Women Hate Babies
Women hate children.
Remember that book Hillary Clinton wrote called “It takes a Village to Raise a Child”? I don’t know if that was the exact title. It’s not important enough of a thing for me to remember in that manner of detail. That was the point though; that women can’t raise children on their own. They need help and more importantly they need men.
Remember that movie Three Men and a Baby? I do remember that title exactly because that was a good fucking movie. What was the moral of that movie?
Men don’t need shit to raise shit — babies.
Women fucking suck at raising children. Men can raise children, work full time jobs, maintain hobbies like drinking and bowling, and all while saving time to chase tail. That’s because men are men. We’re better parents and when it comes to living life we’re like octopuses on crack; our tentacles in one hundred different pies.
Women hate babies and children. That’s why women love little dogs so much — because they’re all fucking sick.
Want to know how you’ve really pissed off a woman? One good way to know is that fucking her isn’t like fucking a futon. She’s still terrible at it, but don’t feel bad about giving her credit for enthusiasm. Women need all the charity they can get.
Another good way to know if you’ve gotten under a woman’s skin is if she’s speaking to you like a child. When women are yelling and screaming, that’s about a 5 on the feminine anger scale. A 1 on the scale is the silent treatment. That lasts for about a week or until said woman figures out that’s the dumbest fucking way on Earth to show a man you’re upset with him. That’s like heaven to a man. It also has never lasted less than a week.
When a woman is talking to you like a child — very patronizingly and almost giddy with a repressed psycho-mania — that’s when you know you’ve pissed her off. By the way, that’s also when you know she’s about ten seconds away from pulling your pants off. That’s information you can use at your discretion.
That’s why women shouldn’t be allowed to raise babies on their own. They hate babies. Women treat people they hate the same way they treat children — patronizing and bubbly. Men don’t ever pull that kind of shit. When a man is upset, he calmly, cooly, and sternly explains himself. Men treat babies differently than people they hate. That’s what I’m saying here.
It’s a myth that women like babies. They just want to have them. They want to have babies like they want to have purses and Starbuck’s. The only difference is you can’t sell babies on eBay.
Related Articles:
September 11th, 2006 at 6:01 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
As almost always, superbly said Dick. However, you seem to forget Law 1. (For new readers: 1. No matter how low you set the floor of expectations for a woman, she will inevitably fall below it.).
Babies for sale on Chinese E-bay:
Of course:
No surprise there. Well actually that’s not true. I am surprised.
Why weren’t they paying people 13k yuan to take the female babies off their hands?
-wolfe
September 11th, 2006 at 6:03 am - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
And as for the proof that women hate babies, please google ‘Postpartum depression’
September 11th, 2006 at 7:48 am - IP Man-Hash: d8f419652ad49
That’s too much, wolfe — as in, that’s hilarious. Did they manage to successfully sell any?
-Dick
September 11th, 2006 at 10:56 am - IP Man-Hash: 0aba117cbb907
What it is is sad actually. The only responsiblity that you are required to have and women try to sell it.
-Strength and Honor-
September 11th, 2006 at 11:24 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
I find child trafficking a repugnant trade. At least the kids are probably better off away from parents that have them for cash. Unless, of course, it’s organ harvesting they’re bought for. Not unheard of.
Disgusting.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:21 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
[quote]Did they manage to successfully sell any?[/quote]
@ Dick Well, since the police forces were run by men, probably not. But yeah, sick isn’t it.
@abaddon Incredibly sad, but see below.
@sony I mostly agree. I have one area of possible difference. What do you think about surrogate motherhood, provided that the egg doesn’t come from the woman bearing the child? (If you’re the Catholic Church, you’re horrified). My view is that it’s a fair exchange, and that it’s not ‘child trafficking’ but paying a woman for one of the very few things she has an absolute advantage over men in.
If it gives a couple that could otherwise not be able to reproduce — even a gay couple — I don’t see that as an altogether bad thing.
-wolfe
September 12th, 2006 at 2:26 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Woa. For the record, I also consider slave, as in sex or other, trafficking disgusting. Unfortunately, informed (or partly) consent of affected party sometimes plays part somewhere along the line before any change of heart occurs.
As such either deal with the consequences or call on police intervention to end sequestration / deprivation of liberty accepting the cost of exchanging the pimp’s flat for jail internment if that should be the case with local legislation. Either that or claim kidnapping as well.
Needless to say police need to continuously wage war on those who push prostitution and any form of slavery upon persons bereft of their consent. The law needs to be particularly harsh with such people. I am for liberalisation of prostitution as contractual ‘labour’ provided all necessary medical prevention and security provisions at place of ‘work’ exist as stipulated by contract and mandated by law. That said, I hardly view fucking for money all day long as “earning thy bread by the sweat of thy brow” or particularly morally redeeming.
I do prefer reading and interpreting the Bible myself or in competent discussion involving a cousin of mine who is also a pastor with the 7th Day Adventist Church.
I do not draw my set of morals from the Bible exactly. They happen to coincide, for the most part. Suffices to say I’ve yet to encounter a moral predicament that my views on don’t correspond with the code of moral conduct espoused within the NT by way of being harsher than.
There are also moral predicaments the Bible doesn’t specifically advise upon but that can be adequately dealt with by way of competently extrapolating the fundamental guiding principles of Christianity for such situations. One should primarily do this by one’s self, not look to the pope’s gums for wisdom.
On to surrogate motherhood. This is one of the things I, at least, can only really be sure of my moral stance/outrage on only if/when it will actually happens to me. Sort of.
One thing I am totally against is same sex couples, in any shape, gender or form. Not their love per se, don’t get me wrong. Any legal and/or religious acceptance or acknowledgement of such a union, whatsoever, though. And neither of the legal/moral trappings that would go with religious acceptance or acknowledgement.
Implied and obvious I also frown upon same sex both adopting and resorting to either in vitro fertilisation or surrogate mother.
A mother that bears a child should have the right to keep the child if she so desires and has not foregone her respective responsabilites afferent with motherhood.
Any and all formal agreements to the end of hiring a surrogate mother are both immoral and medically unethical, in my view, and should necessarily be outlawed as well.
I see nothing indignant if all parties involved should choose to formally agree on adoption subsequent birth but the law must not condone nor tacitly accept or recognize as lawful business or contractual agreements the dealings in human beings. In no shape or form. As such the law must punish both the mother (not draconically, mind you) that chooses to mother for hire informally for committing willingful child abandonment with mitigating circumstances as well as the adopters as child kidnappers with mitigating circumstances.
Punishments should be appropriate, not exceedingly harsh, it’s not like these people are organ harvesting from children with the mother’s consent or such.
The serving as surrogate mother must be legally formalised, consensual and free of any and all afferent fees or charges stipulated within the contract/legal agreement.
I see nothing to be morally outraged about on serving as egg donor, whether in exchange for monetary/other form of remuneration or not or legally formalising such. And neither do the Bible or its fundamental principles, to the best of my knowledge.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:24 am - IP Man-Hash: a6d7c26eb9d5f
Sheesh….honesty from a women doc (Neuro-psychiatrist) about how fucked up women can really mutate towards. I doubt that she will be invited, anytime the rest of her life, to be on Oprah so speak about chemically (ie hormone) unbalanced women can be.
Then again, Men have known this aspect since the begining of time……
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13989048/site/newsweek/
Women and hormones has long been a marital minefield and the subject of innumerable off-color jokes, but Brizendine has made it her medical specialty. For 20 years, first as a medical student at Yale, then as a faculty member at Harvard Medical School, then as director of the Women’s Mood and Hormone Clinic at UCSF, she’s been developing what she describes as a female-centered strain of psychiatry focusing on the complex interplay between women’s mental health, hard-wiring and brain chemistry. Now her first book, “The Female Brain,” which she describes as a kind of owner’s manual for women, is due in bookstores next month. Brizendine realizes she’s going to take some heat. “I know it’s not politically correct to say this,” she says, “and I’ve been torn for years between my politics and what science is telling us. But I believe that women actually perceive the world differently than men. If women attend to those differences, they can make better decisions about how to manage their lives.”
To write the book, Brizendine melded her rich clinical experience with thousands of research studies other neuroscientists have conducted over the past 10 years. Her conclusions will seem like common sense to some and nothing short of heresy to others: she not only discusses the biological reasons girls gravitate to dolls instead of trucks but tracks the hormonal imperatives at play when a teenage female becomes obsessed with text messaging and shopping. She describes the neurological reasons why women think about sex less than men but, in their drive to produce genetically superior babies, may be having more extramarital affairs than their frustrated husbands might imagine. She also explains how changing brain chemistry can prompt a postmenopausal woman to forgo marriage counseling and dial up a divorce lawyer instead………………………………
September 12th, 2006 at 9:36 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
@Sony: Great response. Sorry I triggered that much (and we’re misdirecting the thread if we talk about it too much).
I agree with most, though not all (surprise!) of what you say. I don’t agree with your analysis of surrogate motherhood; I do profoundly respect it, but I don’t think we can persuade each other otherwise.
You think law by negation is a significant part of the answer. (”both immoral and medically unethical, in my view, and should necessarily be outlawed as well”). I don’t, in that particular narrow context.
BTW, I did not mean to imply you followed the Catholic Church or the Pope — I was intending to simply note their views. The “you” in that case was meant for all readers of the post.
@spcwby
“a kind of owner’s manual for women”
Mankind has needed that for about a million years.
-wolfe
September 12th, 2006 at 12:47 pm - IP Man-Hash: 27462ccc1ab5e
Your mother is a perfect example on the truth of this article looking at how you turned out.
September 12th, 2006 at 12:54 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Brilliant. You should go fuck yourself as first prize for politely exhibiting proof of your intelligence and proper upbringing.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:26 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5950bb08d3016
I agree, I don’t think homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt and raise children. They forfeited their biological right to procreate and raise children by choosing the path that they did.
I am not condemning their choices, they are free to do whatever it is they please, I just want them to stop trying to FORCE their beliefs on myself and all the others that are non-biologicaly deviant.
There is no homosexuality gene, it doesn’t exist. If it did, natural selection would have made it die out long ago since these people couldn’t reproduce to pass that gene on, this is nonsense.
Then there is the argument about those people hiding it from society and it passing on. Let me tell you this, thousands of years ago there was NO society. Hence the gene would have died off then, back then people did as they pleased.
Lesbians homosexuals and feminists keep trying to push their nazi marxist beliefs onto us.
Nowhere in school is it taught about homosexuals and heterosexuals at an early age. Why does the gay mafia try to impose our governments and schools to teach “tolerance” to us?
We don’t round up all the gay people and try to teach them tolerance, they don’t care about the foundations of our churches and beliefs.
We don’t have hetero pride rallies.
The big problem with feminists and the GLBT movement is that they flaunt themselves out as deviants in front of everyone and then demand equality.
Look people I don’t flaunt my heterosexuality in front of you. You want to be treated equally then act respectably towards others. And treat others with respect.
I lose about 10 notches of respect towards someone that flaunts their “sexual orientation” towars me.
Likewise I don’t think single mothers should also be allowed to have IVF.
Sperm donations and IVF should be prioritized towards those couples that want to have a loving family and just can’t anymore because of a problem with one of the two, they are trying, it is physically possible but they can’t get the wife pregnant.
With lesbian couples, if both were perfectly healthy they phsycially CAN’T have a baby without outside help, same for homosexual couples.
Thus they should not.
It would be like me requesting leg extensions so that I could play basketball in the NBA.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:48 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Lukasz, one question please. What if it’s a recessive gene or, more likely, group thereof? If it is, for argument’s sake, genetically caused then a single gene can’t possibly be the lone culprit as it would result in a much higher rate of gayness, for lack of a better word for both lesbianism and homosexuality, in the human population.
I venture say, IF, it is genetically caused, there need to be more than one recessive genes paired with another recessive gene to yield gayness.
I think a study on the sexual dimorphism of gayness, more precisely whether one or another of the genders is more likely to be sexually attracted to people of the same sex.
Please don’t flame me if I’m wrong. I’m only speculating educated guesses off of my meagre education in the field.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:06 pm - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
Am I a bad person because deep down inside I think Lukaz is correct?
