Post: #51

Eh, it's an interesting achievement, but in practical terms it strikes me as looking for ways to get a hangover when you haven't been drinking.
Surrogacy by a third party, adoption, gay parenting is not without problems (they all have issues in spades).
Nobody really benefits from this except people who already want babies without women, and that is mostly gay men.

So a new technology enables something that 99% of people don't want to do and frankly shouldn't-how distant are parents becoming from children already? How much more distant would they be without the bonding and emotional investment in someone they want to reproduce with?
All this research money was spent just so that 0.1% of the remaining 1% don't need a surrogate mother to have gay children? Science has produced a giant leap sideways and backwards yet again.

And since a sizeable minority of working women don't want children even when they have them, this isn't taking the power away from them. Better RISUG or better, non-damaging male Pill (not the blue diamond either), please, especially since chemical contraception has been shown to have mental and physical side-effects on women as much as men.

Post: #52

Guys remember, there's nothing more "redpill" than raising children with a loving and supportive wife. I'm not kidding.

Post: #53

Why would you want a kid without a woman around to change diapers, deal with it crying, etc.?

They're pretty much helpless for the first two or three years of their life.

A dog, however, can be trained pretty quickly. Get a dog.

Post: #54

(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.

Machiavelli did advocate for that in certain circumstances, however, he also said when conquering a city to destroy it utterly. He cites Rome's treatment of Carthage as an example. So to the extent that young children would be saved, it would only be for slavery. Even if many babies were killed, it meant nothing if it destroyed the enemy.

Quote: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.

True, but only because the father would be too busy for baby shit. Conversely, we're talking about a brave new world with incredible technology. Who's to say there won't be great new baby-appliances for single men to use as a single-father?

Quote: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?

I agree that women are naturally suited for child-rearing, but the point I'm making is women in America have been de-natured, and seriously I don't think the average American male would be any different than the average American woman for handling young children. I'm afraid American women have degradedly that badly, which is why I prefaced the original post with "Sadly."

Post: #55

(01-04-2015 11:17 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  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.

Exactly. A single man raising his biological child would hardly be more dysfunctional than any of the many other permutations that society deems a "family" now. The two parent hetero family is ideal but increasingly irrelevant.

These motherhood discussions bring out the worst white knighting. Thousands of discussions here describing the selfishness and dysfunction of women (some of it biologically ingrained) but somehow these same women are overwhelmed by selfless desires to care and nurture when it comes to children. These are the same arguments lawyers and judges make to mindlessly hand over custody of children to mothers after divorce.

Not to say that this is a good idea. Single motherhood is common and the harm it does to children is well documented. But I don't see single-fatherhood being any more dangerous to society than single motherhood. If anything, it is probably less dangerous since I can't see many straight guys being interested in this tech or being able to afford it.

Post: #56

(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.

yep this is gay trolling

Post: #57

(01-05-2015 07:42 PM)eradicator 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.

yep this is gay trolling

Guys,you got it wrong, I didn't mean that, I too consider this article as negative news for us players and men.
First I got excited and put a banana when I thought about the feminists being left alone and that players would like that and that was my initial impression, but you're right overall it praises gay stuff therefore it wouldn't really be in the interest of straight guys like us, it was a slip of the tongue.
I posted another article on the second page, with a sad face, so don't worry I am not excited about that as you thought.

Post: #58

Lots of great mothers out there today

Post: #59

^^
The virgin mary statue in the back is a nice touch.

Post: #60

(01-06-2015 03:55 PM)Socrates Wrote:  ^^
The virgin mary statue in the back is a nice touch.

So is the fetal alcohol syndrome face she has goin' on.

Post: #61

(01-03-2015 04:29 PM)roberto Wrote:  Only queers and permanent spinsters with shrivelled up wombs will use this new technology, therefore I do not give one solitary fuck about this. 99% of kids born this way will be born into fucked up, dysfunctional 'families'.

Put the funding towards a male contraceptive pill- that will even the playing field.

Ha!! Don't worry it will help a lot of people and it is great for single parents.