Post: #26

(01-04-2015 04:03 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:53 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  This isn't cool at all. Why would a guy want to have a baby without fucking a woman? This is extremely gay.

Ban the OP for being so excited about this.

Its the MGTOW dream. Having children and not having to deal with bitches in the process and hence not be beholden to them.

Whether that is good or bad is up for discussion. And personally I agree with you.

This isn't a MGTOW forum.

MGTOW is for guys who can't get a whiff of pussy anywhere other than their little sisters laundry basket to feel like it's their choice that they don't get laid.

Post: #27

Quote:In a 2012 New York Times op-ed, biologist Greg Hampikian declared that “women are both necessary and sufficient for reproduction, and men are neither.” The provocative title: “Men, Who Needs Them?”

Betas gonna bete.

Quote:In the far future, gay male couples could be having biological offspring without a surrogate and women could be having children in old age.

Kill mmmeeeeee....

Quote:These PGCs are “genetically matched” to the tissue donor, which would hypothetically allow couples suffering from fertility issues to have their own biological offspring instead of resorting to the use of a sperm or egg donor. Men and women who become infertile as a result of chemotherapy could also regain their reproductive capabilities.

That's cool. Creating designer fashion-accessory babies for gay couples and cat ladies is not.

Quote:futurist Zoltan Istvan predicts that it will be available and used widely within 30 years.

Quote:Istvan added that “it’s very possible that natural birthing will start disappearing over the next 25 to 50 years because of advancing technology.”

(01-03-2015 08:40 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  All you guys thinking we don't need women to raise kids are delusional. Call me on Skype if you want to know how difficult that would be. Fathers are needed towards the end, before that small children need their mothers.

Try calming down a screaming child without a pair of tits. Babies even smell the difference between mom and dad easily.

This.

It's not just physical differences like the ability to breastfeed. Mothers have a different emotional vibe to fathers, and children need that.

My kids are very young. Sometimes one or both of them will get sick or wake up screaming or fall and get hurt.

Guess who is better at soothing them and making it all better? Not me. I try, but sometimes Daddy just isn't who they need.

And guess who has boundless patience to sing and clap and coo and take them to baby sensory or pyjama drama classes?

Raising healthy kids is emotionally intensive. Women are naturals at it. Men are not. A machine could replace a womb. It can't replace a mother.


She malfunctioned again? Who'll make dinner? FFFUUUUU....

Post: #28

(01-03-2015 06:23 PM)Samseau Wrote:  When men no longer need women to have children, that is the day they lose any importance or freedom in society. This is horrible news for women, but great news for men.

Think carefully: Men are naturally superior to women in all respects except reproduction.

What about our much higher murder rate? Not much talked about on red pill sites, but pretty much inarguable.

Post: #29

No mother at all is better than a bad mother, that said, most men aren't good at being father either. From what I've observed, even with both parents, unhealthy children are the norm while what I'd call healthy children are pretty much outliers.

I've seen women against this technology very vocally, but weren't they're the ones bitching about how painful childbirth are, you'd think they'd be glad with something relieved them of the pain but their reaction is the opposite.

Post: #30

(01-04-2015 05:53 AM)SteveMcMahon Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 08:40 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  All you guys thinking we don't need women to raise kids are delusional. Call me on Skype if you want to know how difficult that would be. Fathers are needed towards the end, before that small children need their mothers.

Try calming down a screaming child without a pair of tits. Babies even smell the difference between mom and dad easily.

This.

It's not just physical differences like the ability to breastfeed. Mothers have a different emotional vibe to fathers, and children need that.

My kids are very young. Sometimes one or both of them will get sick or wake up screaming or fall and get hurt.

Guess who is better at soothing them and making it all better? Not me. I try, but sometimes Daddy just isn't who they need.

And guess who has boundless patience to sing and clap and coo and take them to baby sensory or pyjama drama classes?

Raising healthy kids is emotionally intensive. Women are naturals at it. Men are not. A machine could replace a womb. It can't replace a mother.

Exactly. Even my mom can calm my baby down just like my wife does and she obviously cannot breastfeed. It just doesn't work when I try it. My kid probably feels my hard ass bones and muscles and just gets pissed off even more. Like "How dare you hand me over to that hard feeling person!"

I have given up on it for the most part. I will watch the baby to give my wife a break sometimes, like while she cooks, but when the screaming starts and the diaper isn't wet, my wife needs to come get the baby. I'm done at that stage. Men are not hardwired for this shit, like you said Steve.

Later on the roles will reverse, it will be my turn then to provide the leadership needed for the later development into adulthood.

Post: #31

(01-03-2015 04:29 PM)roberto Wrote:  Only queers and permanent spinsters with shrivelled up wombs will use this new technology.

Whatever hater, you'll still be jealous when you see my clone army spawned from a thousand artificial wombs ravaging the land.

Post: #32

(01-03-2015 06:23 PM)Samseau Wrote:  When men no longer need women to have children, that is the day they lose any importance or freedom in society. This is horrible news for women, but great news for men.

Think carefully: Men are naturally superior to women in all respects except reproduction. The only reason men even have to put up with women is for children. If men could reproduce on their own, women would be regulated to sex slavery and nothing else. This would have occurred a long time ago. But since it's biologically impossible, it has never happened.

This technology changes that. "The End of Women," coming to a Western Civilization near you?

Pretty soon men will get everything they need from technology: Sexual pleasure, money, and children. Why deal with a narcissistic bitch? This technology allows a man to be the absolute dictator of his home, just like he was in the old days.

100% guarantee women will move to heavily regulate or ban this tech. But bans can only last so long. If this technology comes true, then women's days are numbered. Everyone will choose to be men or have sons, because why make your child inferior (i.e. make it a woman)? The only women created will be for sexual slavery entertainment.

I 100% agree with this post.

Womb-tech is going to be as important to men as non-hormonal male birth control.

To all the guys saying "well, but it can't replace a mother" - have you seen most mothers?

The scary part is this technology makes both women and men obsolete. What is to stop the Nike factory from making an army of children, or a third world dictator from producing an army of motherless supermen? Corporations aren't just people now - they can reproduce.

The Star Trek timeline is right - after the twentieth century comes the Eugenics Wars, and WW3.

Post: #33

Though both parents are the ideal, men can raise children by themselves. A boy raised by a single father is called a son, a boy raised by a single mother is referred to as a bastard.

Post: #34

~Red-Pill Men Against Unnatural Selection~

Post: #35

Just do it like CR7, get some slut knocked up. Pay her off, get full custody and continue banging 10's

Post: #36

First of all, I doubt any of this shit will come to pass in our lifetimes. But the way science and technology keeps moving forward, it's only a matter of time before the West or the Chinese do it. Technology has spread across the world, someone will take this tech and use it for their own ends.

(01-04-2015 07:44 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 06:23 PM)Samseau Wrote:  When men no longer need women to have children, that is the day they lose any importance or freedom in society. This is horrible news for women, but great news for men.

Think carefully: Men are naturally superior to women in all respects except reproduction.

What about our much higher murder rate? Not much talked about on red pill sites, but pretty much inarguable.

It's because men who want control of a given area must compete with the other superior beings for control of it, i.e. men must compete with men. Therefore most violence will be from men against men, because women will never be threats.

Post: #37

(01-03-2015 08:40 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  All you guys thinking we don't need women to raise kids are delusional. Call me on Skype if you want to know how difficult that would be. Fathers are needed towards the end, before that small children need their mothers.

Try calming down a screaming child without a pair of tits. Babies even smell the difference between mom and dad easily.

We need them and they need us. Playing with God hasn't worked so far, why make it worse.

Sadly, in the West I think the average man would be as good as a mother as the average woman. Around 1/3 of women nowadays are so damaged they could never be mothers. Another 1/3 of women are no better than the most sensitive of men (and sensitive men make an easy 1/3 of men in the West), and the last 1/3 of women are still feminine excellent mothers.

Given that 2/3s of women aren't good for much, it's really not too much of a stretch just to have men raising the kids by themselves.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if someday you had to get a "parenting license to buy a child," and the qualifications for the test are based on your abilities to empathize with a child.

Also, someone said this tech would undo millions of years of evolution... no, it would undo BILLIONS of years. Male and female first evolved around 5 billion+ years ago. Getting rid of mothers is quite literally the pandoras box of evolution.

Post: #38

(01-04-2015 09:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 08:40 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  All you guys thinking we don't need women to raise kids are delusional. Call me on Skype if you want to know how difficult that would be. Fathers are needed towards the end, before that small children need their mothers.

Try calming down a screaming child without a pair of tits. Babies even smell the difference between mom and dad easily.

We need them and they need us. Playing with God hasn't worked so far, why make it worse.

Sadly, in the West I think the average man would be as good as a mother as the average woman. Around 1/3 of women nowadays are so damaged they could never be mothers. Another 1/3 of women are no better than the most sensitive of men (and sensitive men make an easy 1/3 of men in the West), and the last 1/3 of women are still feminine excellent mothers.

Given that 2/3s of women aren't good for much, it's really not too much of a stretch just to have men raising the kids by themselves.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if someday you had to get a "parenting license to buy a child," and the qualifications for the test are based on your abilities to empathize with a child.

Also, someone said this tech would undo millions of years of evolution... no, it would undo BILLIONS of years. Male and female first evolved around 5 billion+ years ago. Getting rid of mothers is quite literally the pandoras box of evolution.

Men raising a child alone is possible but it is highly not recommended. A screaming baby has a different effect on the brain of a man compared to a woman. Their brains switch on regions of their brains that involve empathy and concern. For men it can switch on anger and frustration.

Remember all those baby shaking incidents in the 80's and 90s? Yeah that was because that was from men that snapped under the duress of dealing with a screaming child. They had to do so much PSA work because too many men were killing their kids and only realized it when they snapped out of it a few seconds later. It was too late because the baby's neck was broken. That's what started the research on brain activity research on men's brains in response to children crying.

Samseau, you are a history buff right? Ever read the accounts of soldiers in battlefields crushing crying babies on the ground without a second thought? Women cannot do this, yet we can. Our brains cannot operate on empathy and nurturing like theirs can. A female soldier in Afghanistan broke down in tears over a child with some issue going on. I can go on and on.

Rio was right, this MGTOW-ish delusional thinking is almost like some sick kind of mental masturbation faggotry. At first I thought what he posted was too strong of a take, but now I think he was right 100% from the beginning. This shit is hamster. We shit on single moms all day long and now we are trying to justify the same bullshit in reverse with dumb logic. Fellas get a grip.

Post: #39

(01-04-2015 05:51 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 04:03 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 03:53 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  This isn't cool at all. Why would a guy want to have a baby without fucking a woman? This is extremely gay.

Ban the OP for being so excited about this.

Its the MGTOW dream. Having children and not having to deal with bitches in the process and hence not be beholden to them.

Whether that is good or bad is up for discussion. And personally I agree with you.

This isn't a MGTOW forum.

MGTOW is for guys who can't get a whiff of pussy anywhere other than their little sisters laundry basket to feel like it's their choice that they don't get laid.

Of course. But hearing it from the MGTOW side of the fence. That's what they think. Make of it what you will.

Post: #40

(01-04-2015 09:29 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 09:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 08:40 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  All you guys thinking we don't need women to raise kids are delusional. Call me on Skype if you want to know how difficult that would be. Fathers are needed towards the end, before that small children need their mothers.

Try calming down a screaming child without a pair of tits. Babies even smell the difference between mom and dad easily.

We need them and they need us. Playing with God hasn't worked so far, why make it worse.

Sadly, in the West I think the average man would be as good as a mother as the average woman. Around 1/3 of women nowadays are so damaged they could never be mothers. Another 1/3 of women are no better than the most sensitive of men (and sensitive men make an easy 1/3 of men in the West), and the last 1/3 of women are still feminine excellent mothers.

Given that 2/3s of women aren't good for much, it's really not too much of a stretch just to have men raising the kids by themselves.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if someday you had to get a "parenting license to buy a child," and the qualifications for the test are based on your abilities to empathize with a child.

Also, someone said this tech would undo millions of years of evolution... no, it would undo BILLIONS of years. Male and female first evolved around 5 billion+ years ago. Getting rid of mothers is quite literally the pandoras box of evolution.

Men raising a child alone is possible but it is highly not recommended. A screaming baby has a different effect on the brain of a man compared to a woman. Their brains switch on regions of their brains that involve empathy and concern. For men it can switch on anger and frustration.

Remember all those baby shaking incidents in the 80's and 90s? Yeah that was because that was from men that snapped under the duress of dealing with a screaming child. They had to do so much PSA work because too many men were killing their kids and only realized it when they snapped out of it a few seconds later. It was too late because the baby's neck was broken. That's what started the research on brain activity research on men's brains in response to children crying.

Samseau, you are a history buff right? Ever read the accounts of soldiers in battlefields crushing crying babies on the ground without a second thought? Women cannot do this, yet we can. Our brains cannot operate on empathy and nurturing like theirs can. A female soldier in Afghanistan broke down in tears over a child with some issue going on. I can go on and on.

Rio was right, this MGTOW-ish delusional thinking is almost like some sick kind of mental masturbation faggotry. At first I thought what he posted was too strong of a take, but now I think he was right 100% from the beginning. This shit is hamster. We shit on single moms all day long and now we are trying to justify the same bullshit in reverse with dumb logic. Fellas get a grip.

Baby shaking incidents happen all the time with women as well. And of course I know how male soldiers will kill children. It's brutal but most likely a good thing for the conquering nation to do this, as these babies can someday grow into strong adults. From a ruling standpoint, killing the enemies children is a good thing.

But to compare a male soldier to the type of empathetic men who can raise children is absurd. It's like comparing a Western feminist to a sweetheart from China and saying, "See, they're both women!"

The idea that men cannot raise children is contradicted by mountains of evidence, humans are one of the few unique species that even have the concept of fatherhood. Fathers do not exist for 99% of animals. For thousands of years in Western civilization, men were given de-facto custody of the children in the event of a divorce. This system created the strongest civilized force in the world. Today, women get de-facto custody and look how things are going to shit. I doubt this is unrelated.

Post: #41

I still can't figure out what people really mean when they say mgtow since everyone have so different opinions about it it became confusing.

Isn't mgtow just guys who doing whatever they like according to the words?

Post: #42

You know what's astounding to me about this whole possibility? We have scientists developing ways for a man to have a child with another man, women to have children with another woman, women to have children past child-bearing years, and yet we still haven't got RISUG or something even better to the mainstream market.

Post: #43

Calling someone a MGTOW is like calling someone a nerd, basically meaningless without a context.

Post: #44

I came across those videos and would like your opinion on those:










Do you think his argument is valid or not?

Post: #45

Looks like this trend is growing.
Glamour model mum who is now a DAD - and his kids both love it

Quote:A former model who became a devoted married mum-of-two, Holly Baxter seemed to have everything in life she could possibly want.

But beneath it all the pretty brunette was fighting an overwhelming desire to be a man.

After years of secret anguish, Holly, 21, decided to become Oliver and for her two little boys, Mum has become Dad.

But Oliver reveals he needn’t have worried about his sons’ reactions after telling them of his brave decision to have a sex change.

He says: “My eldest, who is four, says ‘Mummy used to be sad, but now she’s Dad’. They see how much happier I am.”

Now Oliver, once a curvy girl who posed for sexy glamour shoots, has just enjoyed his first male Christmas at home with his boys and his new partner – a woman.

And he’s spending the New Year getting ready for testosterone treatment before undergoing reassignment surgery to become a fully functioning male.

Today Oliver tells how the strain of always knowing he was a male in a female body led to harrowing bouts of depression and suicidal thoughts.

In a bid to “conform”, Oliver even married a man in November 2011 in a white wedding.

He says: “He was five years older than me and we met through a friend. I just thought it was what I should be doing. I desperately wanted to be normal.

“Within a couple of weeks we had got engaged. I kept telling myself, ‘I’m a girl, and girls get engaged’.

“But I knew deep down I wasn’t like other girls. I hated my breasts and my hips. I had been horrified when they developed after puberty. I became depressed and thought of killing myself, of ending the pain. I thought that if I got married I would become normal.

“I knew that I didn’t enjoy having sex with a man but I forced myself to go through with it.

“I never enjoyed it but I soon became pregnant and by the time we were married I was three months gone.”

As Holly, Oliver had always attracted plenty of male attention with his model figure and soft feminine features.

