You can blame PVW for this one.
(LOL, it is always someone else's fault, don'tcha know!).
PVW sent me this link:
I became fixated on one idea, and now I really cannot get it out of my mind.
Here is the source of my latest problem:
In that article the case of the fatherless daughter is put before us. And how unfair it is that she is barred from a father-daughter dance. Fair enough. It is not the daughter's fault for not having a father. Perhaps Mum kicked him out. Perhaps Father was a dead-beat who walked. Perhaps he died tragically. But make no mistake - she will pay for this lack in her life. More on her later.
In that same article, the concept of mother-son events are also mentioned. But what of the boy with no mother? He would undoubtedly be barred from such events too! Again, not his fault he has no mother. He too will surely pay.
And in my overactive imagination I got to thinking...what happens when we have a world consisting solely of children missing one parent? What would it look like?
We already have plentiful fatherless children. No problem there...we could throw a lot overboard and we wouldn't miss them.
Don't understand that reference? It comes from a joke an Indian friend of mine made. Only an Indian could have made this joke, by the way. Anyone else would be 'racist', of course:
A British man, a Norwegian, a Swiss man and an American were on a boat with cargo representing their respective countries on board. Soon the boat started to capsize.
In an attempt to solve this problem, the men decided to offload the boat, starting wih the merchandise that was most common in each of their countries.
The British guy stepped up and said: 'Well, in my country, we have loads of tea, so let's throw all the tea on board out into the sea'. So they did. Things got a bit better, but they were still in trouble.
Then the Norwegian said, 'OK, in my country we have a lot of snow, so let's throw the snow overboard'. So they did, and thngs improved, but not by much.
Then the Swiss guy got up and said, 'we have lots of expensive watches, so we can afford to throw all the watches overboard'. So they did. Again an improvement, but something else had to go.
Then the American stood up and said, 'in the States, we have Indian computer engineers coming out of our ears, we can sure lose a few, no sweat'. So they threw into the sea the computer engineers.
Terrible joke, I know...but you get the picture...
And now, with all the negative consequences of feminism rapidly coming to light, men are responding quite logically with their own solutions...in an attempt not just to 'hurt' or punish women, but in some instances to nullify them. Indeed annihilate them.
I won't rehash John Galt's words here. A few posts back, I recounted my reaction to them. Chilling and disturbing.
The reason I found his words disturbing is not so much that I want to see women destroy society with no consequences. Being a woman myself, I do love other women, (because I love myself). But alas, not that much.
It's not all about us women. I hope that much is clear.
I do firmly believe that some women are just not suited to marriage, because they really are incapable of giving a man what he wants and needs. Such women should not be given the time of day by men. I fully believe that. The same goes for men who really are not cut out for relationships of any sort with women.
But the (right) solution to feminism and 'choice motherhood' is not surrogate mothers for single fathers, or worse, artificial wombs and the like.
Two wrongs definitely don't make a right.
In much the same manner as I felt strongly against the mother in this post, I think Cristiano Ronaldo's dodgy parenthood is also questionable...
We all accept that where one parent is missing, the child suffers in some way, even if there is a 'substitute' parent. Where is that substitute at 3am? The substitute is never as good as the original, as we all know. So why do we pacify ourselves with poor alternatives? (Rhetorical question).
We can spot the child of a singe mother (at least the worst kind) by now. Here comes the generalisation: usually narcissistic, they lack the drive that fathered children have. The women are poor examples of femininity and the men are overly supplicative, something which hurts their chances of success with women. These people are sorted as far as social skills go though, in the sense that they are usually extrovert. They identify strongly with the feminine, which explains why perhaps some of the men turn out to be 'manginas'.
But what about motherless children? This sample population is small, granted. But I think there are accurate characerisations of them in some films. Take 'Firelight' for example. Both Eliazbeth Laurier and Louise Godwin are motherless children, the former more than the latter, who gets a break when her mother shows up.
The kid in this movie is also a classic example.
Introverted, insular, generally highly principled, very disciplined, but alas, they have deep emotional issues.
These people identify strongly with the masculine: in Elizabeth's case, she very nobly decided to pay off her father's debts. In her era, the only option available to her was the 'surrogate mother' route. Have a baby for a strange man and give up said baby? No problem.
Ms. Laurier was thinking like a man. Nature taught her a feminine lesson she would never forget. She spends the next seven years searching for Charles Godwin and Louisa...
I daresay, a woman with a mother in her life from a young age would never do what she did.
In both cases of an absent parent, there is an imbalance in the child. Emotionally, psychologically, financially, whatever.
Life is sometimes unfair to some of us: sometimes a parent dies when a child is very young. Sometimes there are very serious reasons where a parent must be removed from a child's life. Barring these legitimate cases...
So, 'Children of women', meet 'Children of men'.
Do we really want this future? Aren't things already bad enough for us yet in the SMP? Do we really want to reduce parenthood into yet another 'his and hers' war?
The use of the phrase 'Children of men' was no accident on my part. The film with the same name is a truly chilling experience. Do we really want to go there?
So the feminists banished men from the home front and now there are long queues at the sperm bank.
And the response from men?
Get a surrogate!
Get an artificial womb!
Do you really mean this? Have you thought this through, all the way to the ugly and bitter conclusion?
Is anyone thinking about the children?
(Not a rhetorical question).