>
 |
| Men: Do not do this. |
Our good friend Herbal Essence — the Spearhead commenter, not the shampoo — is back with some profound insights into the true nature of feminism. Forget all the stuff you may have learned in your Women’s Studies courses. Forget what you read about on Feministing. “Feminism” is just a convenient rationalization for a primal female hunger. A hunger for cupcakes? A hunger for shoes? No, silly — a hunger for sperm. Feminism is all about getting hold of sexy, sexy sperm. Herbal explains, in a comment that garnered him 81 upvotes from the manly men on The Spearhead:
Feminism is not a worldview based on coherent thought. It is the desires of the female lizard-brain rationalized. Feminism is based on a woman’s reproductive strategy – my vagina makes me special, I must obtain sexy sperm, I deserve to be protected, and I deserve to get resources.
I don’t know about “protection” and resources for women and their special vaginas, but you might think that there would have to be a more efficient way for the ladies to get sperm. After all, most guys produce that sexy stuff by the bucketful, and the vast overwhelming majority of the poor little sperms that men produce so prodigiously end up dying unsung and unrealized in condoms or kleenex.
Apparently, though, feminists only want sperm when it comes as a part of a package deal which involves being married to a captive sperm- and money-producer. Because there is nothing — besides sperm, of course — that feminists like better than the traditional nuclear family. That way they can sit on their asses eating bon bons and trying on shoes — all paid for by their long-suffering husbands — while waiting for the next injection of sperm. (You thought feminists likes paying their own way and having their own careers? Ha! Shows how much you know.) Here’s Herbal again:
The whole of Feminism was designed to “free” women from the “restrictions” of traditional society so she could obtain sexy sperm, and then providing a social construct so she could get security and resources without being in the confines of a nuclear family. Thus making more sexy sperm and self-indulgence available. Lastly, that she “deserves” all that because she has a vagina.
And all those traditional-nuclear-family-loving women who claim not to be feminists? Fellas, they’re either lying to themselves, or lying to you.
Women don’t choose to believe in feminism. Feminism is a rationalization of their lizard brain. That’s why you can talk to women who will swear up and down they are not feminists, yet they refuse to give ground on any of the privileges that feminism gave them. The programming is already in her, feminism is just the means to make it a reality. You might as well try to convince female peacocks not to mate with males with impressive plumage.
Fellas, I think Herbal here has made it pretty clear why you need to protect your sperm from the feminists. If you make the mistake of actually having sex with one of these creatures, keep a bottle of tabasco sauce handy, and squirt it into your used condoms to make sure she doesn’t fish them out of the wastebasket later to use for her own evil ends. And if you’re jizzing into kleenexes, flush those down the toilet, pronto. If you just throw them out, beware: gangs of feminists rove the alleys of America, much like raccoons, raiding trash cans in search of sexy, sexy manstuff.
Be careful out there.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>Well, Kratch, your going to have to give me some kind of citation there, since I haven't been able to find anything via Google. A bill, an article from a reputable source…something. I need to know the context here, and I'm not an attorney. I'm not asking you to do research for me, just give me a place to look. Thanks.
>Bill A330 has apparently garnered an action alert from NOW New York in the not to distant past. As has HB 5267 from Michigan's NOW. However, NOW doesn't seem to keep archives of action alerts.Here is an Article by NY NOW president Marcia Pappashttp://www.nownys.org/fathers_resp.htmlHere is an article by Michigan's NOW president Gloria Woods http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.htmlThis books footnote (35) identifies NOW NY as one of the organizations that opposed shared parenting Legislation, according to Governor Carey.http://books.google.ca/books?id=WrrsVQWYPb8C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=National+Organization+for+Women+on+Shared+parenting&source=bl&ots=I48VYfOuiZ&sig=Nh3hUyCuczslfqFRSWsUELHrdQk&hl=en&ei=i-h2TbSTE4WNrQH3moHjCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=falseA search on the NOW website for shared parenting will lead to a link herehttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/those-jointcustody-studies.htmlThese may all be a few years or more old, but I have not seen anything to make me believe they have changed their opinion on the matter.If you are seriously asking me for evidance of NOW's opposition to Parental Alienation, then you haven't even tried. Here's a hint, you'll see their alienation opposition on the results for shared parenting search.