But privately he already knew that he wanted to live like a man despite denying to himself he was transsexual.

Recalling his wedding day, Oliver said: “I wore a white dress we bought off eBay for £50. It was big and baggy. I was a size six, the dress was a size 12. Despite that I looked just as a bride should on her wedding day. But the reality was that I just wanted to run off. I didn’t want to go through with it.”

Oliver tied the knot at a register office ceremony in front of his family.

He said: “We got a house together and moved in with the children. I had two sons by then – one from a previous relationship and my newly born baby.

“My husband never had any inkling of my secret feelings about my gender. I never told him anything except that I had enjoyed the odd kiss with a girl in a bar. He never thought anything of it.

“I was on anti-depressants and sedatives and everybody thought I was suffering with post-natal depression. I was deeply unhappy. Had it not been for my two boys I don’t know what I would have done.” Then Oliver could fight his desires no longer and made the decision to finally live as a man.

He said: “I strapped down my breasts, cut my hair short and wear men’s clothes. I changed my name by deed poll and on my bank accounts and driving licence. Where I had been Holly I became Oliver.” The marriage broke up a year ago.

For every 10 transgender cases in the UK there is only one where a woman wants to live as a man. But experts say the figures are rising despite many women unhappy in their bodies fearing shame and ridicule.

Oliver says: “It was an extremely hard thing to do. We had nowhere to go.”

Post: #46

(01-04-2015 09:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 09:29 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 09:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 08:40 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  All you guys thinking we don't need women to raise kids are delusional. Call me on Skype if you want to know how difficult that would be. Fathers are needed towards the end, before that small children need their mothers.

Try calming down a screaming child without a pair of tits. Babies even smell the difference between mom and dad easily.

We need them and they need us. Playing with God hasn't worked so far, why make it worse.

Sadly, in the West I think the average man would be as good as a mother as the average woman. Around 1/3 of women nowadays are so damaged they could never be mothers. Another 1/3 of women are no better than the most sensitive of men (and sensitive men make an easy 1/3 of men in the West), and the last 1/3 of women are still feminine excellent mothers.

Given that 2/3s of women aren't good for much, it's really not too much of a stretch just to have men raising the kids by themselves.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if someday you had to get a "parenting license to buy a child," and the qualifications for the test are based on your abilities to empathize with a child.

Also, someone said this tech would undo millions of years of evolution... no, it would undo BILLIONS of years. Male and female first evolved around 5 billion+ years ago. Getting rid of mothers is quite literally the pandoras box of evolution.

Men raising a child alone is possible but it is highly not recommended. A screaming baby has a different effect on the brain of a man compared to a woman. Their brains switch on regions of their brains that involve empathy and concern. For men it can switch on anger and frustration.

Remember all those baby shaking incidents in the 80's and 90s? Yeah that was because that was from men that snapped under the duress of dealing with a screaming child. They had to do so much PSA work because too many men were killing their kids and only realized it when they snapped out of it a few seconds later. It was too late because the baby's neck was broken. That's what started the research on brain activity research on men's brains in response to children crying.

Samseau, you are a history buff right? Ever read the accounts of soldiers in battlefields crushing crying babies on the ground without a second thought? Women cannot do this, yet we can. Our brains cannot operate on empathy and nurturing like theirs can. A female soldier in Afghanistan broke down in tears over a child with some issue going on. I can go on and on.

Rio was right, this MGTOW-ish delusional thinking is almost like some sick kind of mental masturbation faggotry. At first I thought what he posted was too strong of a take, but now I think he was right 100% from the beginning. This shit is hamster. We shit on single moms all day long and now we are trying to justify the same bullshit in reverse with dumb logic. Fellas get a grip.

Baby shaking incidents happen all the time with women as well. And of course I know how male soldiers will kill children. It's brutal but most likely a good thing for the conquering nation to do this, as these babies can someday grow into strong adults. From a ruling standpoint, killing the enemies children is a good thing.

But to compare a male soldier to the type of empathetic men who can raise children is absurd. It's like comparing a Western feminist to a sweetheart from China and saying, "See, they're both women!"

