[bettingonosports]

both articles read like they were written by angry 18 year olds

[LeaderBiz]

It's womyn or wymyn. WymEn defeats the purpose.

Precisely.

both articles read like they were written by angry 18 year olds

One is from a reporter on a well visited web magazine and echoes the sentiments of a entire academic establishment and represents a possible course of a once major social movement (other feminist authors have already spoken in favour of preventing a male birth control pill from being developed and limiting men's rights to marry foreign women).

The other is from a anon blogger who mostly writes about getting nerdy guys laid who would loose his day job if outed.


Which should have you worried?

[Glanteeignile]

Why would they want to stop a male birth control pill?

[pGJLweEw]

Seriously, though, the stuff that that feminist woman spews out is so other worldly wrong that I am appalled by it. She's like men raising kids that's not theirs is empowering women.

LIKE HOLY **** that's INSANE

Who the **** published this lunatic?

[Brutton]

We're not even close to that level of technology. Yet.

We are no where close to a artificial uterus either. Unfortunately.

[Ikrleprl]

We are no where close a artificial uterus either. Unfortunately.

A fair point.

Actually, there is evidence that this isn't healthy for humans and that humans that are raised even in an orphanage are profoundly maladjusted due to the lack of a mother/father.

The first few months/year/years of life is profound important. Particularly as far as mother/father goes.

JM

There's also a lot of evidence that leeches aren't a panacea for unbalanced humors.

[Niiinioa]

Many men have, of course, ended up raising children who were not genetically their own, but really, does it matter...
Turn this little gem around, interchange the sexes, substitute an act with equivalent evolutionary consequences, and you get this beautiful sentence: Many women have, of course, been raped and ended up raising children they did not want by men they hated, but really, does it matter...
And that does not adequately cover it, because wanted or not, the child still had the mother's DNA - the men don't even have that.

I had not thought the shamelessness of the feminists would sink to this low; I had, after all, counted on the fact that feminist or not, women are still human, and that this humanity would compel the feminists to at least display some shred of common human decency. I am forced to concede it now: I was wrong; Roissy was right. It is too late. I have no doubt that what starts here will slowly become the law of the land, and that paternity testing shall be one day banned. After all, when women form a kingmaking majority of your voting population and there is a question of sexual-economic power involved, what can you expect?

[cialviagra]

Would you like to bet on that?

If they don't ban it, they'll make its use irrelevant (the way it actually works now, where 'accepting a parental role' is sufficient to make you liable to pay child support). And they'll put ten thousand restrictions on its use, so that it's next to impossible to take advantage of the fact.

Women are wroth more evolutionary speaking than men.

If one keeps old chivalrous reflexes without weighing it down with obligations and their old privileged while abolishing the old privileges of men in the name of a equality and adds to this a culture of narcissism speaking to the inner self loving princess which gouges itself until it becomes a monstrosity.... Male suffering is worth nothing. We are worth nothing in their eyes. And men will keep each other down and obedient in this self perpetuating system filled with greater and greater excess untill it crashes.

There is no 'they', and I don't think there is anything really organised about it either. It's just the natural outcome of giving women the vote.

What is important to understand here is that women have no sense of "constant" morality in the sense men understand the term. Men's moral codes are more or less fixed, irrespective of context (not their actions, mind you, just the ideas - neither is, all things considered, 'superior' in a moral sense). This constancy allows an abstraction of morality, and its attendant benefits, such as scalable networks of trust or command, or the maintenance of a shared culture over a very large number of participants. Women's moral sense is contextual - the definition of right and wrong itself changes as the woman's situation changes. The feminists' cry of 'You don't understand!' (which is what the movement is, boiled down to essentials) comes from the fact that any system of morality or obligation which does not change to suit the current situation so as to benefit the woman the most is either incomprehensible (at best) or experienced as oppressive (at worst) by women. (Note here that I speak statistically.)

This is neither good nor bad - it just is. Attempting to somehow 'blame' women for having contextual (and hence, from a male point of view, untrustworthy) moral systems is like blaming a petrol car for the fact that it does not run on jet fuel. You cannot blame the machine for working perfectly within specification. (You can, however, blame the idiots who thought it was a good idea to try to power a car with jet fuel in the first place.)

[Goooooblin]

Women are wroth more evolutionary speaking than men.

I wouldn't mind their being wroth more if it wasn't for their tendency to smite.

[LongaDonga]

Because it would give men reproductive control. Duh.

Never heard of condoms? Seriously.

[vaalmerruutel]

You're ****ing insane.

Maybe I am, maybe I'm not. The evidence at the moment points to me not being insane.

Keep your pimp hand strong and the hos will follow. Only beta males are in favor of paternity testing.

Funnily enough, I agree with this. The problem is, a society consisting of 'hos' and 'pimps' cannot sustain civilisation.