Comments


——————————————————-

13 April 2007

I got a couple of comments posted today at the Telegraph and The London Times, managing to hopefully tweak the noses of some dumb fembots and manginas.

This first one is by Caitlin Moron, a child-murdering man-hating fembot cunt I despise with a passion:

Why I believe abortion is part of being a good mother

Yes, Mizz Moron has managed to conclude that having your baby hacked to bits and flung in a bin because you couldn’t be arsed to raise it is a sign of a woman being a good mum.

Amidst a few other women bragging of killing their kids, I managed to get this published:

It shows how damaged and messed up you are Caitlin if you honestly think that the fact that you have murdered one of your own children, and would be prepared to do so again, is an act of “good mothering.”

Any woman who has had an abortion is a child-killer. Accept it you vile murderers.

Posted by: Duncan | 13 Apr 2007 09:59:04

Then there was this:

Are men becoming obsolete?

It is significant that women so regularly ask “What are men for then?” It shows women’s selfish and spoiled ways, namely that they automatically assume everyone and everything else in the Universe is for their benefit. Women are thrown into confusion if they attempt to grasp the idea of there being anything or anyone that isn’t there solely to serve their whims.

Incidentally, if you want to see a world without men, just pop along to the nearest crime-ridden poverty-reeking inner-city single-mother populated ghetto. Such charming places are pretty much pure Matriarchies with just women and “their” children.

Posted by Duncan on April 13, 2007 9:51 AM

Incidentally, hunt for David Llewellyn around the Telegraph’s comments. Now that’s a fucking woman-firster mangina if I ever saw one.

Otherwise, though, it is good to see so many other guys posting on topics like this and happily slagging off feminists and getting more and more fucking angry at women. It’s also funny to see the occasional woman bemoaning that a “battle of the sexes” is pointless, and you usually know it’s probably some man-hating ex-fembot who is beginning to get a taste of all that animosity she and her sex have flung at ours coming back with a vengeance.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 5:06 PM

——————————————————-

At 6:14 PM, Egghead said…

Actually, I often wonder what women are good for. I mean, except for incubating sperm for 9 months, what can women do for me that I can’t do better by myself?

Sex? My hand is far more satisfying.

Housekeeping? Don’t make me laugh.

Cooking? The food I prepare is delicious.

Breastfeeding? Trip to the store for a bottle and some formula created by male chemists and doctors, and that’s taken care of….

So, apparently, as soon as the artificial womb is perfected, women will be completely obsolete.

But I’m sure we’ll keep at least a few around, since they are mildly amusing.

——————————————————-

At 8:42 PM, ChicagoMan said…

Men obsolete?

Who the fuck would run the sewers, the powerplants, the oil rigs, make the inventions the lazy whores need everyday?

Who would fly the planes, operate heavy machinery, build the buildings?

Fuck, even the greatest artists and composers have been men.

If anything, sooner or later with artificial wombs and pussies women really will become obsolete. I mean the only reason now to get married are to have kids so to pass down your genes and sex.

Also who the fuck would unclog the drains? Dumb bitches don’t know how good they have it.

——————————————————-

At 1:21 AM, Anonymous said…

Ending a child’s life = A good thing???

I am not against abortion per se but for a woman to justify the act to herself by claiming it is a positive experience is flat out crazy. You would think there would be at least a little regret on her part at having denied somebody a life. Surprisingly, or perhaps not, she manages to avoid all moral and physical responsibility for the conception and termination of the child by chanting the feminist mantra “Me,me,me,me,me,…”.If only this woman’s mother had been as callous as she is and done away with her after several weeks then we all would be spared of her selfish delusions.

——————————————————-

At 2:37 AM, Anonymous said…

This is one of the comments left from some fembot.

What fun! It was interesting to see the fears in the male population posting here.

I did not get from the article that the male portion of the human species would disappear, simply that the roles would change, men no longer needed to reproduce. This doesn’t mean male children will no longer be born.

Many of the male/female roles and conflicts mentioned come from societies that were created by the male. It was the male that created the female place in society, so your arguments are weak when pointing to the female as the problem.