September 12th, 2006 at 3:15 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
You’re the Lord of the fly. Damned straight.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:07 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0988fbdb66be8
Raising well-rounded kids is hard enough in this day and age without having added insult to injury by deliberately inflicting offspring with the social-stigma of their having been raised in an unconventional homosexual family setting.
This isn’t to say that these people would be atrocious parents, not at all, it’s just that society at large dictates how well received specific groups are and a sense of belonging is important for a child’s social and emotional well being.
Is it sensible to raise a child under these circumstance, in a society which still smacks with homophobic under-tones? Is it fair to knowingly inflict a child with this sort of stigma prior to their having even been born, in light of how most heterosexuals feel about homosexual procreation on the whole today? And would you allow your healthy 12 year old boy attend a sleep-over at a homosexual household whereby you knew both parents were gay?
If you knew them well, very well you MIGHT,(personally I wouldn’t be comfortable with it) but would you not inadvertently discriminate against this family and prefer your child slept at a normal nuclear heterosexual household ?And would you go so far as to discourage a friendship so as to avoid your having been confronted with such an awkward dilemma in the first place?
‘My dad says I cant play with you anymore Jimmy because your parents are fagots,sorry’
‘Hey Jimmy, do your dads f-ck you like they do each other ha,ha,ha,’
‘Hey jimmy, which mum will you be bringing to show and tell’
‘Sorry, I’m not allowed to stay over at your house Jimmy,my dad says your dads are queer ass’
Is this fair? Fair on the child?
There are plenty of intolerant red-necks about, and sooner or later your child will be confronted with this in manner no child should ever have to bare at such a delicate age. There are just some things kids can do without I’m afraid, after all, we have kids for what purpose? for what they can give to us, or for what we can give to them? This isn’t giving,this is taking, is utterly selfish@@
Not having the coolest sneakers , the best games or both parents living together is one thing, but having gay parents is an entirely different story,one your child should never have to read before going to school when the worst they should ever have to contend with is being ridiculed for wearing a new pair of braces or glasses,or both:-)
This is one of the many obstacles a child raised in a homosexual household is likely to face, and unless your intention is to raise this child in gaytopia, some sort of gay-friendly commune whereby there is an abundance of tolerant people around you always, then what other than distress and social alienation can you ever hope to achieve for your self-inflicted minority child in an already cynical, often prejudice and opinionated predominantly heterosexual society?
September 12th, 2006 at 11:28 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
MelC. Hi. I actually know gay couples with children. Their children are friendly, social and very well adjusted. What you imagine is not necessarily how things occur in reality. And they don’t live in Gaytopia, which is just down the road from me. They live near you.
September 12th, 2006 at 11:43 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0988fbdb66be8
With reference to woman shouldn’t be allowed to raise children alone….so when the father or mother runs off should this child be made a ward of the state?
Some men willingly leave their family’s, not all, or even most, as do some woman,in which case what do you suggest we do with their offspring?
When a child has already lost one parent, should they be forced to loose another?
Most men and woman I know love their children dearly~
September 12th, 2006 at 11:51 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0988fbdb66be8
I’m just being realistic Female, life’s tough enough being a kid these days without having further complicated things. I have gay friends too, however they choose not to inflict progeny with their believed affliction, and reckon it was hard enough for them coming out and contending with let alone forcing a child to endure it.
Each to their own, and this applies to single men and woman who wish to selfishly defy the laws of procreation also. Kids need both parents, a mother and a father. Adam and Steve, I think not!!
September 12th, 2006 at 11:53 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5f25557f12b69
If by “willingly” you mean “nagged to death” then that’s partially true.
-Dick
September 12th, 2006 at 11:55 pm - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
Each to their own, yes. I think kids just need love. Buckets of it.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:00 am - IP Man-Hash: 0988fbdb66be8
What about the ones who die, or go to prison etc? It’s 50/50, marriages break down, it’s a fact of life, (sumfin in the wedding cake I reckon) for whatever reason. Some things are beyond either the mothers or fathers control, some men and woman just aren’t cut out to be parents, doesn’t mean it’s their fault, just means they either cant or don’t wish to assume their role.
In this case, what do you suggest?
September 13th, 2006 at 12:00 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Bottom line? Women are selfish. That old hag spawned at 66. Unnaturally of course. Lives alone, evidently.
Having IVF with one foot in the grave, how’s that for ensuring misery and ostracisation for a child(a girl)? Wait, it gets better. Women are very hysterically supportive of the old witch. Just stop one the street and ask.
That’s gonna be one warped little kid. Oh, wait. It’s a girl. I take that back, she’ll be perfectly normal, well developed both physically and mentally.
God save us and deliver us from the sanity of women.
Female, what you doing here? Strayed while foraging for bamboo again?
September 13th, 2006 at 12:09 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Here, have a look. Closer.
The corpse walking with the kid.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:10 am - IP Man-Hash: 0988fbdb66be8
I thing the old bags a selfish disgrace, and that our absolutely right. She’ll be lucky to whiteness it’s 21 birthday, is she grappling onto her begotten youth or what?
No excuses!!!
Having a baby at this age is medically unsafe and stupid, never would I support this gross demonstration of utter selfishness from either gender~
And female, in this day and age, kids need a lot more than love to get them through!!!!!! Your friends kids aren’t out of the woods yet, have you seen any stats re- how well these kids fair btw?
September 13th, 2006 at 12:14 am - IP Man-Hash: 5475964f1d333
I’m not sure what you are asking me. My comments were with respect to gay couples having children. You said you didn’t agree. I disagreed based on personal observation that children of gay couples can be raised perfectly well. Yes, they may be judged by other people but then tell me who is able to get away without being judged by anyone? I probably get judged 50 times a day simply based on the knee high boots I like to wear to work. Big deal.
Yes, children of gay parents may come up against more barriers to social inclusion, but although that may become a problem for them, it is ultimately a problem for the person who judges them. It will at least do their gay parents a big favour by informing them relatively quickly which other children in the playground have prejudiced, narrow minded parents.
September 13th, 2006 at 12:37 am - IP Man-Hash: 5f25557f12b69
Female is wrong again. What a surprise. She’s so wrong another woman can spot it!
-Dick
September 13th, 2006 at 12:59 am - IP Man-Hash: 3a498d129346c
Well as per my observation, kids with average heterosexual parents can grow up to be bullied and rejected by society. Such children can be the most ill-adjusted, screwed up and mentally dwarfed children without the ’stigma’ of homosexuality.
In my view it depends on the style of parenting not necessarily on the sexuality of the parents or social stigma.
September 13th, 2006 at 3:11 am - IP Man-Hash: 8df4b9656c70a
I agree.
MelC. I’m not sure if you’ve quietened down because you’ve hit your daily suggested quota or whether I was overly assertive towards you.
You sound like an alright person and I’m not trying to judge or flame you (though I’d like it if you didn’t use so many emoticons).
The way I see it is like this. Yes, children of gay parents will be more likely to be judged/teased/ostracized, however, as long as the child’s parents give more than enough support and love and teach the child that there is nothing wrong with their own family, but there is something wrong with the family of the child who is doing the bullying, then the bullied child may be able to overcome the bullying and perhaps teach the bullies a thing or two. And when I say something is wrong with the bully’s family, of course, I don’t mean the structure of the family. I mean the people who compose it.
Difference exists, it always has and always will and people who cannot accept it are simply scared of it. I don’t believe that attempting to sanction or remove it would actually work. The only thing that could possibly be changed is people’s attitudes towards difference, which can only be achieved through confrontation. Doesn’t have to be bad confrontation…exposure might be a better word.
Horror. That’s a difference that simply isn’t right. Or perhaps DM believes I am wrong in this opinion as well.
September 13th, 2006 at 4:58 am - IP Man-Hash: 1a4ed84419c7b
Holy fuck did this turn into girl talk or something?
come on dick your losing man pooints for letting these feminists speak too much on your site, I thought this was mabtw.com and not bitchtalk.com.
yours truelly
Intolerant Redneck.
September 13th, 2006 at 7:35 am - IP Man-Hash: 5950bb08d3016
If you read my post clearly, you would see that I said a single mother should not get IVF treatment.
She is intentionally sabotaging her child’s welfare
OBVIOUSLY in cases when the father leaves, gets killed or such there is no other choice.
Why do you feminists bring up silly scenarios to move the argument away from what I am saying.
Stick to the point here, IVF treatment
September 13th, 2006 at 7:40 am - IP Man-Hash: 5950bb08d3016
Also homosexuals are 6x more likely to be child molesters than heterosexuals.
Thus if I found out my children wanted to go to a sleepover to some boys’ house whose parents are gay, I would not let him go and I would explain biology and sexual deviants to him if I had not already done so.
Any god parent would be hesitant of letting their kids do something that VASTLY increase their chances of being raped, molested or killed. Obviously you can’t shelter your children from everything, but why make them go through unnecessary risks.
I mean I wouldn’t arm my child and send them to IRAQ, so why would I put them into a situation where their chance of being molested is MUCH higher than at a heterosexual household.
Sure it can happen there too, but 6 times less likely.
September 13th, 2006 at 7:47 am - IP Man-Hash: 5950bb08d3016
And as far as the recessive trait thing goes, it would eventually be pulled out of society for the same reason.
Just as Geneticists are predicting the blonde hair gene will disappear in a short few generations, it is ALSO recessive. And unlike the homosexual gene has no bearing on survival and does not realy hinder it’s own passage.
Genetically speaking there are no biological advantages to having multiple homosexual genes linked in some strange fashion.
There are many genes that humans have lost along the way. One of them is a tail. Most primates have a large tail, the information for that is lost in humans, we no longer have tails. Tails were a deteriment if you don’t live in trees since if you ever played football with a baggy shirt you would know your predators could easily cathc you from behind on the ground.
If there is a homosexuality gene, please submit the sequence to GENBANK at http://www.pubmed.com
Then I will be happy to discuss it with you. I myself have submitted several genes to GenBANK and the RCSB protein database and am very familiar with the process.
September 13th, 2006 at 1:55 pm - IP Man-Hash: 8df4b9656c70a
ROFL
Got a reference for your 6x greater chance of being molested by a homosexual theory?
September 13th, 2006 at 3:12 pm - IP Man-Hash: 8df4b9656c70a
No, I havent seen any stats. Whether they exist or not, I dont know. Do you? According to this link, it is estimated there are between 1 - 10 mil children living in same sex families in the US, so it is possible that studies are being done on future outcomes.
http://aapnews.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/e2006217v1
These studies would be good to see but of course even if the children are perceived as growing to adulthood and having a less favourable outcome than children in same sex couples, you would have to consider how public policy influences the financial picture of in each and what kind of neg or pos. effect different laws for each have. I dont believe you could do an adequate study on how sexual orientation in family affects children and their later outcomes until laws and public policy are first standardised towards all families because economics have a huge influence, like it or not.
September 13th, 2006 at 10:15 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
This is a profoundly silly argument. You control for those things, and you examine statistical correlations in large datasets.
It’s almost as bad as saying you couldn’t correlate GRID to homosexuality back in the early ’80’s because sodomy was illegal in parts of the country, and there wasn’t a standardisation of public policy between (say) promiscuous homosexual practice and (say) monogamous heterosexual practice.
-wolfe
September 14th, 2006 at 12:20 am - IP Man-Hash: 8df4b9656c70a
But what I meant was that economic factors affect families and laws/public policy affect financial matters that then impact on families. For instance, family payments/child support/any form that asks you if and how many dependents you have, etc.
September 14th, 2006 at 2:58 am - IP Man-Hash: 208755049a374
Hi guys, I’m back with another question….
If you read my post clearly, you would see that I said a single mother should not get IVF treatment.
She is intentionally sabotaging her child’s welfare
OBVIOUSLY in cases when the father leaves, gets killed or such there is no other choice.
Why do you feminists bring up silly scenarios to move the argument away from what I am saying.
