Friction can be a drag

In the interests of free speech…just make it interesting

Men need not apply.

with 17 comments

fisd2bb-22The emasculation of men is complete.
Don’t need them to provide, deemed second-class citizens when it comes to parenting and now their contribution to the actual conception of a child is rendered totally irrelevant.
I know it’s from the Daily Mail…


Written by gipperfan

March 1, 2009 at 11:58 pm

Posted in free speech

17 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. LOL…yet another example of naive laissez-faire liberalism continuing to haunt us on all sides….’individual freedom of choice, limited central authority, free-market economics’…why have we not got over this idiotic notion yet?…even as the system and its values manifestly eat themselves for breakfast, lunch and dinner….there are still so many defenders out there, even on this blog. Liberalism is evil!


    March 2, 2009 at 3:20 pm

  2. how is this an example of limited central authority, it comes directly from the interference of the state in the family? (Did you mean this comment to be here?)
    It is a full-frontal assault on the traditional family unit.
    Women don’t need men because the state will fufill that role and at the same time destroy the traditional family unit because it is the one last hope of halting total oppression by the state.
    Not to step too far into the abyss or anything. 🙂


    March 2, 2009 at 3:38 pm

  3. don’t see it like that – this is the state trying to legislate in favour of individual freedom for IVF mum’s to choose whatever type of ‘father’ they want – i.e. to stay out of the value system and leave idiots to make idiotic choices for themselves that will come back to haunt us all.


    March 3, 2009 at 2:03 pm

  4. Why do you place so little value on the role of a man, a real man, a father, in a child’s life?
    Indeed, what value do men have at all?


    March 3, 2009 at 2:43 pm

  5. I don’t, quite the opposite, I think you have got me wrong here – this legislation sounds shit to me (i would have thought this clear from my posts above)


    March 3, 2009 at 3:09 pm

  6. It wasn’t clear to me, because I think our understandings of the scope of laissez-faire liberalism are not quite the same.
    My understanding of individual rights as they exist in classical liberalism is that they extend no further than the point where they would encroach upon the rights of others.
    As such I cannot imagine Locke denying the existence of a father purely to grant a woman the perceived “right” to name her cat as the “father” of her child.


    March 3, 2009 at 3:23 pm

  7. It seems to me that this legislation has been designed so that IVF clinics will no longer be able to deny treatment to lesbians and single mothers out of hand. This has probably been justified on a liberal platform that lesbians and single mothers exercising this ‘right’ don’t encroach on the rights of others, anymore than choosing their mate or cat as the father.


    March 3, 2009 at 3:38 pm

  8. But they do.
    If a woman wants to have a baby by herself that is one thing, if she can support herself then you are correct (for the sake of this topic) she has little impact on anyone else
    However, changing the law of the land so that fatherhood becomes a meaningless institution, that negatively affects us all.


    March 3, 2009 at 4:09 pm

  9. Now you are beginning to agree with me 🙂


    March 3, 2009 at 4:28 pm

  10. However, what about the woman who can support herself and child now but later can’t, will she need to grovle for charity in your scheme of things?


    March 3, 2009 at 4:44 pm

  11. I believe in and gladly contribute towards a safety-net, it’s the hammock I have issues with.

    I do however believe that charities do a far better job than the government, because they tend to expect some effort in return and as such they are able to maintain the dignity of the recipient.


    March 3, 2009 at 4:48 pm

  12. The government needs to administer the benefits system not charities. Charities who provide support to the unemployed invariably do so with government grants and the amount of ‘effort required in return’ is defined by government policy not charities. Current UK policy initiatives (eg ‘work for your benefits’) are not dealing in hammocks. Your notion of the ‘dignity’ relationship between charities and the unemployed is quaint but doesn’t resemble reality.
    Most unemployed people want to work and don’t like being reliant on hand-outs. Many have all sorts of problems beyond poverty that add to their difficulties. They deserve support and everyone benefits if that support works.


    March 3, 2009 at 9:57 pm

  13. Why does the government need to administer welfare?


    March 3, 2009 at 10:42 pm

  14. That is a circular question. You said yourself that ‘I believe in and gladly contribute towards a safety-net’. People in a community create and submit to government for the purpose of establishing safety and public good.


    March 4, 2009 at 9:03 am

  15. Don’t you think you’re overreacting (or dailymailing)a tad. Although I agree that this all sounds rather yoghurt-knittingish and sightly pointless, it is only single mothers recieving IVF we’re talking about, who presumably account for a very small percentage of parent/s. Noone is threatening the status or role of fathers in more typical relationships.


    March 5, 2009 at 10:29 am

  16. Tree it isn’t a circular question.
    The way you opened your previous post implied that there is no place for private charity.
    I did say I believe in the safety-net, what I didn’t say was that I believed that the government was solely responsible for providing it.

    Buer – I don’t think I am overreacting.
    Absolutely the traditional family is threatened by this type of legislation.
    The message is that children do not need fathers.


    March 5, 2009 at 2:18 pm

  17. The traditional family dynamic has been around for hundreds of millenia/um (sorry, my latin isn’t what it was!). I think it’s going to take more than some ‘politically correct’ legislation to alter it.


    March 5, 2009 at 6:33 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: