Ask Your Question today
There's absolutely nothing wrong with this, in fact it's pretty freakin' cool but nevertheless it always surprises me when a male expresses a strong desire to have children.
IIN?
I want kids, but if my spouse doesn't I can accept that. Of course I wouldn't want to have children till I'm in my 30s. The way I see it, I think this society, America, is too set in stone with the idea that women are mothers and all men want is sex. Girls like sex to, and some men actually want to be fathers.
i want to be able to support them and have a stable job, first, but id want kids
I'm a male, I want kids. Trouble is, women don't care about building families anymore. It's "their body", remember? Fuck having a stable enriching home for the next generation. In fact, fuck having a next generation at all, right ladies?
With advancements in A.R.T. (Assisted Reproductive Technology) you can go have a baby all on your own if you desire. Man or woman, coupled or single, fertile or infertile, gay or straight, black or white. You go to an ART clinic, choose a surrogate, and give them your sperm. You'll become a dad in less than a year. It's that easy! Some insurance companies even cover these technologies.
And while you're there, why not donate your sperm? Then the clinic will give it to someone looking for sperm to help reproduce. You could help someone who really really wants a child but can't do so for some type of infertility. (There's many kinds... medical, situational, cultural.) Hell, if you have great sperm, many women can use your sperm, and then you can have hundreds of biological children that you don't ever have to rear. Wouldn't that be great?
If you think this option is ridiculous and choose not to do it, then congratulations! You've just expressed your choice NOT to reproduce... which is exactly what millions of women have been trying to get men to understand.
I am a man too. And seriously, your ignorance embarrasses me and men everywhere. You just make the rest of us look like disrespectful assholes. Hopefully, you understand now. Cause seriously, why NOT go have a child yourself? You don't need a partner to do so. So why not? Or even, what's wrong with having hundreds of biological children that aren't yours legally? You're not responsible for them. You're just the donor. You'd be helping so many families.
If you find ANY reason (and I mean ANY) not to choose either option, then you should REALLY stop being a hypocrite and blaming women for wanting control over their bodies. Especially because you are able to express your choice without ignorant judgement from others... BECAUSE you are a man. Women aren't obligated to have children or become mothers, but many morons still think so. If you REALLY desire to become a father (in the traditional way) then you shouldn't be disrespecting women, you should be SUPPORTING women and their choice to NOT reproduce. Don't you understand that sexism isn't just affecting women? It works both ways. If more people would stop putting this role of motherhood onto women, then in turn more people would accept that many men actually desire to become fathers.
Everyone has the right to reproduce, AND the right NOT to reproduce.
What I was saying -- mister self-hating feminist -- was not that I wanted just to produce biological children, but to raise them appropriately. I grew up in a secular, two-parent home and I had an excellent and stable childhood. Both of my parents worked all of their life and through a mixture of daycare and hard work they were able to make a good home for us kids. Marriage today is like a phone contract; not properly considered, expensive to break but broken all the time anyway. Forgive me if I'm in that batshit insane camp that appreciates a semi-traditional home, with a stable set of two parents for children to get accustomed to and a place that can actually be considered a home. And god help me if I suggest that it's better if it's a man and a woman who produce their own children. We haven't quite evolved into beings of pure energy like on Star Trek, able to pull ourselves away from the bondage of biology. If you take away peoples' biology, you take away a substantial part of their humanity.
I agree that people should have the right to not reproduce (we mean abortion, of course). What I'm saying is, it's a stupid and unnatural fad for women to be treated sans biology, like men without penises, just for the sake of being politically correct.
Actually, (1) I am not a self-hating feminist, I am quite proud of who I am, as both a human being and a feminist. (2) You don't need a man and a woman to produce children. You need sperm, egg, and a womb to carry the child to act as an incubator. (3) ART is still working on technology that CAN help us reproduce without sperm and egg. Cloning has been around for decades, but it has only been done successfully on animals, and it's been banned in the United States as of now. But, if it were to develop further, women and men could reproduce on their own. This would free a lot of women from the tyranny of patriarchy, and create a new meaning for men to be able to produce their own child. Yes, it's outrageous, however, it's still potential. (4) Not reproducing doesn't just include abortion, it involves every day we're alive not reproducing. Every time a man puts on a condom or a woman takes birth control. If someone were to use your sperm or eggs to create a child without your permission. (5) I think children are raised well regardless if they have two parents of the opposite sex/gender, or two people of the same sex/gender. In fact, many could argue same-sex parents are better parents, because only like heterosexuals that have unplanned pregnancies, to go through the process of having children as a same-sex couple takes a lot more dedication and legal process. And although the media doesn't popularize it, many children of single parents grow up to live happy lives as well. Each child is unique, and will grow with it's own set of needs, standards, and personality. (6) Many would say it's this implication of "nature" that has been the most harmful to their lives. Including women, the LGBTQ community, people of color, size, even class. The people that usually benefit from the argument of "nature" are white, straight, middle to upper class men. Or even just men in general, because that's the constant argument used to promote women into these confined gender roles. (Men as well.) (7) I know plenty of men that don't have penises. They are called trans-men in the US. Many of which are lovely people.
