Archive for the ‘fatherhood’ Category

Let’s talk about sperm

December 5, 2009

Not a favorite subject of mine, me being a dyke and all, but an important one. Some blog I was looking at mentioned in passing that there is a “sperm shortage” – in sperm banks, that is. Intrigued, I googled it.

The Sperm-Supply Problem

There’s a shortage of sperm in Britain! Apparently, Britain needs donations for about 4,000 women per year; to reach that number, about 500 sperm donors per year are required, while only 300 are currently registered. Things were fine until 2005, when a law was enacted allowing children of sperm donors the right to discover the identity of their father at age 18; simultaneously, the number of women who could use the same donor’s sperm was limited further.

Britain faces sperm shortage, calls for donors

LONDON – Britain is facing a sperm donor shortage after reversing confidentiality laws and limiting the number of women who can use sperm from one donor, fertility experts warned Wednesday.

Britain in 2005 changed the law protecting anonymous sperm donors and allowed children to learn the identity of donor fathers — one reason, fertility experts say, there are fewer donors now.

“The only countries that seem to have enough sperm are those that pay — like the U.S. and Spain — or the countries that retain anonymity,” said Allan Pacey, a member of the British Fertility Society that warned of the shortage in the British Medical Journal.

Swedish Sperm Shortage Shocker

First they blame lesbian couples for using up all the sperm, which struck me as weird as we should be almost the only people using such services aside from straight couples where the man is sterile, which isn’t all that common. (Not that I don’t understand why that isn’t the case.) Then:

On top of that disappointing news, there is more to this cake wreck. Apparently in Sweden once a sperm bank child gets to that magic age of 18, he or she can legally locate donor-daddy.

That puts a crimp in the donation pool.

The icing on the cake? Electricity issues that regularly unfreeze the poor little swimmers and a high rate of um, those donor contributions that can’t swim. Perhaps back-up generators to address both issues should be in the budget?

Sperm shortage forcing women to Internet for donor

A shortage of Canadian donor sperm could be prompting women and their partners to turn to the Internet to find free donors, but that doesn’t make it healthy, or even ethical, say experts in fertility and reproductive technology.

Fertility experts suggest reforms to overcome sperm shortage

The authors cited the removal of donor anonymity in April 2005 – allowing children to trace their donor parent once eighteen – as a key causal factor for the shortage. Donor anonymity is optional in the US and many experts there believe this is why they do not have a sperm donation shortage.

Modern Medicine Solves World Sperm Shortage (Satire)

And besides, is it really a scientific breakthrough to accomplish what every 12-year-old teenage boy does automatically in his sleep? The creation of sperm, after all, has been happening for as long as anyone can remember, and I don’t recall any sperm shortage public protests or United Nations warnings about the world running out of sperm.

The article goes on to cite serious information about the causes of male infertility.

I’ve ranted before about sperm donors being hit up for child support. I don’t think any of the articles I looked at mentioned that as a reason, though the related issue of donor anonymity was raised repeatedly. See, ladies, you’ve made both marriage and fatherhood, even via sperm donation, so unprofitable for men that they won’t even jack off for you. I hope that men will take Roger Devlin’s advice: “A man must insist on nothing less than a legally binding promise to love, honor, and obey him before “consenting” to give a woman a baby.”

Advertisements

Remember what I keep saying about kids needing their fathers?

November 19, 2009

Because only fathers are willing and able to apply consistent discipline. (Plus, just having two adults in the house instead of only one makes a huge difference. One adult gets tired, gets busy, gets in a bad mood. If there’s another responsible party around, there’s someone to take up the slack.)

That’s a generalization, of course. Before feminism, widows were often perfectly good mothers of well-behaved children. This is because even though those particular kids didn’t have their fathers, they were in a patriarchal society, full of people whose fathers had taught them to behave. Had their mothers attempted the kind of shenanigans that today’s single mothers do – spending less time with her kids than running around fornicating, putting her energy into a career instead of into homemaking, mostly ignoring the kid and then overreacting to the point of abuse when the kid’s behavior inevitably escalates from unruly to intolerable – the massive societal disapproval would have stopped them long before social workers had to be dragged in.

It’s on my mind because of this article: Police officer uses Taser on 10-year-old girl after ‘mother gives him permission’

Officer Dustin Bradshaw said in a report that police were called to the home in Ozark on November 11 because of a domestic disturbance. When he arrived, the girl was curled up on the floor, screaming, the report said.

Officer Bradshaw’s report said the girl screamed, kicked and resisted any time her mother tried to get her in the shower before bed.

“Her mother told me to Tase her if I needed to,” he wrote.

The child was “violently kicking and verbally combative” when Officer Bradshaw tried to take her into custody and she kicked him in the groin. He delivered “a very brief drive stun to her back”, the report said.

This dame called the police because of a ten-year-old girl??

When I was ten, I certainly couldn’t have inflicted any damage on an adult that would have particularly bothered them, but I was small for my age, maybe she’s a big girl.

So I can’t really blame the cop for doing this – as the article points out, if he had handcuffed her by force, he could have broken one of her arms or legs. But how the fuck did this household deteriorate to the point where a little girl was physically attacking adults and her bimbo mother considered it appropriate to call the police because she wouldn’t take a bath?

Guess:

The girl’s father, Anthony Medlock, told the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that his daughter had emotional problems but that she did not have a weapon and should not have been Tasered.

“My daughter does not deserve to be Tased and be treated like an animal,” said Mr Medlock, who is divorced from the girl’s mother and does not have custody.

This poor troubled child’s mother deprived her of a father. Probably so that she could spread her legs more widely. Without a father to provide stability and discipline, without the normal stable home life that earlier generations took entirely for granted, and with a mother who is obviously completely inept, this child became a delinquent before she was even in her teens. What do you want to bet that the mother has had a parade of boyfriends through the house?

Just a quick post

November 19, 2009

For a long time, I’ve been watching the news sites for articles about infanticide. Stepfathers and (biological) mothers commit by far the bulk of it, even if you don’t count abortion. If you click on my “motherhood” tag, you’ll find one article about a woman who put her baby in an oven, turned it on, and left the house. Her boyfriend found it and took it out in time to save its life. Boy, men sure are aggressive and dangerous! Biological fathers almost never kill their children. This is a large part of why children need their fathers so desperately, and why mothers who attempt to deprive children of their biological fathers are evil.

So naturally this headline caught my attention:

Dad accused of forcing son into field, killing him

I clicked, fully expecting that it would turn out that the “Dad” was actually whatever punk the boy’s mother was fucking and not the boy’s father at all. The media frequently tries to obscure the fact that women like to spread their legs for men who batter, rape and murder their children by other men.

Well, for once, the murderer was the victim’s biological father, but:

A 37-year-old father irate over hearing his 15-year-old son had sexual contact with a 3-year-old girl made the teen strip at gunpoint, marched him to a vacant lot and shot him to death despite pleas from the boy and his mother, a relative said.

This man is a hero. He has rescued who knows how many other toddlers from rape.

Notice that the baby-raper’s mother was, according to the article, pleading for the child molester’s life. This is something I’ve been meaning to blog about: why mothers cannot (most of the time) raise children decently on their own.

The fact is, when a woman is still childless, her genetic imperative is to find a man with good genes to give her some and a man with good means to support them. (These will not necessarily be the same man!) Once a woman has produced a son, he replaces her mate as her hope of genetic survival. As Richard Coniff put it in The Natural History of the Rich, “sociobiologist John Hartung has argued… because women want the spending and the philandering to be done by their sons rather than their husbands.”

Anyone who has ever seen the way a mother reacts when her son is accused of beating up a smaller child has seen this. She does not care if her son is behaving morally; she cares if he is going to be able to seize resources from others and spread his genes. In light of this necessity, small wonder this woman didn’t care that her son was raping toddlers. It doesn’t adversely affect his ability to spread his genes at all, so what’s the problem?

But men – not women – have invented things like codes of ethics and morals and rules of fair play. In a sense, they can “afford”, genetically speaking, to put such things above their own children. A man can have children with as many fertile women as he can lay, and somewhere deep in his unconscious he knows this, even if he does not actually have children by other mothers. Having a child is a much bigger investment for a woman, so she is biologically driven to excuse any of her offspring’s behavior, as the alternative is her genetic oblivion.

And by the way, if I had a son and found out he had raped a three-year-old, I absolutely would want him dead.

If we want a society of people with moral codes, we have to see to it that most children grow up with their biological fathers. Those are the only people who are likely to teach them morals.

Don’t donate sperm

October 7, 2009

Via the Elusive Wapiti:

Mass. court won’t rule on sperm donor ID lawsuit

A Massachusetts woman hit a legal roadblock Wednesday in her quest to learn her sperm donor’s identity so she can seek child support and get medical information to help treat an inherited condition she says her twin daughters have.

This is the kind of thing that convinces me that women are morally inferior to men. She entered into the contract, which was that all she got from this anonymous man was his sperm. Now that she wants money, she’s trying to rope her hapless benefactor into paying her bills for her.

“If the woman in this case were to prevail, it would make it much, much harder for families who have fertility issues, or for single women or for same-sex couples to have children,” Kauffman said.

You don’t say.

Guys, just like I advise you not to get married, and not to have sex without filming it, and to dispose of your condoms yourself, I’m adding this: DON’T BE A SPERM DONOR. You may end up financially supporting the bastards thus spawned – though you shouldn’t be expected to be allowed to raise them.

Sperm donor liable for child support, judge rules

Family Court Judge Ellen Greenberg

ELLEN? See, this is what happens when women are allowed to play judge.

I just Googled “sperm donor sued for child support” and got 68,900 hits. This is not a rare phenomenon. Guys, do not let any female get her hands on your semen.

As Roger Devlin said, “A man must insist on nothing less than a legally binding promise to love, honor, and obey him before ‘consenting’ to give a woman a baby.”

With the legal system aiding and abetting female irrationality, I could probably be hit with a paternity suit.

September 15, 2009

Carl linked me to this:

Genes blamed for early first sex

The fact that children raised in homes without a dad have sex earlier is down to their genes, say US researchers.

Suddenly they’re willing to admit genes are a factor in something, so that they don’t have to admit that children need fathers.

The Brook Advisory group mentioned in the article wants to get paid by the taxpayers to talk to children about sex, so of course they don’t want kids to have fathers. With parents teaching their children moral behavior and fathers exercising authority, there wouldn’t be any need for them and they know it.

Should men breastfeed in public?

September 6, 2009

I have a new reader, RAMZPAUL, who has an MRA blog called The Integrated Man. The top post literally made my jaw drop. It’s impossible to lampoon progressives, because there is no limit to how ridiculous they will get.

Should men breast feed in public?

Just when I thought the men in Sweden couldn’t become bigger pussies, they never fail to amaze me. It seems that in the effort for equality and to eliminate gender roles, Ragnar Bengtsson is pumping his breasts (while in class) in the hopes that he can generate milk for his baby. There is no word if Ragnar will also attempt to start having a monthly period.

http://www.thelocal.se/21842/20090902/

Sweden is to Feminism as North Korea is to communism. Feminism has mastisized into an extreme and bizarre ideology in Sweden. I know of no other country that has gone so far down that rabbit hole.

Of course, the loony version of feminism in Sweden is not sustainable. The natives are not reproducing at a sustainable rate while a politically suicidal immigration policy is allowing Islam to colonize the nation. The irony is that within 50 years Islam will have eradicated feminism and the remaining natives will be under the thumb of a real patriarchy.

Exactly the point I keep making.

From the article, a professorette of endocrinology is quoted:

“Men often have trouble finding things. And if the mother is out, the child is screaming and they can’t find the pacifier I’m sure there are a lot of men who give their baby their breasts.

You are, huh?

Link dump

July 16, 2009

Oh, brother. It looks like I’m going to be getting irate comments on my post denouncing feminists for encouraging women to put themselves in danger forever. The basic premise of these people seems to be that, since women should be safe anywhere, including in a man’s bed without panties or drunk in a bad neighborhood wearing a miniskirt, women should go right ahead and behave as if they were safe anywhere, and just hope that the men they encounter happen, by pure chance, to be the enlightened sort.

Most of the comments were so nonsensical that I was embarrassed to belong to the same species as those who made them, but they had clearly worked themselves up into a self-righteous lather over at hexadecimal’s post. (Just think if they used that fervor against actual rapists instead of against people who mention ways of avoiding rape.) And considering that his idea of a good way to open a conversation is to brag about how horrified he is at the very existence of the person with whom he wishes to converse, it’s not too surprising that his commenters act the way they do.

Unlike that poor mangina Professor Anonymous, however, I have the balls not to cave to pressure to take my post down. And there’s always the hope that some woman who reads it will make some kind of subconscious connection and not endanger herself despite the urgings of feminists.

Oh, also, it seems I am guilty of not condoning premarital sex. Which I don’t. Not that I recommend that any man get married in today’s legal climate, and it would be cruel to expect men to be celibate in addition to everything else they have to put up with these days, but that’s not at all the same as approving of screwing around. It doesn’t mean that the women who do it deserve any respect. Sure, the civilization western men have created recognizes basic human rights of sluts, just as it does those of felons, the retarded, the comatose, the unborn, etc. But respect is not a basic human right, and certainly not anything that a woman who sleeps around can expect.

I linked the Editrix to a post I made some time ago about how fatherlessness helped cause the rise of fascism, which, considering how many boys grow up without fathers today throughout Europe and America, is something to worry about. She replied with this post in which she partially agrees with me but says my post was oversimplifying, which I knew it was. The purpose of this blog is to rail against one particular force in the destruction of our civilization. Feminism has accelerated it beyond the wildest hopes of Marx and Gramsci, but it was not the root cause. For the root cause, well, one good place to start would be here. Actually, let me clarify: the “root cause” is human nature. Progressive lies are appealing because they promise a utopia to come as soon as everybody is sufficiently enlightened, and because they relieve those who subscribe to them of responsibility for their actions. Of course that’s appealing. Someone who claimed to have invented a pill that would make ice cream and pizza accelerate weight loss would acquire a following too.

Back to the Editrix’s post, some time ago I found casualty figures for the Great War, broken down by country, but I can’t find them now. When I dig them up again, I’ll post them, but I do remember that Germany’s casualties exceeded everyone else’s by a wide margin.

Roissy has echoed my contention that feminism is just one big “shit test”.

Actually, I don’t think American women want to be equal. That’s just what they tell themselves to rationalize their aggressively masculine posturing toward men. More accurately, of all the world’s women, American women are the biggest shit testers because they so very much DON’T want to be equal to the supplicating American betaboys they date. A desire by American women to shit test men to kingdom come to find the alpha gem among the beta shale is often miscontrued by men as a desire for equal footing with them. The truth is, in fact, just the opposite. They shit test because they want to find a man who puts himself on a footing above her. This is why even the most hardcore self-professed feminists will wilt into a puddle of submissive passion for a devil-may-care alpha male who doesn’t take her oh-so-profound ideology or her empty bleatings for equality seriously.

I hadn’t been keeping up with Oz Conservative, but he’s got a lot of great posts lately. In Sweden, feminists are trying to force men to pee sitting down. Men, don’t let this happen to you! You know, back when Camille Paglia first said, “Male urination really is a kind of accomplishment, an arc of transcendence. A woman merely waters the ground she stands on,” I just thought she was being nutty, as she often is. Swedish feminists, it seems, believed her.

Also, guys, follow the great F. Roger Devlin’s advice not to give a woman a baby unless she agrees to a real marriage to you. Even if all you do is donate sperm, she could come after you for money later.

This article… I can’t even stand to quote it. Just go read. If the feminist trolls are still lurking here, they’ll probably approve of everything in it.

A Hysterical Male Feminist, Fathers’ Rights, Science Links, and a Joke

July 9, 2009

Well, first, it turns out that the feminist who attacked me over at another blog is actually a man. That’s pretty sad; even nowadays, most men present their arguments with facts and logic, feelings only being a sideline, whereas this unmanly guy presented his feelings about my post.

Anyway, apparently he posted another attack on me at his own blog, which you can find linked in the comments on mine, and indicated that he wants a “conversation” with me. What is this, an intervention? I brushed him off and contemplated the sad depths to which too many men today have sunk.

So, having refused his generous offer of enlightenment to the wonders of egalitarian myths – why do they always think it will only take a few nicely worded arguments to overwhelm a lifetime of experience, plus the piles of hard data I post here? – let me move on to other things, because I’ve spent too much time on this already. Sometimes when you hear stupid arguments and realize that grownups are roaming the world believing them, your brain just won’t let it go until you’ve formulated exactly what’s wrong with their claims. I’m sure a lot of you fellow bloggers know what I’m talking about; it’s why we blog. But on to the backlog of links I’ve got to share with you:

I found another Father’s Rights blog: F.R.A.M.E.D. Family Rights And Many Ending Discrimination. Explorer keeps giving me trouble when I try to open it, but Flock does fine.

Sex On The Brain

New evidence on sex differences in people’s brains and behaviors emerges with the publication of results from the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) Sex ID Internet Survey. Survey questions and tests focused on participants’ sex-linked cognitive abilities, personality traits, interests, sexual attitudes and behavior, as well as physical traits.

Here’s something interesting: Homosexual Men Have Lower Incomes Than Heterosexual Men, But Lesbians Have Higher Income Than Straight Women Support for my contention that lesbians are smarter and have a better work ethic than straight women. Admittedly, to fully support this, we would have to adjust for motherhood. Straight women are, obviously, more likely to be mothers, which means they’re going to spend more time out of the workplace and be more tired and distracted if they do try to work.

I’m always interested in data about the biological basis of homosexuality, not only because I’m gay, but also because it punches holes in the “women are inferior because of societal conditioning” theory. Gay men’s brains work more like women’s, even though they were societally conditioned to be men. And lesbians’ brains work more like men’s. If you look around for scientific studies on homosexuality, you’ll see this again and a again. Here’s a couple of examples: Remember I was griping the other day about the way women insist on asking for directions from random strangers instead of looking at a freaking map? Gay Men Navigate In A Similar Way To Women, Virtual Reality Researchers Find. Does this mean they bitch at their partners to ask for directions?

Also, Symmetry Of Homosexual Brain Resembles That Of Opposite Sex, Swedish Study Finds. This site has a lot of interesting data about sex differences, even though it tries hard to put a feminist spin on it all.

How face and body shape varies with masculinization and feminization.

Male/Female Intelligence Differences This blog post has a couple of good links.

And here’s a humorous article: Feminism: Destroying the Planet

In a flash of insight, it hit me: this must be feminism’s fault, somehow. Those pushy women have tipped the balance of the universal order, and thrown Nature’s intricate equilibrium out of whack. Fortunately, I was handed just the tool I needed to prove this obviously-correct hypothesis by Brad DeLong, in the form of Gapminder World from Google. Check it out, peeps: here is a graph of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, as a function of the ratio of girls to boys attending school in different countries.

Today’s Links

July 8, 2009

I’ve found another blog called Objectify Chicks. Here’s one of their posts: Tactics of Women’s Shelters 2. He quotes a female lawyer, who is no doubt a self-hating misogynist or something:

“Domestic violence has become whatever the man does that the woman doesn’t like. Finding out she is having an affair and demanding she stop is seen as ‘abuse.’ This often triggers the woman to file for a restraining order, where no real evidence is required. In my 18 years of family law practice, I have seen this pattern occur over and over.”

Probably most of you have seen this one, it’s been around for a while, but I came across it in my links:

Feminists lying about Female CEO’s in charge, the girls lost billions.

And another good blog: Saving the boys raised by single Moms.
Not to mention the girls they have to deal with. I’m always complaining about how much boy-on-girl violence there was in my elementary schools, which the female, feminist teachers cheerfully approved of. Few women are capable of being authority figures over boys. I’ve discussed why in depth before. 75% of violent criminals come from female-headed households. If feminists actually gave a damn about violence against women, they would be campaigning for fathers and against divorce. Also against female teachers.

Article by Anthony Daniels.

Nothing wrong with that; except that almost everywhere in the world, males have a higher mortality rate than females. Should governments, then, devote special medical attention to men? Or should they further neglect women vis-a-vis men? If equality were important in itself, it would be a matter of indifference whether male mortality rates were reduced, or female mortality rates raised. So I asked the press officer of the British delegation whether men should be saved, or women killed. She went to ask the delegation’s medical advisor, who was very angry, and returned the answer that it was well known and universally accepted that the differential between male and female life expectancies was the result of biological factors.

“Wasn’t that what they used to say about the difference between the way men and women think?” I asked.

Ads not sufficiently abjectly feminist

July 4, 2009

In my last post, I ranted about an idiot feminist blogger who posts allegedly sexist ads. One of the ones she denounces, by the way, is the classic about the little girl picking daisies and then the nuclear bomb countdown. What is sexist or in any other way offensive about opposing nuclear war she didn’t explain, and my imagination isn’t up to the challenge, but feminists can literally find sexism anywhere.

Anyway, her posts on ads can be read here. Right now the top post features that notorious Burger King ad implying that a woman is giving a blow job to a sandwich. The funny thing is, I never would have seen this ad if it hadn’t been posted on hundreds of righteously wrathful feminist blogs.

Like most of her breed, this feminist really doesn’t see the connection between demanding sexual license for women and encouraging women to indulge sexually, and women being seen more as sex objects now than they ever were in the bad old days of patriarchy.

Most of the ads, though, are about an unoffensive as anything possibly could be.

There’s a diet Pepsi commercial that promotes the “social construct” of manliness. There’s a commercial which features four women and – gasp! – only one is nonwhite. There’s an old ad aimed at men that states that women might have venereal diseases, therefore men should wear condoms. There’s a commercial which mentions that women like shoes. God, the oppression. There’s a woman being oppressed by putting Neosporin on her child’s boo-boos. Liberated women just let their kids get infections and die.

Oh, also? Women ought to have abortions because their babies might grow up to be Hitler.

I thought for a minute that she had posted one thing she and I agreed on:

Fatherhood.gov put out a commercial to promote the importance of being a good dad. There’s not much of a reason for me posting this here, other than I think it’s really cute, and it takes a real man to be able to do this.

Then I watched it. I should’ve known not to expect anything good from a site that ended in “.gov”.