>Thanks, Kratch. A brief review of what I've found so far–there's a lot of information there, obviously–suggests that the issue isn't quite as clear cut as you make it out to be. With regard to the efforts to institute a Rebuttable Presumption of Shared Parenting as the standard in divorce cases, there are reasonable arguments for and against. It is worth pointing out that this standard would replace the current standard in most jurisdictions, which is the Best Interests of the Child. There's a reasonable debate to be had over which is the best standard to apply in divorce cases, but to say that NOW's opposition to the presumption of shared parenting represents hostility to shared parenting by father's across the board is a bit disingenuous. With regard to the use of the term Parental Alienation, I assume you are referring to the use of Parental Alienation Syndrome in court cases. PAS is not recognized as a bona fide mental disorder by the mental health profession, nor is it supported by substantial research; thus, it should not be granted that status in a legal proceeding. I believe it is still permissible in court cases to talk about parental alienation as a general concept, but not to elevate it to the status of a recognized mental disorder.In sum, my general impression is that NOW has stood in opposition to pet policy initiatives of the Father's Rights Movement, for a variety of reasons, but to say that NOW and feminists generally are hostile to fathers' equal participation in parenting does not necessarily follow.I thank you, however, for the links, and I will follow up on those as time allows.
>The argument against shared parenting is only reasonable if you are willing to believe that all divorce involve an abusive man and a victimized woman (and child). If you acknowledge that not all men are abusive, in fact, most aren't, then arguing against shared parenting is simply blaming all men for the actions of a few, and punishing those men and their children for it.But what's most important is if you acknowledge that sometimes woman are abusive too. In this particular case, arguing against shared parenting is to argue that abusive women should be granted 100% control, and the power to hurt the fathers that contains, and the child gets little or no time with the father for him to notice any abusive markers. All this power for women to be abusive all so that a handful of men can't be (despite there being a built in clause in the shared parenting legislature to protect against that very thing)."my general impression is that NOW has stood in opposition to pet policy initiatives of the Father's Rights Movement"Shared parenting is a "pet project"? I was under the impression it was the EQUAL thing to do. To allow fathers access to the caretaker gender role, instead of being relegated to provider (and being denied protector for those that want it)."but to say that NOW and feminists generally are hostile to fathers' equal participation in parenting does not necessarily follow."You are welcome to provide me sources to show your case. I would be happy to see examples of actions feminists and feminist organizations have taken to improve fathers rights, or even suggestions to make shared parenting work (that don't completely overturn men's right to due process). Otherwise, I can only see feminists as being apathetic at best, and hostile at worst.
>"if truly agree with what's been suggested, perhaps you can answer DarkSidecat's concerns?"Didn't think so.DarkSideCat. There is a distinct difference between rejecting something and denying it from others.Under the current system, a woman has a choice to accept or reject parenthood, but she also has the ability to deny men the choice of rejecting parenthood, and only gives him the choice to accept it if she herself wants to allow him.Under the suggested system, Women would still have the choice to accept or reject parenthood, but now she could not deny the man the choice to reject parenthood as well. A man still couldn't accept parenthood without her first accepting, largely because to allow that would be to allow men the ability to deny women the choice, and in the case where one getting the choice denies the other the opposite choice, being the one to carry the child should have it's privileges.overall, however, your concerns have already been addressed. Just re-read the debate above.
>All I can say is, the General better keep a close eye on his mason jars.
>This kind of paranoia reminds me of General Ripper on Dr. Strangelove. He kept worrying that the fluoride was added to our drinking supply to corrupt men's "precious bodily fluids".
>Oops, sorry, I am new to your blog so I didn't know you had already made a Dr. Strangelove reference.
When I saw “bioshock reference” I automatically looked up at the citation parts to find “Is a man not entitled to the sexiness of his sperm? No, says the woman on bonbons, it belongs to muh ridiculous alimony fraudz…”