So manosphere dudes have a theory of sorts about young women that they frequently boil down to the handy catchphrase “alpha fucks, beta bucks.” The idea is that women — oh, you evil women! — have an insatiable desire to mate with and capture the sperm of hot but unreliable alpha males, and an equally innate tendency to try to con some hard-working beta schlub into paying the bills, with his beta bucks, for the resulting alpha spawn.
There are a few problems with this theory. First of all, this DOESN’T HAPPEN. Ands second,it makes no fucking sense. Why would the invisible hand of evolution want to reward the genes of Alpha men with no interest in caring for their kids and punish the betas who (at least in the manosphere version of the world) actually keep those kids alive?
But I digress. Because one clever Manospherian commenter — recently featured in a post on Rollo Tomassi’s Rational Male blog — has discovered yet more proof of the evil alpha fucks-beta bucks theory in action: Sperm banks.
Let’s let him explain, because I sure can’t:
Let’s look at this abstractly. Man and woman marry, find that she isn’t getting pregnant, determine from medical testing that his swimmers aren’t winning the race. So they pay for another man to impregnate her, although via a medical go-between. The original sperm banks screened donors and pretty much limited them to med students and other college men.
This is “Alpha Sperm, Beta Provisioning”, and nothing less. Putting a tech or a doctor in the middle wearing gloves and a lab coat, and injecting semen with a syringe rather than the usual method doesn’t change that.
Uh, aren’t sperm banks a way for couples who want babies and can’t have babies themselves to have babies? The guy in this scenario has no way to pass on his genes. That’s not an option. He wants a baby, too.
Sperm banks are therefore a clinical version of AF-BB, and as such clearly serve the Female Imperative in the same manner as a married woman having an affair while she’s ovulating … .
Uh, BUT THE MAN WANTS THE BABY TOO. Men can love children who are not biologically theirs. Families adopt children. They love them too.
[T]he whole idea of a sperm bank is a clear, medicalized, fully legal example of the Female Imperative of AF-BB … today we all accept it because teh wimmenz deserve their own bay-bee if they want one (or more), no matter the cost to anyone else.
What cost? WHAT COST? THE MAN WANTS THE BABY TOO.
“Rollo Tomassi” adds some conspiracy theorizing to the mix:
On virtually any post I’ve made about feminism … one or more commenters invariably post the youtube video about how feminism was conceived to destabilize western society (by the Rockefellers?). …. the fact that sperm banks were an unheard of development prior to the sexual revolution does give me pause to think that they were a need anticipated to better facilitate and perpetuate a future feminine-primary society.
Yes, that’s right. Feminism + Sperm Banks x Rockefellers = MALE ENSLAVEMENT
Indeed, he points out, some of the women who go to sperm banks DON’T EVEN HAVE HUSBANDS.
Almost as if in anticipation for the unfettering of women’s hypergamy, the facility of insuring a woman’s best optimized hypergamy was institutionalized and normalized. This may sound like conjecture (since the socially proposed purpose was to facilitate pregnancy for an infertile man), but the utility of sperm banks quickly shifted to facilitating the pregnancy of women who wouldn’t be married or had no intention of marrying to start a family.
Unmarried women having sperm bank babies. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!
This was the first institution, legalized and normalized that laid bare feminism latent purpose – strong independent women® could remove the man from the equation of effecting an optimal hypergamy, while at the same time effecting future legislation and social engineering to enlist men (either publicly or privately) in the provisioning of this new breed of motherhood. And with every guy dutifully jerking off into a petrie dish, they effectually contribute one more element to institutionalized Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks.
And so a dude getting paid to masturbate into a cup — they don’t use petri dishes, dude — becomes yet another brick to the wall of the manosphere’s imagined oppression of men.
The baby vending machines are visiting the sperm bank, which is also a baby vending machine, to have babies vended to them. It’s babyception.
I really hope I’m mistaken but If my bullshit detector functions correctly trolly means single mothers by this. As if raising a child alone because “fathers” refuse to take responsibility is something those mothers actually want. :/
Oh, do you believe we should make parenthood more accessible to cis men where you live? Okay, that’s a reasonable goal. What strategies would you like to explore? Could we make surrogacy more affordable to the average person by way of some sort of financial aid program? Do you want to look at reforming the adoption system, so that fewer men who might otherwise be completely qualified are turned away because of their marriage status?