Stick to the point here, IVF treatment
No, I was actually referring to someone else’s commentary which more or less implied woman shouldn’t be allowed nor are capable of raising children alone without a father present. Actually, the title of the threads article was indeed “Woman hate children” not “should gay people be allowed to procreate.” who’s off-topic? Someone asked the question, “What are all these femmos doing here?”, (I’m not a feminist ) ….. well when you make such barbaric statements as these, what did you expect? You expected woman to respond abusively did you not? Which in turn would hopefully validate your perceived point, and demonstrate them for the nasty abusive child loathing things they are. If this is how the majority of woman are and behave then why the need to set a trap? …. Now obviously where necessity dictates some situations are unavoidable, though just wanted to point out that both men and woman alike are capable of doing a fine job with raising their kids alone, and that in the majority of cases their circumstances shouldn’t be held against them and used to denigrate their role particularly when they need all the encouragement they can get. I have a friend who is currently living with her ex, (been separated for many years though ) and wont ask him to leave because she feels this enormous pressure to keep the family together, and guilt at the prospect of her depriving her children of a dad, and him of his children. Now, she has made a pact with herself to keep this arrangement in place until her youngest is at least 16 years old, however there are many many, many out there who think she is unnecessarily depriving herself and is doing the wrong thing allowing him to stay. I guess what I’m saying is, not too many people deliberately set out to achieve family dysfunction, it’s a sad thing for either sex when this occurs, and is not something one normally sets out to achieve on purpose, except in situations whereby singles and gays deliberately set out to go against the grain and achieve familial dysfunction of course. Raising kids in a household with two same sexed parents is dysfunctional, FULL STOP. It’s neither functional nor desirable and has been statistically documented my numerous family organizations world wide that these family’s are far more likely to endure poverty, neglect and abuse compared to those raised in a more traditional, and more socially in-tune hetero- household. Now whilst single parents don’t normally set out to achieve familial break-down and dysfunction, well in most cases anyway, these either selfish or ignorant same sex wanna-be family’s differ in that they deliberately set out to achieve what is by most peoples standards considered to be an undesirable and socially unacceptable basis in which to raise a family. In other words one cant compare the dysfunction nor feasibility of a single parent household to those who are homosexual and whom willingly set out to create their dysfunctional environment , knowing full well their children are more likely to suffer as a result of their premeditated and deliberate actions. Single parenting is far from a desirable arrangement, who would argue this? Not even they would as most wish they weren’t in their often difficult predicament, wish things had have been different, femo-Nazis aside of course!!! However gay parents who deliberately set out to procreate don’t see their predicament to be in anyway dysfunctional or undesirable, rather are of this impression that they are capable of giving their offspring everything a normal heterosexual family has to offer, don’t believe they need to conform to socially accepted norms and or conform to societal expectation. Rather believe they are special, illuminated even, and simply don’t have to conform, even at the sufferance of their children who they know will be forced to endure the ridicule and shame they themselves did . Now, you might say, well, hetero kids can come from dysfunctional family’s, they get bullied, they have issues too, but your missing the part where A: In most cases, heterosexuals go into it with the best intentions, are doing what they are biologically programmed to do and what is socially acceptable in accordance with our society B: People abuse their kids every day , and fuck up and make bad decisions, does this mean you can too?
Children aren’t toys!!!
Deliberately setting out to create an undesirable/dysfunctional family setting is in my book a form of neglect, in that you are in violation of your most primary role as a parent, of which is to do your very best to ensure they receive the best possible start in life, not create hurdles for them before they have even learned how to walk.
Sure, shit happens, but you don’t set out to make it happen just cos someone else does?
September 14th, 2006 at 3:21 am - IP Man-Hash: fb5d035aeda6c
If you want a fashion accessory, go buy a fag-bag or a fluffy small animal. This is a human life thats at stake here, not something to fill your biological void with!!
You were never meant to produce, THATS A FACT, and until the human species develops the capacity to do so unaffiliated with the same sex, then you should refrain!!
September 14th, 2006 at 3:33 am - IP Man-Hash: 356b2e2244d02
Wall of text? No thanks!
par‧a‧graph
Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[par-uh-graf, -grahf]
–noun 1. a distinct portion of written or printed matter dealing with a particular idea, usually beginning with an indentation on a new line.
2. a paragraph mark.
3. a note, item, or brief article, as in a newspaper.
–verb (used with object) 4. to divide into paragraphs.
5. to write or publish paragraphs about, as in a newspaper.
6. to express in a paragraph.