If this science were to reach its maturity and women would one day have their bone marrow extracted, y infused with y chromosomes and produce mature sperm cells for reproduction, I seriously doubt that all women will want only female offspring.

I think this science, if it reached its peak, would change the dynamics of the sexual role play. Men may not be able to be promiscuous any longer. The have your cake and eat it too would disappear.

Women endure the male problem only because men are required for reproduction. If this is taken out of the equation I think more women would accept not being dependent on men and forge their own way with careers and income to provide security when the time comes to produce offspring.

Even today’s career women ultimately want the male that can provide so that she can produce and ensure comforts for the offspring. This is the strongest male wins dynamic that the animal kingdom has, but in modern society the financial stability will represent the brawn the animal kingdom uses.

This science coupled with women’s modern ability to bring home the bacon is what would make the male less useful. She, knowing that she doesn’t need him to reproduce nor provide, will not look to him in the manner women do today in order to produce offspring.

The male portion of the species will not disappear, the roles will change, if this science were to materialize.

Posted by Just-In on April 13, 2007 5:04 PM

——————————————————-

At 4:18 AM, Anonymous said…

“So, apparently, as soon as the artificial womb is perfected, women will be completely obsolete.”

“If anything, sooner or later with artificial wombs and pussies women really will become obsolete. I mean the only reason now to get married are to have kids so to pass down your genes and sex.”

These posters are definitely on to something. Feminists seem to believe that (male-dominated) science will allow an all-female society to become a reality, such as in Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s novel ‘Herland’, but I think it will be the other way around. Science will allow men to get rid of or effectively enslave women.

If women could actually impregnate themselves with artificial sperm created from their own or a female lover’s genetic material, this would be an evolutionary dead-end. The two genders exist in order to ensure genetic diversity and continued evolution of the species. A society of female clones would just stagnate in evolutionary terms and be pushed aside by any healthy patriarchy.

——————————————————-

At 8:05 AM, Thunderchild said…

So, Duncan, Is Prince William the most high profile Marriage Striker ?

——————————————————-

At 10:39 AM, Anonymous said…

Man Describes Alleged Attack By 7 Lesbians In N.J.

Claims ’06 Incident Was Hate Crime Against Straight Man

——————————————————-

At 12:52 PM, Duncan Idaho said…

Someone left this response at The Times to me:

I have read through most of the comments posted but it was Duncan’s that really made me see red!
Duncan just because you think you have a life doesn’t mean you have to inflict it on others – If my mother had thought about me and my life she would have had a f**king abortion instead of making me her scapegoat for the mess she made of her life.
Do you really think that going through 9 months of sickness, stretch marks, getting fat and then having your genitals cut apart and stitched back together is going to make a woman fall in love with something she never wanted.
Try being that child that wasn’t wanted.
Murder – she would have saved me years of pain and guilt. Why should I have to pay for her mistake?
Grow up, get off your moral high horse and try thinking of those accidents that have to try and make
something of there unwonted and unasked for lives.

Posted by: unaborted life form | 13 Apr 2007 18:50:55

I’m not sure what to make of it.

It might be satire, sarcasm, or just a self-mutilating messed-up lunatic. Very odd. And quite amusing in a rather disturbing way.

——————————————————-

At 7:22 PM, Anonymous said…

Many of the male/female roles and conflicts mentioned come from societies that were created by the male. It was the male that created the female place in society,

Yes. It’s called civilization. Didn’t develop until the Patriarchy was created. Conflict is innate to our species and nature. Occurs in both Matriarchal societies (e.g., jungle tribes, ghettos) and Patriarchal societies (e.g., highly developed civilizations).

so your arguments are weak when pointing to the female as the problem.

Civilization was working and advancing on a positive track prior to feminism. Now families are being destroyed and psychologically screwed up generations are the legacy.

If this science were to reach its maturity and women would one day have their bone marrow extracted, y infused with y chromosomes and produce mature sperm cells for reproduction,…

Good luck defying Mother Nature.