Ah, okay. So your suggestion is limiting the options available to cis women who want to be parents, so that they are forced to choose between childlessness or entering into a relationship with a man they don’t want. Say, have you MRAs ever noticed that you tend to propose similar solutions to almost every problem you identify?
*MRA double-period preserved for authenticity.
There are 400,000 children in the foster care system in the United States; 70,000 in the UK; 40,000 in Australia; 50,000 in Canada; and so on. Find your country and take your pick, dude.
IMO, the fact that so many kids are without a family is pretty unfair. But maybe if I had the painfully self-centered outlook of the average redpiller, I could see a woman living her own life without worrying about same random dude who might want to use her uterus is also unfair, somehow.
MRAs are so all over the place, I mean seriously. You guys get angry when women sperm-jack you (as if that’s even real) and also when they don’t pick on a poor wittle man and go to a sperm bank. You don’t actually want to marry a woman because they become used up hags, but you don’t want them to be single either because they ride the cock carousel. You decry the vilification of fatherhood while denouncing the payment of child support as a form of slavery and rather than try to reform the system so that men who want to have children without the need for a mother you’d rather just force women to have to have children with a man.
Did I get that right? . . . . my female hamster brain has trouble keeping track of the superior Male Logic(tm)
Think of it this way. Does the woman who’s doing (thing) seem happy? Then it’s wrong and she’s oppressing men by doing it.
Baby “wending” machine? Thanks for the unintentional humor, James. You sound like Udo Kier in Andy Warhols’ Dracula, always looking for “wirgins.”
For some reason I was hearing Madeline Kahn, but Udo Kier works too.
I’m hearing Chekov, from the original Star Trek, saying “baby wending machines.”
When all you have is a nail, every broblem* looks like lack of someone hammering for you.
*accidental misspelling, mighty appropriate.
Subject-verb agreement is MISANDRY!
Not really…unless nobody bothered to talk out their intentions beforehand. Which is pretty stupid, seeing as this is a living human being (or the prospect of bringing one into this world, at any rate) that they are supposed to be talking about.
Also, note the MRA two-dot ellipsis at the end…because correct punctuation is also MISANDRY!
Dude…this presupposes an awful lot. Like, for instance, that all women would rather cut out the middle-man, or in this case, the boingy-boingy, and pay a few hundred dollars (which is hard to budget on the average woman’s income) to a donor clinic instead. And no, it is NOT a baby VENDING machine. You don’t just stick a few coins in the slot and get a baby to pop out. You actually have to plan and be screened too, and if the clinic is at all ethical, they should reserve the right to turn away women who can’t demonstrate that they can adequately care for and support a child, whether alone or with an existing partner (of whatever sex).
Also, LOL, “wending” — because correct spelling is MISANDRY!
“Wife up”? You make it sound like single women are messy spills on the floor, requiring a nice absorbent paper towel to mop them all away.
Also, LOL, “someone else genetics” — because proper phraseology is MISANDRY! And so’s an apostrophe-S combo.
And apparently, so is understanding the concept of infertile males who nevertheless would like to raise children. Or women whose husbands have a genetic disorder making reproduction inadvisable. Or voluntarily single mothers who don’t want to be “wifed up” by the Paper Towel Man. Or stable lesbian couples.
Clearly, thinking things through is MISANDRY!
So he doesn’t actually give a shit about being a loving parent to a child, he’s just interested in passing on his oh-so-important genes?
Guess what, he’s not fucking fit to be a parent then. Works out rather neatly imo.
Also, dude. Surrogacy is a thing. I should know; I considered being one when I was short on cash and hadn’t transitioned yet. And even Japan, Land of Vending Machines, hasn’t mastered the art of a baby machine yet.
I like the idea of wending machines. Teach your baby to wend zir way around! Get those flexible moves happening!
We already have wending machines, Kittehs! They’re called rollerskates!
Nah, those are crash-in-a-tragic-heap machines.