiently capture male investment while at the same time establishing a moral ecology wherein evo psych and game theory justify the despoiling of the womenfolk…making them progressively poorer candidates for marriage with each happy roguring.
Speaking of marriage, Mr. Duke also had this interesting observation about how the marriage calculus has been stood on its head by all this man-hatin’ going on:
[W]omen have been sacrificing liberty for security for thousands of years — in an appropriate context. This context was marriage, when a woman would accept a man’s protection and his headship (with today’s hen-pecked Western man, it’s different; upon getting married, he sacrifices liberty for insecurity) [Emphasis mine].
So on top of the postulate that misandry leads to tyranny, we see, through several degrees of separation, that all this bustin’ on the guys has had the effect of negating the marriage contract for men. It still brings a (temporary) security for women while failing to secure for men what it used to. But it’s worse than that, for it is not only a lack of security, men who marry face an insecurity, a negative security…they risk more by marrying than by not. And by not marrying, they feed into Kay Hymowitz’ SYM stereotype, which in turn begets more misandry and so forth.
Thus does misandry circle back around in a self-sustaining spiral down into chains. The message is clear: a free society that makes a habit of disrespecting and suppressing and repressing its men won’t remain free for too much longer.
About the author: EW is a well-trained monkey charged with operating heavier-than-air machinery. His interests outside of being an opinionated rabble-rouser are hunting, working out, motorcycling, spending time with his family, and flying. He is a father to three, a husband to one, and is a sometime contributor here at Spearhead. More of his intolerable drivel is available at the blog The Elusive Wapiti. The Spearhead is a reader-supported site, so if you enjoy our content please consider a donation to keep us online now and in the future. Thank you, your support is appreciated.

Men Should be Able to Say NO to Abortion..

The Elusive Wapiti has posted a topic that I have for some period of time not only posted about but argued for for a considerable amount of time..

The topic is as follows -

Mr. Ablow, a psychologist and Fox columnist, laments that men don't have a vote in whether their offspring escape the uterus alive--and suggests that men should be able to say "no" to an abortion:
I believe that in those cases in which a man can make a credible claim that he is the father of a developing child in utero, in which he could be a proper custodian of that child, and in which he is willing to take full custody of that child upon its delivery, that the pregnant woman involved should not have the option to abort and should be civilly liable, and possibly criminally liable, for psychological suffering and wrongful death should she proceed to do so.
Link to the rest of the post..

I consider that to be a fundamental right of the Father to be, to have some say in either the destruction and future of what is obviously HIS child as well, considering that the child would not exist without his intervention and HE made it possible. The future mother however is born with all the eggs for future gestation already ensconced and thereby really does not do anything else except create the condition for the egg to be fertilised and thereby she becomes pregnant and carries the child until it's had enough and wants to get out of the cocoon. Some fantasticals aka, feminists, and their minions actually claim that the woman "creates" life which is lie number one, also that this creation is a miracle made possible by the women which is ofcourse lie number Two. As all in all, it's the sperm that gets things happening and rolling along.

Compliments of the Better Health for Men Org..
However you look at it, it ain't happening unless a man has input, one way or the other and yet feminists have decided that it's "her body her choice", another of their mindless mantras that really mean swat but allows them to ignore the real creator of the child to be excluded every step of the way. Right up until it's born and then it's a totally different story as we all already know. It's hypocrisy at best and fundamental human rights denial at worst and this has to change..

By the way you will need a pair of these to feed it as well apparently..