The idea that men cannot raise children is contradicted by mountains of evidence, humans are one of the few unique species that even have the concept of fatherhood. Fathers do not exist for 99% of animals. For thousands of years in Western civilization, men were given de-facto custody of the children in the event of a divorce. This system created the strongest civilized force in the world. Today, women get de-facto custody and look how things are going to shit. I doubt this is unrelated.

Killing the babies is actually a bad thing. Machiavelli taught that a prince should take the young children and re-educate them and brainwash them. Rape and reappropriate the women and kill all the men you conquer.

The men that got custody would quickly get a female servant or another wife in those times. If it was a son and old enough to follow the father they no longer needed the mother anyway.

How is a soldier raising a child absurd? You. Missed my point completely. It was about the mental brain function differences. This is hard science, they same one you are worshipping. What's next? Psychological medicine to suppress rage from crying babies? Men are already effeminate and now you want them to get worse by pushing them into child rearing roles? Now that is absurd. You guys advocate the same junk a feminist would. What's going on here?

Post: #47

I tend to shy away from the fringe MGTOW view in these sorts of topics but I can't align my view with some of the stances being thrown on this thread alluding to how horrible this technology is going to be or whatnot.

Let's look at some history:

Women and feminist harpies pushed HARD to get female birth control developed. In fact female birth control at least in the US was financed by rich women investing in this technology. Did they care that this sort of technology would affect male/female relations? Did they care that this technology would affect the male gender tremendously?

NO they didn't. Because making female birth control was about one thing and one thing only; putting MORE power in the hands of the female gender. Regardless of the consequences, females just think like this on the grand scheme of things.

Bankrupting The U.S so you can study Poetry? Fuck You empower me.

Divorce laws? Fuck You pay me.

Abortion "rights" even though two people are responsible for creating life? Fuck you I want choice

Pro Female Rape Laws? Fuck you he didn't call me the next morning.

And on, and on, and on.

I can't blame the female sex for making power moves to assure that their quality of life and their interests are protected. But I sure as hell would have thought more red pilled men would agree that any advancement in either law, technology or culture that benefits men is a good thing.

Remember, no matter how dystopian you believe a future where men have significant reproductive power, the other possibility is a future where more and more aspects of masculinity are going to be persecuted and marginalized while females will keep cashing on more technology breakthroughs.

We have already seeing the way females handle societal power (screwing their way to unhappiness, getting stupid jobs, attention whoring and majoring in macaroni art), let's have some faith in the male gender when technology finally puts some control on our hands.

Post: #48

(01-04-2015 10:27 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 09:50 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 09:29 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(01-04-2015 09:17 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(01-03-2015 08:40 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  All you guys thinking we don't need women to raise kids are delusional. Call me on Skype if you want to know how difficult that would be. Fathers are needed towards the end, before that small children need their mothers.

Try calming down a screaming child without a pair of tits. Babies even smell the difference between mom and dad easily.

We need them and they need us. Playing with God hasn't worked so far, why make it worse.

Sadly, in the West I think the average man would be as good as a mother as the average woman. Around 1/3 of women nowadays are so damaged they could never be mothers. Another 1/3 of women are no better than the most sensitive of men (and sensitive men make an easy 1/3 of men in the West), and the last 1/3 of women are still feminine excellent mothers.

Given that 2/3s of women aren't good for much, it's really not too much of a stretch just to have men raising the kids by themselves.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if someday you had to get a "parenting license to buy a child," and the qualifications for the test are based on your abilities to empathize with a child.

Also, someone said this tech would undo millions of years of evolution... no, it would undo BILLIONS of years. Male and female first evolved around 5 billion+ years ago. Getting rid of mothers is quite literally the pandoras box of evolution.

Men raising a child alone is possible but it is highly not recommended. A screaming baby has a different effect on the brain of a man compared to a woman. Their brains switch on regions of their brains that involve empathy and concern. For men it can switch on anger and frustration.

Remember all those baby shaking incidents in the 80's and 90s? Yeah that was because that was from men that snapped under the duress of dealing with a screaming child. They had to do so much PSA work because too many men were killing their kids and only realized it when they snapped out of it a few seconds later. It was too late because the baby's neck was broken. That's what started the research on brain activity research on men's brains in response to children crying.

Samseau, you are a history buff right? Ever read the accounts of soldiers in battlefields crushing crying babies on the ground without a second thought? Women cannot do this, yet we can. Our brains cannot operate on empathy and nurturing like theirs can. A female soldier in Afghanistan broke down in tears over a child with some issue going on. I can go on and on.

Rio was right, this MGTOW-ish delusional thinking is almost like some sick kind of mental masturbation faggotry. At first I thought what he posted was too strong of a take, but now I think he was right 100% from the beginning. This shit is hamster. We shit on single moms all day long and now we are trying to justify the same bullshit in reverse with dumb logic. Fellas get a grip.

Baby shaking incidents happen all the time with women as well. And of course I know how male soldiers will kill children. It's brutal but most likely a good thing for the conquering nation to do this, as these babies can someday grow into strong adults. From a ruling standpoint, killing the enemies children is a good thing.

But to compare a male soldier to the type of empathetic men who can raise children is absurd. It's like comparing a Western feminist to a sweetheart from China and saying, "See, they're both women!"

The idea that men cannot raise children is contradicted by mountains of evidence, humans are one of the few unique species that even have the concept of fatherhood. Fathers do not exist for 99% of animals. For thousands of years in Western civilization, men were given de-facto custody of the children in the event of a divorce. This system created the strongest civilized force in the world. Today, women get de-facto custody and look how things are going to shit. I doubt this is unrelated.

Killing the babies is actually a bad thing. Machiavelli taught that a prince should take the young children and re-educate them and brainwash them. Rape and reappropriate the women and kill all the men you conquer.

The men that got custody would quickly get a female servant or another wife in those times. If it was a son and old enough to follow the father they no longer needed the mother anyway.

How is a soldier raising a child absurd? You. Missed my point completely. It was about the mental brain function differences. This is hard science, they same one you are worshipping. What's next? Psychological medicine to suppress rage from crying babies? Men are already effeminate and now you want them to get worse by pushing them into child rearing roles? Now that is absurd. You guys advocate the same junk a feminist would. What's going on here?

^^^
Traveler Kai's point about women being more biologically-geared to raise babies is not only the most important point made here, but a point so obvious you almost can't notice it (like the air).

Not only are women more attuned to what a baby's cry "means," but their entire bodies are geared toward cuddling, nurturing, and "communicating" with babies.

Men's bodies, conversely, are designed to deal with the outside world. We have beards and upper body mass. They don't. Why? Because it's men who are biologically made to be outdoors, building the world. This is one example of many you'll find in biology books when it comes to men vs. women with babies.

To give a personal example, my ex-wife could tell instantly how upset a baby was and what it meant when the kid cried. It sounded like noise to me. Meanwhile, my hearing was so attuned to outside "threats" that in my office I could recognize people's footsteps without looking up from my desk. She couldn't even begin to understand how I was able to do this.

All of this has a biological basis. And yes, there are exceptions, like the abusive mother who can't parent or the disabled man who can't work.

But to say on average that men are equally as adept at dealing with babies as women is like when feminists say women are the same as men when it comes to being cops, firemen, etc. It's a lie. We are our biology.

Post: #49

Guys, we already let two men, one woman, two women, and any number of trannies raise kids.

You're telling me I wouldn't do better raising a child solo than the average feminist single mom?

Yes, I agree - two parents in a stable loving relationship is ideal. But when Nike-Monsanto is deciding whether or not to make an army of super soldiers, this will have zero consideration.

As a culture, we've already decided family is not needed for children.

I'm telling you - the Eugenics Wars are the future. Give a billion dollar corporation the ability to make life, and expect meglomania, if not then, when their corporate owned motherless supermen (possibly named Khan) rise to adulthood.

Post: #50

It's obvious guys that have never had a child before have no idea how this aspect of life works. Using the lies of atheist scientific worship and Marxist/social liberal thinking, they are trying to falsely attribute biology/science to fit an agenda it was not designed for. I cannot for the life of me understand what level of morality and the amount hypocrisy is at play here. This is like self imposed castration being advocated here. This is not masculine. This is pro feminism and faggotry to advocate this kind of surrogacy. Too many logical fallacies in your arguments to bother counting.

Tell you guys what, make it through the first 6 months of child raising, then come back to this thread and let me know how that shit went. I will be waiting.