When Simone De Beauvoir wrote in 1953 that women were the Second Sex, she and her feminist acolytes have been waiting for the day when the roles would be reversed and that men were the Second Sex. That day has now come.
It is not just because of the constant belittling of men in British society, the mistreatment and ignorance perpetrated against them by the state (positive action, discrimination in the allocation of services), the belittling of fathers and the anti-father laws and courts, the inability to provide schooling that meets the needs of boys, the general propaganda smokescreen of the gender pay gap, glass ceilings etc and the downright untruths; no, something more fundamental has happened - it is the fact that British scientists in Newcastle have produced artificial sperm.
Despite the war waged on men, at least we were needed biologically but not anymore.
Forget all the nonsense about it being able a breakthrough to help infertile couples, within a decade, we will not be needed at all.
The scientist, Karim Nayernia, involved will be hailed by anyone anti-male as a hero, in fact to them, he probably already is.
Media Coverage - Daily Mail, Michael Hanlon in The Mail, Sky, The Times, Daily Telegraph
No doubt these fake sperm will produce deformed kids or have some other flaw of that nature, yet man hating feminists will still insist on using them just to be spiteful.
Posted by: John Kimble | Thursday, 09 July 2009 at 02:09
To be honest men's role in biological reproduction has always been rather small, hence our deep cultural attachment to "women and children first" as it only takes a few males to serve many females. Hence we are the "disposable sex" (Warren Farrell). In reality, and quite despite our political class, the vast majority of people still aspire to ordinary family life. Perhaps why some of the most pointed challenges to feminism's extremes come from women. On the same day a report highlighted the continuing toll of fatal accidents on our construction sites. I don't see queues of women to labour building our comfortable world. No I don't see more than a trendy minority seeking to do away with men. The problem is that they are desparate for approval for their aberant lifestyles and are creating mayhem in institutions that should support ordinary people in their very normal aspirations.
Posted by: Groan | Thursday, 09 July 2009 at 20:48
Hi 'Groan'
Above you state men's input to reproduction is "rather small", well actually it is no more, nor less, than women’s. 50%. That's fact. Also you fail to take into consideration the input men have in raising the child, which is arguably more than women's as studies show children are much better off with a single father than mother. One male serving many females is also no good reason. Why would women be more important because they reproduce slower than men?!
You seem to have made your sweeping comment based only on the fact that the child is born from the female’s body. Oh, and of course the traditionalist (ridiculous) view that mothers are the 'key' parent. Having said that, I'm sure many others will mindlessly repeat such a sentiment.
Posted by: Rory O'Loughlin | Friday, 10 July 2009 at 15:14
I agree Rory. The traditional view is NOT that the mother is they key parent rather that both parents are two equal halves of the parenting role within the family unit. This rubbish about everything revolving around the children is one of the most bileous distortions within feminism, and has only come about recently during the past few decades. Its just been rammed down our throats so much now we think its always been there.
The true traditional focus is on the FAMILY UNIT within which the children are raised and develop. The 'its for the kids' culture was, since the 80s, brought about by those who wish to divide this unit; namely feminists.
Many studies have shown that if you really want children to be brought up healthily and have the best start in life then make sure they are raised in a traditional family unit where the biological parents form two halves of a 'roof' over the kids and nurture them within that protected environment. That is why this unit evolved and is the first place!
Even though there will be many who claim single parents, same sex parents, the state etc etc are 'just as good' its not true and countless studies have shown this.
Ever wondered why even feminists stop short of saying single parent families are better than traditional two-parent families? Its because deep down they know that ideally its mum and dad who bring up their won children best, and they know it!
Posted by: Joe Public | Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 02:05
As you say I fail to take into consideration male roles. Which is rather the point. Merely changing the mode of conception for a few people will not stop the vast majority of people seeking to fulfill roles they have done for millenia. The danger is the those who view men's role as solely reproduction. As you say the focus on the child has become distorted to assume the mother and child are somehow the same and men just add ons. I know of no study that does not indicate the best parenting is mother and father even in fostering and adoption where conception isn't an issue. I do think some changes in science are red herrings the real danger is the attack on fatherhood as a role, and characterisations of men as inherently dangerous.
Posted by: groan | Saturday, 11 July 2009 at 23:16
Yes we must act against the attacks on not only on fatherhood but on every aspect of men's lives. The development of artificial sperm does not merely raise an argument about methods of conception. This latest development now raises the possibility of putting female DNA into sperm thus eliminating the role of men from the reproductive cycle altogether. Not only that their relation in anyway to the future generations will be eliminated too. There will be children born in the future who have no father..at all. No biological attachment, DNA, nothing. They will be the product of two females.
To those who say, "oh it'll never happen and even if it does it'll be a tiny number of cases." etc. History is littered with the fallen who never thought it would happen.
We never thought they'd bring in positive discrimination in the workplace, where it will not be legal to refuse men jobs or promotion because...they're men!
We never thought there would be cases where men have been pursued through the courts after becoming the boyfriend of a single mother whom they let move into their house and who subsequently had them thrown out and ordered to pay maintanence for children who are not even theirs!
Single mothers will soon be forced to name fathers of their children to the state so the state can bring down the whip-hand of law. No rights for them in fatherhood just financial responsibilities.
Once your name is on that form you are owned by the state and the ordeal of legal fatherhood in the UK begins.
Even men who think they are safe and secure and say this is all just other men trying to shirk their responsibilities are brought to reality with a shock when their wives decide to get rid of them and they see just how little rights have. But for her failing to bring the law against them in the past were they left in their cocoon of denial and spared the full burn of the law.
It reminds me of the facist hunts in the 30s and 40s. If you knew of someone and didn't denounce them then you'd fall under the jackboot too.
Posted by: Joe Public | Tuesday, 14 July 2009 at 10:26