Yeah... I can't wait until kids are raised on farms. I'm hoping to buy the free-range ones out of a guilty conscience. Why don't you just not breed, okay?
(1) just because you think you're brilliant doesn't mean you also can't see how you scum. (2) sperm comes from man nuts, like it or not. (3) in your idealistic brain they would be reintroduction to simply yet another patriarchal model, that being the medical industrial complex. (4) everybody agreed on the right NOT to reproduce weekend ago. (5) Better planners and wealthier people who have a very VERY minuscule amount if experience do not necessarily make better parents than two people who have created that child from their own genes and cared for it since inception. (6) I think this is entirely in your own mind. (7) I am sure thy are lovely people but, they are not men. They are women who want to be boys. By the way I have no problem with gay adoption.
(1) You made a very generalized statement that could be said to anyone, having nothing to do with any specific argument. You must be brilliant. (2) Sperm may come from males, but it's the sperm that's needed to mix with an egg to create an embryo. Just because someone is male doesn't mean that they can produce sperm, let alone sperm that is fertile. (3) That's an argument some people have had over the years when it comes to cloning, which I will give you kudos for making a legitimate argument. (4) I'm not quite sure what you mean by #4. (5) Well I'm sure anyone that skewed your argument the way you just did would agree. But the fact is, it takes a lot more than just money to adopt a child. My cousin is a social worker for an adoption agency. There is a long checklist of things to check for before someone allows you to adopt a child. There's tons of paperwork, tons of screening, visits that are scheduled and unscheduled before adoption is finalized. And who says that straight people have more experience with children just because they're straight? As a human sexuality educator, I've seen many parents after their children have come to me for help. Some straight parents that need some serious anger management, need to go to rehab, are verbally abusive and demeaning to their spouses and children, or physically abuse to their spouses and children. Again, you used the argument of "nature" to justify why something is better. But I can tell you from experience as an educator, just because you produce a child, doesn't mean you are interested in the care for that child. I have so many children coming to me just because they are craving attention that they are not getting at home. It's just heartbreaking. But couples (or singles) that adopt are much more likely to care for their children. A choice which for gay couples (until A.R.T.) was the only option if they wanted to have children. So I don't think it's that bold of statement to say that gay parents might be doing a better job. (6) If you really think that I am the only person to ever have this opinion, perhaps you should get to know more people that are not in majority groups. The incredible LGBTQ youth I've met in my line of work are incredible kids. Going through so much abuse because of people's faith, only to reassure beliefs that anything outside of heterosexuality isn't "natural". Or women that are constantly bugged by their mothers that they aren't getting any younger, and should seriously get married and have kids already. When there are many that don't want to. The whole "nature" argument comes from the basis of religion. Something that can't be measured, tested, or conclusive. So when someone argues "nature", we need to question it. (7) The fact that you think trans-men are "women who want to be boys" shows truly how ignorant you are. You should get to know some trans-men that are open about there identity. Perhaps you've come across some men that were trans and never even knew it. But if you educated yourself, or even just opened your mind, you would understand that there is no concrete definition of a "man". When we talk about biology, society has deems there is male, female, and intersex. But words like "man" and "woman"- there are no universal definitions. They people don't *want* to be men, they *are* men. But they were born female. And again, another group which the argument of "nature" is abusive to.
A-Hor, Thank you so much.
That's all I can say.
Thank you for: "Women aren't obligated to have children or become mothers, but many morons still think so. If you REALLY desire to become a father (in the traditional way) then you shouldn't be disrespecting women, you should be SUPPORTING women and their choice to NOT reproduce. Don't you understand that sexism isn't just affecting women? It works both ways. If more people would stop putting this role of motherhood onto women, then in turn more people would accept that many men actually desire to become fathers.
Everyone has the right to reproduce, AND the right NOT to reproduce."
You've taken the words right out of my mouth.
ART is a goddam disgrace ! Why would it be great to just give every rich lady in the world as many kids as they want at no cost to anything ?
You think life is soooooo cheap.
Yeah, how dare a woman claim that her uterus belongs to her, right?