——————————————————-

At 6:24 AM, Hmh said…

My own reaction to C. Moran’s article was to the stuff that wasn’t mentioned. Where was her husbands thoughts about this abortion she chose? What does he think or feel about it?
The husband’s story isn’t mentioned. He’s a peripheral character at best in the article and I suspect in the marriage as well… What if this child, the third after two daughters, had been his son??
She might have kept her career but may have lost her marriage.

——————————————————-

At 8:53 AM, Mark said…

Not for publication but…

Articles for you, Duncan. Ooh hoo hoo. You’ll like these. First one especially.

The good wife is an old fashioned realist

——————————————————-

At 9:14 PM, CitizenZ said…

I sent them this link and a short paragraph yesterday. It hasn’t yet been posted and it doesn’t look like it ever will. A feminist moderator no doubt.

I’m hoping if enough of us send it in, one of them is bound to get through.

These people need to know that if there is any ‘obsolete-ing’ to be done, Ladies First is the rule.

——————————————————-

At 11:49 PM, Anonymous said…

citizenz:

The link you provided has no article. What is the story?

Duncan:

You should become more politically active. The Libertarian Party in the UK is very weak and needs a boost; you could become someone of stature in the party if you volunteered. Does it even exist?

Here in the U.S., the Libertarians are the 3rd largest party and have significant political influence. Prominent Republicans such as Barry Goldwater, Ron Paul, and Jeff Flake are actually Libertarians that merely run as Republicans. Ron Paul is even seeking the Presidency in 2008.

The UK Independence Party seems to have a Libertarian streak; perhaps you could join them instead.

——————————————————-

At 2:49 AM, CitizenZ said…

Here is the article in full for those of you having trouble with the link. Hope this isn’t a no no.

Men redundant? Now we don’t need women either

Scientists have developed an artificial womb that allows embryos to grow outside the body

Robin McKie
Sunday February 10, 2002
The Observer

Doctors are developing artificial wombs in which embryos can grow outside a woman’s body. The work has been hailed as a breakthrough in treating the childless.

Scientists have created prototypes made out of cells extracted from women’s bodies. Embryos successfully attached themselves to the walls of these laboratory wombs and began to grow. However, experiments had to be terminated after a few days to comply with in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) regulations.

Continued …
——————————————————-

At 8:09 AM, k-dog said…

Excerpt from article posted by CitizenZ:

“It also has serious ethical implications, as Gelfand pointed out. ‘For a start, there is the issue of abortion. A woman is usually allowed to have one on the grounds she wants to get rid of something alien inside her own body.

” ‘At present, this means killing the foetus. But if artificial wombs are developed, the foetus could be placed in one, and the woman told she has to look after it once it has developed into a child.’ “

Wouldn’t that be an irony—western women forced to become parents against their wills just as happens to men today? Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

But the rest of it, such as the notion that employers won’t want to give women maternity leave if artificial wombs are available, is rubbish. Women commonly use pregnancy and children as an excuse to leave work and live off a husband or boyfriend anyway.

This would not present any change unless there were some legal requirement that adults had to work. Even though many of the Communist nations such as the old USSR and Cuba had such laws, they could never be enforceable in the West. The matriarchy would never stand for it, and the concept would open too many cans of worms.

I’ll go on a limb here and say that we’ll never see artificial wombs in any kind of significant use anyway. These researchers have lost sight of an important issue, as have the fertility clinics that help infertile couples: all of this is ridiculous, as there are simply too many people in the world and we need to reduce fertility, not increase it.

Major global resources and pollution crises are right around the corner because of all the excess people, not least of whom are women—whose short-sighted consumption and simple-minded materialism are sending us hurtling toward the abyss. The hard stop at the end of the fall is going to be very bad for most of us—and probably fatal.

——————————————————-

At 10:26 AM, Masculist Man said…

There are going to be real problems,’ said organiser Dr Scott Gelfand, of Oklahoma State University. ‘Some feminists even say artificial wombs mean men could eliminate women from the planet and still perpetuate our species.

Women only want to cut down the population of men to 10% so we wouldn’t be doing anything to them that they wouldn’t do to us.

——————————————————-

%d bloggers like this: