The Wall Survives Intact

Shiva the Detroyed Feminist locates a crumb of feminist hope amid a sea of feminism-crushing scientific studies and reality-assaulting dissonance:

I think this will win comment of next week:

This just blew open the “wall” theory. [ed: she wishes.]

sure, women may not be at the prime of their beauty in the future but they’ll still be in prime fertility at , say, 45.

Wow.

[ed: just wow.]

The schooling shall commence…

The wall is a function of women’s looks, which are, evolutionarily-speaking, a proxy for women’s fertility. Ovary transplant tech may extend fertility but it won’t do a damn thing for aging women’s declining looks. Men’s eyes don’t see women’s ovaries, they see women’s bodies and faces. Men are wired to respond sexually and emotionally to youthful female looks, not to a hidden working uterus. A 70 year old woman could be rejiggered to bear children thanks to the intervention of science, but she’ll still look 70 years old, and so men won’t be turned on by her. She will suffer the indignities of wall victimhood, having to settle for conceiving children with a turkey baster or a blind old goat who gets around on tennis balls. Tragically for feminists nursing delusions of sustained desirability, in the gene-governed sexual market where visual cues are men’s primary information medium it’s the proxies that matter, not the actual biowiring underneath.

There’s really no point to explaining the facts of life to feminists and other assorted grievance groups with real reasons to fear and loathe the truth — beyond its entertainment value as a button-pusher — because in three weeks’ time the same lot of them wander back into this happy hunting ground babbling the identical, debunked bromides all over again. Logic and reason hurt their wee egos for a brief spell, and then when enough time has passed for their self-medicated ids to baseline to normal and reconcile their cognitive dissonances, (say, ten minutes), they are right back to chanting pretty lies, sticking their fingers in their ears, and stamping their ascii feet. Never underestimate the lengths to which humans will lie to themselves and, consequently, to others to maintain an illusion of high sexual or social market value in the face of rapid deterioration or expendability.

If I had to put a number on it, I’d guess 80% of the human population is aggressively self-deceiving, with the number reaching close to 100% in backward societies and within certain ideological sects. With those numbers arrayed against you, it’s fruitless to battle for hearts and minds. The best you can do is mercilessly mock their pretensions to high holy hell, preferably in front of an audience, until some tiny illumination of self-preservation sparks in their limbic chimp systems and they sulk off to lick their ego wounds rather than face the psychic torture of further debasement on a public stage. Even the most blockheaded deluded dumbass will think twice about shrieking his or her stupidities when Total Ridicule is the only reward.





Comments


  1. “limbic chimp systems” LCS LTD….When they get to replacing our limbic systems, that’s going to be the name of the company that does it.

    Like


  2. on July 6, 2012 at 4:54 pm Days of Broken Arrows

    sure, women may not be at the prime of their beauty in the future but they’ll still be in prime fertility at , say, 45.

    I’m going to repeat what I wrote when this was first posted, because I think it’s important.

    This will make dating prospects much worse for single, older women. The biggest benefits of women in the 40-plus age group are 1). It’s near-impossible to get them pregnant, therefore 2). Parenting is not on the horizon for either of you.

    Take that away and why in THE HELL would any sane man not go for a women ten or even twenty years younger? This goes beyond self-deception into the realm of self-destructive denial of reality. When you want to remove the one main incentive men have for dating you, I’d say you have some issues.

    Hell, this might even lead to divorces for men who don’t want to suddenly become parents to babies at 45. My parents were 41 and 42 when I LEFT for college.

    Like


    • But over time men’s tastes will change since the the offspring will benefit from older moms who are more experienced, immobile, senile and dead.

      Like


  3. fresh healthy eggs don’t mean shit if the incubator’s busted.

    Like


    • No kidding. How is this any different from in vitro fertilization?

      Like


    • What if you can rent incubators? Like incubators from India that will live in a special incubator retreat facility where they are fed healthy food and monitored by doctors? (Maybe men can start having their own designer babies by purchasing eggs and incubators!)

      Like


    • No effing kidding. As if the only pieces of tissue in a woman’s body that is required to bring approximately optimally healthy kids into this world are her ovaries. It used to be economics that was the science most obviously rendered ridiculous by progressive indoctrination’s death march towards focusing on one, or a few, obviously incomplete metrics that has some feelgood characteristic, and scream as loudly as possible about them; but with the petty baby booomer feminists aging into irrelevance, I guess it’s biology’s turn…

      Studies so far have been done ‘sucessfully’ on cancer patients. Where the rest of the body has not aged past relevance; just the ovaries. Sticking fresh frozen ovaries into a corpse is exactly how similar to that?

      And career? For most women? As in, like, wasting away once prime years sitting in a cubicle doing mindless nothing; hoping that some asshole from sales will dump a bang in her so she can yakk about it to her equally barren and useless ‘friends’? Great. Ain’t you ladies lucky. Now they get to spend a few more years in their cubicles, getting flabbier, grosser, more tired, less wanted, shriller and pathethic. Not to mention infinitely more destitute, as none of this is ever going to be the cheap road to getting pregnant.
      What bloody waste.

      The fact that it works at all is great, though. A nice piece of medicine, and anything that brings another healthy kid to life in the Weste But this really ought t be reported as what it is, an advance in cancer treatment, not in some sort of fertility window extending wonderdrug for spinsters.

      Like


    • I worked with a maternity ward for three years. In that three year span, I worked with 4 doctors, 2 nurse-midwives, a dozen regular nurses and another dozen experienced technicians (this was in the military, we had a lot of turnover due to deployments.) The one thing that they all “knew” re: successful childbearing was this- the younger the age of first live birth/the more regular the series of births, the easier it was for a woman to conceive. Period.

      As my favorite midwife said, “These women don’t get it”(referring to the mid-30’s military wives trying pills and shots to become first time mommies.)”The female reproductive system is all muscle. These girls spend their 20’s-30’s giving their pussies as good a workout as possible, then come complaining to us when they’re ‘ready’ to be mothers. They look at these 40+ year old women in our office with kids and ignore that a lot of them have been having kids at a three year clip since they could drink legally. When your womb is getting a workout, it stays strong. You go 20 years without having kids, your brain thinks that it doesn’t need to take care of ‘it’ and starts to break the walls down. Then their dumb assess want us to take $20,000 out of our budget to help them, as if a war isn’t going on…”

      Irony being what it is, I heard this from a woman. A woman who had two daughters and three sons prior to receiving her commission, then received an ablation for free from the government. Went to school and became a nurse between kids, became a midwife on the government dime, could outlift/outpress/outrun women who were half her age. If it wasn’t for people like her, I’d still believe in feminism.

      Like


  4. The only hope of feminists is an eternal youth potion. And even then, I’m not gonna be mad, I’ll just complain that there’s too much pussy for me to handle.
    Until then, I’ll laugh at sex and the city wannabees who wonder where have all the good men gone.

    Like


  5. holy fuck. doctors clearly don’t understand there is fallout from constantly tampering with nature. We used to adapt to the environment and became a more intelligent and physically capable species. We are now tampering witht the environment with wheelchairs and magic talk boxes and other technological wonders to perpetuate the existence of those that nature deemed unfit for for reproduction. Our planet is falling apart because we can’t afford to guarantee the the rights of too many useless fucked up people that continue to be strung along by technology and vast expenditures of public funds for tards, the autistic, the excessively obese. And now this. THIS is over the fucking line. THIS is the destruction of the state of nature. This is playing god and it is not acceptable.

    Like


    • True words.
      But good luck convincing the bleeding heart “humanists”. These fuckers would rather watch the species die a slow death rather than acknowledging the inherent cruelty and injustice of human life.
      r-selected manboobed pussy fucks.

      Like


      • To a large extent, pretty much everything we modern humans use involves tampering with the natural order or environment to some extent. Wheelchairs, “magic” talk boxes, blood transfusions, crutches, prosthetic limbs are all medical examples. But there’s other tampering we do too that keeps us alive past the timeline that cruel nature would ordinarily allow. Building of shelters, domestication of animals, modification of crops, mass distribution of water and power. All of it could be considered tampering with nature, the environment, or playing God. And all of it is keeping people alive that otherwise would not be if we decided to allow the “state of nature” to dominate. In all probability, this includes the both of you.

        What you’re (at least partially) arguing against, whether realize it or not, is human technological achievement, the thing that separates us from the animals and makes us the dominant species on the planet. Think that’s an argument you’re going to win? Do you really think our species is going to stop doing whatever it can to fight back against the natural order in pursuit of easier and better lives?

        The real question with technological advancements is not whether we should advance (because it’s inevitable) but how those advancements should be used. Its at THIS point when the discussion could be termed as left vs right or r selected vs K selected. Should we spend vast amount of public funds helping those who are unwilling or unable to help themselves? Should we try and provide equal outcomes for these people, in order to be fair? Should women who have let their period of natural fertility lapse be given a second chance. Should these technological advances be paid for out of the public purse or should they only be available to those who can afford them?

        Like


      • Your point is already baked in our cake and the answers to all your questions are a loud and clear NO, simply because K-selected right-wing types don’t believe in singularity.
        Humans cannot escape their biological programming and limitations, and until proven otherwise, any attempt to help the weaklings (and worse than that: weaken the strong) because of a misguided kin selection instinct is a recipe for disaster.

        Like


      • My point was that tampering with nature and striving against the natural order is necessary and beneficial for the human race to thrive (and perhaps to survive). Anonymous was taking the opposite position, that we should not tamper with the environment and that we should accept the natural order, and “nature” as the final arbiter in all matters associated with the wellbeing of our species. He seemed to be citing failures to do so as the cause of welfareism in our society. And you agreed with this thesis, without any qualification. So no, my point was not “baked in your cake”. My point was baked in another cake. Sold from another bakery, in another city, on another continent.

        Yes we do have problems in our society, with an over abundance of r selected types and far too much welfare. But our propensity to selectively alter our environment or go against the natural order is not the cause of this. The problem comes when society at large has to provide the resources to provide these advances to those who cannot offer equivalent or greater value to society than what they cost. It’s an issue of ideaology rather than technology.

        Like


      • No, we are making different points. Our society has too many parasites, that’s a given, but claiming that this is due to our propensity to strive against the natural order, which is what Anonymous was saying and what you agreed with, is ridiculous. Medical advances have been able to extend the useful life of many people who are actually useful, as well as those of the useless. It’s a double edged sword, able to provide positive or negative benefit to society depending on how it is used. If it is being used in a manner that’s a net negative to society, then that’s a matter of ideology, not technology.

        And humans can escape their biological programming limitations. We can do many things that nature never intended, such as go deep under the oceans, fly through the air, walk on the moon, etc. Is that wrong? Should we have bowed to the wisdom of “nature” on those issues?

        Like


    • Your state of nature is an illusion.

      What is the primary biological imperative? To reproduce.

      Is the sum of progress harmful or beneficial? It depends. Are you strictly supportive of our natures, or are you more than an animal with higher values? Progress does destroy the values of our past, but it also frees us of much evolutionary baggage. The future is uncertain and but with sustaining so many human lives it is only a matter of time before we are able to progress to the point of perpetuation.

      What of value do you contribute? Do you live a good life? Do you think that the majority of people neither contribute nor live good lives?

      Nothing matters and nothing is real. All that you value is a construction. So enjoy your life, contribute something of value, or kill yourself. If you cannot play the game as the state of it changes, then forever eject yourself from it.

      >This is playing god and it is not acceptable.

      Belief in the supernatural is for women.

      Like


      • This “live your life, don’t care about what others do, enjoy freedom” reeks leftist retardation.

        Like


      • Wrong, Anon. He’s describing classical liberalism, with an implied tinge of hedonism.

        Like


      • Nothing matters and nothing is real. All that you value is a construction.

        Whoa. Like, deep, dude. And a bummer. You like totally harshed my buzz.

        What is the primary biological imperative? To reproduce.

        Whew. At least that’s real. Hang on a second … Now I’m all cornfused.

        Fucking untutored regurgitating nihilists.

        Like


      • on July 9, 2012 at 2:28 am Mr. Pointyface

        Whoa. Sarcasm from a delusional deist. Irritated with the nihilists? Trying looking in the mirror as a medieval throwback who is really sure of his Invisible Friend.

        Like


      • Strive for one post without the devastating rejoinder “Invisible Friend.” You might realize how non-responsive and delusional you are.

        If my faith is delusional, at least I have the advantage of recognizing and isolating that weakness and understanding precisely how it affects my thinking. You, on the other hand, reflexively vomit up undigested versions of sub-Dawkinsian cartoon-nihilism whenever your mind accidentally alights on the metaphysical. Self-awareness. Look into it.

        Matt

        Like


    • If people want to cut up their bodies and defy nature with their liposuctions, fake tits, new ovaries, tummy tucks, plastic surgery, IVF, designer vaginas, etc., etc., they should use their own damn money (and should also be discouraged). But when it’s funded by perfect strangers’ hard-earned money – in full or in part – it’s an absolute disgrace.

      Like


  6. in 10 years sandra fluke will speak before congress about how medical insurance should cover the cost of ovary transplants.

    Like


    • on July 8, 2012 at 9:43 pm Rick Derris

      Gold star for you!

      That woman was such an obnoxious, condescending and cheap bitch. Tell her alpha fucks to pay for the damn pill, not the taxpayer.

      Like


  7. I was in the store the other day, this was after work, grabbing a few things. A nice good looking chick is in there doing her thing. Late 30’s, maybe early 40’s. I am a late 40’s guy so I look. 5’1, a nice looking body, appeared tight, A cup breasts, a nice round ass. Looked good. I am leaving the store and up cruises a young one on her beach cruiser bike. I am in SoCal near the beach. She was 19, maybe very early 20’s. Blond hair, and you know those tits are firm and point up high. Her face nothing special, but fuck THERE was no fucking comparison. Young, nubile, sexual energy galore. This really brought it all home for me, i.e the wall, youth, female aging, it was a very good illustration.

    Like


  8. I think you missed the point here.
    Women are not rejoycing themselves because they believe they will stay in the “fuck game”.
    They are joyous because they will be able to reproduce – even as single moms, if needed be.

    [heartiste: that’s not why the feminist cunt in the post was rejoicing.]

    In a personal level, being an unfuckable-old-lady with a child is better than being a childless unfuckable-old-lady.

    [nope. worse for kids, and worse for her love life, since no halfway decent man will risk conception with a washed up old broad who got her uterus scientifically rejuvenated.]

    If men can’t love them, their children can.

    [cats are much simpler. and it’s less selfish.]

    Like


    • Their children will be hard-pressed to love them when their mothers other terrible life choices come to light. Days in school, afternoons in daycare, evenings being ignored by tired, aging, overworked mother? Sucks. Lack of static discipline and gender roles? Sucks. Frigid, man-hating mother who has a stroke at 65 leaving an orphan still in college? Really sucks.

      I am not so biased as to think this will not result in a few happy endings. Flipside is I am also impartial enough to realize that this will mostly result in miserable familial abominations. Nature is the fiercest opponent of all; very few deny her and flourish. The sort of self-deluded woman who is constitutionally ignorant of her for will not number among them.

      Like


    • on July 7, 2012 at 2:52 pm Days of Broken Arrows

      If men can’t love them, their children can.

      Beyond all the stats of what happens to many kids of single moms, you might want to check out a blog called “Confessions of a Cryokid,” by a girl who was conceived by donor sperm. I’m not even going to editorialize here, just check the blog.

      Like


  9. on July 6, 2012 at 7:10 pm collapseofman

    Kind of like how they’re in prime fertility at 15 now?

    Like


  10. I’d guess 80% of the human population is aggressively self-deceiving, with the number reaching close to 100% in backward societies and within certain ideological sects.

    And those with no y-chromosome, to be sure.

    Like


  11. Rejoicing cos they get kids as menopause pets now…

    Like


  12. Women shouldn’t have children after the age of 35. It’s pretty reckless and dangerous. Look at some of Sarah Palin’s children; half of them are down syndrome retards. Very irresponsible if you ask me.

    Like


    • The more I see, the more I would be afraid to reproduce with a 40-year-old woman. I see so many kids around here that are semi-retarded or have hyperactive disorders who were born to older mothers.

      Like


    • on July 8, 2012 at 11:43 am Art Vandelay

      Sarah Palin isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed either, that probably added to the risk factors.

      Like


  13. Does this hagbreeding advocate think they will get willing partners at 40? Or is the market for “tall blonde mensa candidate” sperm online about too experience a boom??

    In all seriousness there is a comic which has a great “hook” for its story called “American reaper”. It runs on a whole body snatching/mind transplants idea.

    One of the themes is old women stealing young girls bodies to live again.

    The parody advertisments are great, particularly the one warning about an 80 year old “Juliet” picking up young men..

    Anyone think a 50 or so year old woman wouldnt rationalise stealing a younger hotter girls body..?
    http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/09/05/creator-of-2000ad-brings-us-a-new-dark-satire-american-reaper/

    Like


  14. You’re assuming no other medical breakthroughs. A society that can transplant ovaries may well be able to rejuvenate skin and hair, etc.

    Sure, the wall survives intact: for now. But why the glee about it? This is, or should be, all about truth, not schadenfreude.

    Right now, it’s true that women are perishable. (As are men, a few decades later.) But also, right now, we are growing replacement organs, curing blindness with stem cells, and learning the mechanisms of aging.

    A man will, 99 times out of a 100, if given a choice, choose to fuck a hot thin girl over a ugly fat girl. Just the same, a woman will, if given a choice, choose to BE a hot thin girl rather than an ugly fat girl.

    So the same pretty lies would also collapse if rejuvenation technology were to arrive. There is no contradiction. The changes wrought by technology (condoms, the pill, the internet) aren’t over yet.

    Like


    • There is a giant difference between freezing ovaries and eternal youth. This procedure is simply removing a bit and replacing it later. Rejuvenating organs requires altering the entire biochemistry of the human body. By the time we can do that we should also be able to rejuvenate ovaries without removing them. Your argument will hold weight at some point, but not today

      Like


    • on July 11, 2012 at 1:43 pm rationalist

      A very sensible comment. You can’t see this in isolation, there will be other therapies too. Yes, many will take longer.

      And once again with passion:

      The Wall benefits nobody.

      Like


  15. The great tragedy for women is that outside of their fertility and looks they have nothing much to offer civilization, which, I suppose is why they desparately hang-on – no matter the evidence – to the delusion that they are fuckable. Nature, knows this, and will close down those looks sometime in the mid-forties, and frequently earlier. The delusion is understandable, especially when ones whole life one has been able to manipulate men on that one basis. I knew one woman, in her mid fifties, still protesting that, if she wanted to have a child she would do so. What delusion! – and no less so than my insisting that I can win the Olympic 100 metres at this years Olympics should I choose to do so.

    Like


  16. The one thing that they all “knew” re: successful childbearing was this- the younger the age of first live birth/the more regular the series of births, the easier it was for a woman to conceive

    BINGO. I bet that almost all se.x disfunction can be explained by a combination of old parents-to-be, ugly/fat women and erectile disfunction caused by bad diets.

    If men can’t love them, their children can

    There are the prole-single moms and the SWPL single moms. Too much has been written here about the former, and the only solution for them is sterilisation by force. I bet the children of SWPL single moms will have all sorts of problems and their “love” for their mothers is very far from assured, specially those adopted from other countries.

    Like


  17. on July 7, 2012 at 5:41 pm Been there, done that

    OT but funny: blathering leftist woman tries to rationalize her attraction to a rapist character in old movies.

    Like


  18. I’m not sure this will have too much impact on the sexual (or marriage) sexual marketplace—the cost for this procedure will make it prohibitive for all but the most wealthy women. Who are the only real beneficiaries of feminism anyways.

    Unless coverage for this becomes mandatory under Obamacare

    **shudder**

    Like


  19. When I read the article I immediately thought about GreatBooksForMen (GBFM).

    The fiat masters want women to work instead of having kids. Feminism worked in that regard but only so much. Unfortunately a lot of women still opt for kids while there is still some remnant of fertility thus denying the fiat masters of much needed labor so…… This frankenstein technology now gives this self deluded feminists further reason to work well past into menopause with the fantasy delusion that they will still have kids. This now creates a whole medical industry to cater to these deluded feminists who will now spend all the money they saved to breathe new life into their already expired uteruses.

    When it comes to organ transplants, there is no guarantee that the transplanted ovary will work. Not to mention the possible birth defects caused by the ant-rejection drugs organ donors need to take so their bodies don’t reject the transplant. And in the end, the femcunts will blame men for all this….

    Like


  20. “If men can’t love them, their children can.”

    This is the most disgusting reason for having a child I can think of.

    Like


    • beta of the month, surely.

      Like


    • Funny af.

      Like


    • on July 8, 2012 at 9:57 pm Rick Derris

      Look at the pic of the chicks in that picture – UGH!

      The article stated that MEN work at NOW – so those clowns actively work for the fugs, AND they couldn’t f*cking fix the A/C? One word for them – FAGGOTS! What self-respecting guy works at NOW? These jerks don’t even deserve to be punched. They should be slapped for being the little bitches that they are.

      In the repairman’s defense, he did get one of the broads to pay for tix & food for the new Spider-Man movie (he should’ve demanded The Avengers instead). But the guy was beta to get in the comment about how he liked the typist and hoped she would dump her b/f. He can do better.

      Like


    • Looks like it was cribbed from The Onion

      Like


    • It’s funny because it is so true. At my office I always point out such inconsistencies to the women who work for me. A topic of mechanics came up and I asked the question – How many of you would have a female mechanic if you could find one? The answer was, none of them – the reason? “Men are better with mechanical things, and it takes strength. Women are too weak to do that type of work.”

      So much for feminist non-sense with the younger women. Of course these are the women who all long for the type of life their grandmother had. They got jobs because a family can’t survive on one paycheck anymore. Of course more than a few of the younger ones always ask, “When are you going to settle down?” They understand without asking that their real asset is looks and sexual energy, and it is limited…

      Like


    • Handiness
      Female friends
      Free time

      Pick two.

      Like


  21. “…and then he squashed a spider for them too.”
    You’d think these ungrateful-I-hate-men-but-help-me-you-fool-womyn would at least pose in bathing suits!

    Like


  22. Heartiste, I’ve actually thought up a benefit for this.

    Happily married woman at 25, has two kids and they go off to college. The 40-50 year old couple feel lonely in their nest, so instead of buying dogs like my parents did, they just have another kid.

    ^
    Do this and you are the 1% and won the SMarket

    Like


  23. Men are a cipher for women’s dreams.

    There’s a wholesale complete rejection by women of looking at the world through men’s eyes. In fact, the general attitude is that the only correct way to see things is the way women see things – men are foils for female ambitions, bugbears or support, not independent beings of their own. They exist merely as tropes for women to wrap their own stories around.

    It’s always been like this, but previously, men had the good sense to understand this and play their own stories first. Instead, today, we’re generally emasculated and play to these ridiculous one-sided worldviews because, …

    We want acceptance.

    The only cure is to not give the tinest, mouse-turd sized shit.

    Like


  24. on July 9, 2012 at 1:04 am Senior Beta

    Re: Great Ceasar’s Ghost post.

    Now we know why Roosh left DC.

    Like


  25. well, since ovaries produce estrogen, wouldn’t a ovary transplant at least make the decline in looks more gradual?

    Like


  26. If I had to put a number on it, I’d guess 80% of the human population is aggressively self-deceiving, with the number reaching close to 100% in backward societies and within certain ideological sects.

    This is so, especially with ideological sects such as feminizm. The danger comes when they push their delusions into public policy. (Yeah, I spell it with a “z” to conflate it with “feminazism.”)

    The great tragedy for women is that outside of their fertility and looks they have nothing much to offer civilization, which, I suppose is why they desparately hang-on – no matter the evidence – to the delusion that they are fuckable.

    We have had a century of female suffrage, feminizm, womyn’s studies programs, you go grrrrrl, et nauseam. What have we gotten from it? What percentage of STEM discoveries have come from the female sector? Medical breakthroughs? Have there been any major philosophical systems created by women in the last century (OK, Objectivism, but I doubt if Ayn Rand is on many womyn’s studies reading lists!)? Are we a freer society (been in a TSA screening line lately?)?

    How many great discoveries were not made because the men who might have made them were pushed out by affirmative action, or their program funding was cut to provide a campus womyn’s resource center? Or because a would-be scientist was taken down by punitive alimony or child support payments, or railroaded on a false charge of raype or DV?

    It says something that the number one feminizt activity is tantrum throwing ala “vagina monologs” and “slutwalks.” i.e., flaunting their bodies while beta male wannabes prance about their flabby bodies. Typical female mass hysterical behavior. You can’t run a civilization on that.

    The US is seeing an explosion in public and private debt, decline in infrastructure, elections which are so much smoke and mirrors, an inability to control the frontiers, the ongoing destruction of liberties, and the de facto end of the manned space program. How much of this is due to the feminization of society? Emotions over reason, a maniacal quest for security, the assumption that someone else will pick up the tab, sucking up to the BadBoys(tm)…it all becomes bread & circuses to keep the female demographic tuned in, voting on, and dropping those consumer dollars.

    The values we see being promoted in America today are antithetical to those of masculinity. Then we wonder why it is we can not get a man to Mars. Or repair that pot hole down the street.

    The government ought to be promoting men in all fields, since men are the ones who create and maintain civilization. Either that, or we start forming warlord bands. Come to think of it, this may already be in progress, given the rise of militia, urban gangs, private military contractors.

    A new era of civilization may be dawning.

    Like


  27. on July 11, 2012 at 2:54 pm Mr. Pointyface

    High level women are realizing “having it all” is an illusion meant to milk and destroy them ( literally)
    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-can-8217-t-have-it-all/9020/1/

    Like


  28. The irony is that technology like this will only make childless spinsterhood more likely for career women. It gives them just enough hope to rationalize their unworkable plan, without actually providing an out. Almost none of the women who read this and feel a sudden burst of girlpower will actually bother to have their ovaries stored for safekeeping.

    The other problem is that white women in the US still aren’t ok with having children out of wedlock. It is a clear indicator of being low class. As was pointed out above, some shiny new ovarys in a haggard body isn’t going to cause a line of suitors to magically appear, begging her to sit at home while he funds her dream of motherhood. This will only get worse as the current crop of marriage delaying women start to hit the age of marriage panic en masse. All of the gnashing of teeth we see about where have all the good men gone is for the 10% of late 30s early 40s white women who never managed to get married. All that bitching with a 90% success rate. Imagine the bitching when the wave of never married late 20s women crashes into their 30s. Keep the popcorn handy.

    Like


  29. Who does this benefit? Who is going to go after these women? The 60+ beta provider guys who either lost his kids to divorce or never had any. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

    Like


  30. My situation will make a few people here go “tilt”, I predict.
    I’m a 51-YO man, conservative, Christian as of 2005, as anti-feminist as you’ll find outside of prison or the grave. My wife is actually slightly older than me. We met not quite 3 years ago. We have a pair of healthy, >6 pound fraternal-twin babies, aged 2 weeks, courtesy of egg donors, a gestational surrogate, and a good fertility clinic. They’re genetically mine, by paternity tests we had an independent lab run last week. My wife is now a SAHM, and we will homeschool. My wife quit her job a couple of months ago to prepare for this, making under half of what I pull in, in what for her is not a bad career area for this region.

    I came to want children not long after my conversion. The few younger women I was involved with (down to age 23) between then and my wife were largely damaged goods, to the point that NO male would be advised to marry them. (I do okay financially, and am reasonably confident socially, but am below-average in looks for my age.)

    It’s an atypical path we’ve chosen, but it’s one that’s concordant with our traditional value, and one we’re happy with.

    Like