Here's a hint: a society in which a woman cannot lay claim to her own organs is never going to have "stable, enriching homes" for anyone. Half of the next generation is likely to be female; would you want your daughter's body to become the property of her husband as soon as she left your home?
Plenty of women care a lot about building families. The smart ones just don't want to build families with men who hate women, which might explain why you don't yet have a family yourself.
If anybody can be accused of hating women, it's you, and your leftist, brainwashed kine who spout this kind of garbled nonsense incessantly, thinking they're some sort of maverick preserving femininity... as though women were some sort of weak and inferior group of creatures. You love to attack women who commit some of their lives to raising their own children, and you laud and approve of government immigration policies that are thinly-veiled attempts at farming the developing world for their children.
Society needs children quite desperately, and they have to come in whether they are produced domestically or brought in en masse. Cultural Marxists like yourself acknowledge that the state has the moral imperative to take care of elderly and infirm, but falling short of a closed loop, neglect to realize that it is youth that are both required and in heavy shortfall.
Women do and indeed should have the right to breed, or not breed, or cut up the dehumanized things in their wombs as much as they please. This was a measure designed to protect women from the true women-haters, those who create children and then run off to pollinate elsewhere while contributing nothing towards a stable home and a healthy next generation. Today it is additionally used more as a measure of convenience, often for women who cannot be bothered to use contraception, or who have been pressured since birth to climb the corporate ladder, accumulate capital, weave baskets, do crossword puzzles, watch television, play video games... anything except the natural duty that all people have to replace themselves and take care of their spawn. Back when society wasn't falling apart a few short decades ago because real, feminine, respectable women were doing the difficult and heroic duty that is now neglected by practically all of them.
A) I'm a woman, a feminist, a wife and not a mother because I now have control over my reproductive destiny. I love modern medicine and all the choices it's given me!
B) I'm a moderate with Libertarian leanings, not a leftist.
C) You are just sooo incredibly bitter that no one with a uterus will love you, aren't you? I'm sorry for that. I truly am. However, you and your kind -- the ones who are so unbelievably angry at women -- scare me. Maybe that's what you're going for; if so, it works.
You are a big part of the reason I'm pro-choice. It's people like you who are just seething with fury who are most likely to rape, and when you do, I want your victim to have the right to rid herself of your diseased seed.
You didn't read a thing I said. Go figure.
You don't care about your family's line going extinct, despite its immense struggles and rich history. That's your choice, oh great "enlightened" and "modern" woman. I don't lament this fact anymore. Because your fatuous ideals won't encroach upon the next generation. Your neo-liberal counterparts will also go extinct, in one generation. That's the beauty of it. You'll have a world full of right-wing 'lunatics' and mass immigrants and your well-meaning, but self-defeating, ideals will vanish like a bad dream.
I wouldn't approach such a closed-minded and anti-feminine woman like you with a ten foot poll. You're the one contaminating the gene pool, and my family line would be all the more depauperate for including this mental illness.
You jumped the shark when you got personal and nasty. Shreeeeeeiiiik !
Indeed it is their body, and as such they can do what they want with it. If they want kids, so be it, but forgive them if they actually have the basic human right NOT TO HAVE CHILDREN. Seriously you're pathetic.
I'm not arguing against the human right, and in fact it was a civil rights victory of the highest order that it was rewarded, and societies that refrain from granting this right fall woefully short of a desirable society.
This doesn't mean that it is always, or even in the majority of cases, a good moral decision vis-a-vis the maintenance of one's bloodline, values, culture and country. Young people today, unfortunately including women -- whom I expected much more from since they mature mentally significantly faster than male youths -- take for granted all of the things that allowed them to become the least bit successful, all the way from the state to the humble family unit.
Our parents did too well in ensuring our futures, because now we take for granted that their efforts, their vision and (in particular) their money will be around forever without having to pay back the debt that is owed, by creating the next generation and taking care of them appropriately.
I was once in your intellectual camp, and it was very difficult to remove myself from it due to the associated effort required to consider societal realities instead of spout lofty irresponsible pipe-dreams. It's much easier to insult and to abuse the person with whom you disagree than to consider their perspective and question whether your own values are based on pragmatism and rationality or just the current media fad.
Women to not take the rights they have for granted, moreover the rights to not be forced to have kids just to live on some dept paying rule plastered on a tablet.
Getting a future generation is not advisable if you want freedom, not to be a housewife, or a slave to spend money on and not any for yourself.
A humble family unit should not be compressed into a little box of children, state affairs, and routes to taking care of these offspring, regardless of choice committed to the subject