The case against 'Go get a surrogate!'

This post is a knee-jerk reaction to a horrible image that popped into my head a few days ago.
You can blame PVW for this one.
(LOL, it is always someone else's fault, don'tcha know!).


PVW sent me this link:

I became fixated on one idea, and now I really cannot get it out of my mind.

Here is the source of my latest problem:


In that article the case of the fatherless daughter is put before us. And how unfair it is that she is barred from a father-daughter dance. Fair enough. It is not the daughter's fault for not having a  father. Perhaps Mum kicked him out. Perhaps Father was a dead-beat who walked. Perhaps he died tragically. But make no mistake - she will pay for this lack in her life. More on her later.

In that same article, the concept of mother-son events are also mentioned. But what of the boy with no mother? He would undoubtedly be barred from such events too! Again, not his fault he has no mother. He too will surely pay.

And in my overactive imagination I got to thinking...what happens when we have a world consisting solely of children missing one parent? What would it look like?

We already have plentiful fatherless children. No problem there...we could throw a lot overboard and we wouldn't miss them.

Don't understand that reference? It comes from a joke an Indian friend of mine made. Only an Indian could have made this joke, by the way. Anyone else would be 'racist', of course:

A British man, a Norwegian, a Swiss man and an American were on a boat with cargo representing their respective countries on board. Soon the boat started to capsize.
In an attempt to solve this problem, the men decided to offload the boat, starting wih the merchandise that was most common in each of their countries.

The British guy stepped up and said: 'Well, in my country, we have loads of tea, so let's throw all the tea on board out into the sea'. So they did. Things got a bit better, but they were still in trouble.

Then the Norwegian said, 'OK, in my country we have a lot of snow, so let's throw the snow overboard'. So they did, and thngs improved, but not by much.

Then the Swiss guy got up and said, 'we have lots of expensive watches, so we can afford to throw all the watches overboard'. So they did. Again an improvement, but something else had to go.

Then the American stood up and said, 'in the States, we have Indian computer engineers coming out of our ears, we can sure lose a few, no sweat'. So they threw into the sea the computer engineers.

Terrible joke, I know...but you get the picture...


And now, with all the negative consequences of feminism rapidly coming to light, men are responding quite logically with their own solutions...in an attempt not just to 'hurt' or punish women, but in some instances to nullify them. Indeed annihilate them.

I won't rehash John Galt's words here. A few posts back, I recounted my reaction to them. Chilling and disturbing.

The reason I found his words disturbing is not so much that I want to see women destroy society with no consequences. Being a woman myself, I do love other women, (because I love myself). But alas, not that much.

It's not all about us women. I hope that much is clear.

I do firmly believe that some women are just not suited to marriage, because they really are incapable of giving a man what he wants and needs. Such women should not be given the time of day by men. I fully believe that. The same goes for men who really are not cut out for relationships of any sort with women.

But the (right) solution to feminism and 'choice motherhood' is not surrogate mothers for single fathers, or worse, artificial wombs and the like.
Two wrongs definitely don't make a right.

In much the same manner as I felt strongly against the mother in this post, I think Cristiano Ronaldo's dodgy parenthood is also questionable...


We all accept that where one parent is missing, the child suffers in some way, even if there is a 'substitute' parent. Where is that substitute at 3am? The substitute is never as good as the original, as we all know. So why do we pacify ourselves with poor alternatives? (Rhetorical question).

We can spot the child of a singe mother (at least the worst kind) by now. Here comes the generalisation: usually narcissistic, they lack the drive that fathered children have. The women are poor examples of femininity and the men are overly supplicative, something which hurts their chances of success with women. These people are sorted as far as social skills go though, in the sense that they are usually extrovert. They identify strongly with the feminine, which explains why perhaps some of the men turn out to be 'manginas'.

