Did you hear the one about the gay comedian and the feminist?
This latest news that in NSW a judge has ruled a birth certificate can be modified to remove the surrogate “birth mother” and instead list only both male partners as “parent 1 and parent 2” is a clear demonstration that gay activists have no interest in supporting women or respecting women. It also is a clear indication to me of how the agenda for “gay marriage” will actually erode respect for women.
What is unarguable is that motherhood entails - necessarily and biologically - some real woman placing her life on the line, enduring 9 months of at least considerable discomfort, risking death during the process of giving birth. Even in surrogacy, where there is no intention to keep and raise the child, still that sacrifice demands acknowledgement, for the sake of the woman herself, and for the sake of all women who have children. But because a gay couple don’t want to be reminded of the biological difference between their coupling and heterosexual unions, they don’t want to acknowledge that woman’s unique and completely irreplaceable contribution to the life of that child. Instead they have sought - and obtained - a court ruling that asserts to acknowledge and record her existence, her role, is “not in the best interests of the child”. I find that horrifying and cannot believe it has not generated alarm from feminists. Why do feminists believe gays are their “friends”? Why do feminists align themselves with the gay agenda? Gays are not supporters of women’s rights. Revolting misogynistic jokes are pretty stock-of-trade from gay comedians - from Oscar Wilde to now.
And of course, this legal “victory” is an indication of the social reconstruction that will follow any legalization of “gay marriage” in the name of “equality”. Within a decade it will be irresistible but the courts will rule official government documents, birth certificates, school and hospital documents, must remove “discriminatory” terms such as “mother” and “father”, and replace them, as in this case, with “parent 1” and “parent 2”.
The “gay marriage” lobby loves their little joke that to legalize “gay marriage” doesn’t make it compulsory. But as this case indicates, there is every intention to make it compulsory to use “inclusive” and “equal” terminology. So be prepared to say goodbye “mum” and “dad”, and indeed goodbye to motherhood and fatherhood. Women, in such a new “equal” society, will be convenient wombs for producing offspring for gay and heterosexual men, but the removal of this surrogate woman from the birth certificate of a child is a terrible harbringer of such an appalling social mindset. It is the ultimate gay misogynistic “joke” on feminists and all women.
I doubt that the well-meaning heterosexual supporters of “gay marriage” have thought through the social and legal implications of such a legalization. But I urge them to do so, and be forthright about whether this is the sort of society they are happy to see “brought to birth”.
Why women still can’t enjoy sex
I think feminists need to have some biological and evolutionary studies included in their education, to balance their outrage, and help focus on strategies that will actually make changes instead of assuming it is all a matter of ignorant (or malicious) male “sexism” that has produced the reproductive imbalance that exists in every human society.
This article online is a classic example of rant and rage. No reasonable person (male or female) questions that there is injustice. But where does it come from?
The article is well written and passionate, but fundamentally fails to grasp or even ask, “what is the point of sex?” Contrary to the writer’s assertion it is not “love” - it is babies. In the scheme of evolution it is pure coincidence that sex is pleasurable for humans - it certainly has been a happy coincidence and it definitely gets the main job done, which is to propagate genes.
Male praying mantises still can’t enjoy sex either, and never will.
Nature isn’t fair. Women of our species bear the reproductive burden, and contribute a vastly unbalanced amount to the biological outcome (9 months of pregnancy, up to 2 years of lactation, and up to 18 years of care). A male only needs to donate a teaspoon of sperm to have “succeeded” genetically. The whole game of “love and marriage” is the way women get to even the score somewhat. They can get males to contribute to the upbringing of those offspring by binding them in long term commitments called marriage, in which, (in a reductive analysis) males receive sex and affection and contribute resources to “their” family.
But this system depends on a woman being able to keep that man bound to the family, and “easy” sex outside that dramatically undermines that bond. In my experience, “slut” is more often applied by women to other women, because it is actually a defensive term used to “punish” other women who are perceived as threats to their own reproductive project.
This is a much more complex issue to resolve, therefore, than simply labelling men as sexist, and “embracing” the term slut. We are dealing with deep pressures in evolutionary terms, and political slogans are not going to change anything. It will require a deeper understanding of the “why” in reproductive terms, and then seeing if we can work as a society to create concrete structures and alternative arrangements to even the biological bias against women, if we really want all to have “free sex” for fun, not just babies.
or perhaps a better name would be the Mossimoron test
… in honor of the sexist morons at Mossimo
Bechdellina test for advertisements
OK, here is my attempt at answering my own challenge -
I call it the “Bechdellina little test for advertisements”.
An ad passes this test if it features at least one woman
- who is naturally clothed
- and not engaged in gratifying a male (cooking, washing or sexually displaying for him - or male viewers)
- or playing with children
By “features at least one woman” I mean the woman in the ad who is passing the test must be a significant character in the ad - not just a bystander.
"naturally clothed" means clothing is natural to the usual usage of the product; clothes are not left off solely for the purpose of sexual suggestion.
The other rules seem pretty straight forward.
What do people think?
I’m not the only man worrying
… about the newer kinds of sexism confronting his daughter:
The discrepancy in the depiction of genders was startling. The men were singing, rapping, doing; the women were titillating, baring, flaunting. The men were subjects; the women were objects. This is the grammar of our culture. He does; she is done.
By this social construct, women have nothing but their looks, which are useful primarily for attracting a mate
- from SMH