But what about motherless children? This sample population is small, granted. But I think there are accurate characerisations of them in some films. Take 'Firelight' for example. Both Eliazbeth Laurier and Louise Godwin are motherless children, the former more than the latter, who gets a break when her mother shows up.
The kid in this movie is also a classic example.
Introverted, insular, generally highly principled, very disciplined, but alas, they have deep emotional issues.
These people identify strongly with the masculine: in Elizabeth's case, she very nobly decided to pay off her father's debts. In her era, the only option available to her was the 'surrogate mother' route. Have a baby for a strange man and give up said baby? No problem.
Ms. Laurier was thinking like a man. Nature taught her a feminine lesson she would never forget. She spends the next seven years searching for Charles Godwin and Louisa...
I daresay, a woman with a mother in her life from a young age would never do what she did.

In both cases of an absent parent, there is an imbalance in the child. Emotionally, psychologically, financially, whatever.

Life is sometimes unfair to some of us: sometimes a parent dies when a child is very young. Sometimes there are very serious reasons where a parent must be removed from a child's life. Barring these legitimate cases...

So, 'Children of women', meet 'Children of men'.

Trainwreck...

Do we really want this future? Aren't things already bad enough for us yet in the SMP? Do we really want to reduce parenthood into yet another 'his and hers' war?



The use of the phrase 'Children of men' was no accident on my part. The film with the same name is a truly chilling experience. Do we really want to go there?
(Rhetorical question).

So the feminists banished men from the home front and now there are long queues at the sperm bank.
And the response from men?
Get a surrogate!
Get an artificial womb!

Do you really mean this? Have you thought this through, all the way to the ugly and bitter conclusion?

Is anyone thinking about the children?
(Not a rhetorical question).

Single Mum - by choice

I really cannot believe I am revisiting this topic. Because the logical thing to do would be to avoid issues that enrage me.
But alas, I claim not to be a logical creature.
Maybe I am wearing 'red' today, Grasshopper.
In any case I am definitely seeing red.
The gloves are off.

Let the rant begin.

In the post on intimacy I hinted that my personality type is often characterised by passivity, so much so that we are often mistaken for the dead. In my case this is no exaggeration.

But even I come alive when a principle is at stake.

In the post 'The sins of the Mother', I was in a subdued mood describing a phenomenon which is sad, with the full recognition on my part that some of the perpetrators of these 'sins' are largely unaware of the consequences of their actions.

In the case in hand, my reaction is very different. Because the intent here is all too clear.
Here is a woman choosing to be a bad mother even before she becomes a mother.

Single motherhood is tough. Men who abandon their children willingly are cowardly and unjust. Women who prevent ex-partners from seeing their children (for no good reason) are unfair to their children, not to talk of the ex-partner.
The point of this post is not single motherhood per se.
I daresay, given the right conditions, no woman would choose to become a single mother.
Given the right conditions.
What are these right conditions?

1. She is right in the head. Even an idiot like me knows it is very hard work being a parent. Nobody should be looking to do the whole single parent thing. It's not normal.

2. It is socially stigmatising to want to be a single parent. Note I did not say, to be a single parent. I do not believe it is right to point fingers at a general group when individual circumstances are not known.
There are many reasons why people (men or women) end up raising a child alone.

3. The state is not encouraging this phenomenon.

In Britain, it has become quite the fashion for a 16 year old girl, bored of school and living with the parents, to decide to become a 'baby mama' to get herself a new apartment and all the mod cons, paid for by you and me. I am sure that phenomenon is not unheard of in other countries too.

The scary thing is, material gain is sometimes the sole reason for her pregnancy. That, and the fact that she is looking for someone who will 'love her' unconditionally when it becomes clear that the randy 16 year old boy she is consorting with is not really in the 'love' business, despite what he says. The irony is, she herself may not know what real love is, either. She may really be as immature as she acts.

When I think of this issue, I always remember a former female boss of mine, not known for her tact or subtlety. She would read in one of those tabloids about yet another 12 year old expecting twins, and she would say something like, 'No ponies to go riding on?'
Particularly hilarious as it would appear she was completely oblivious to the fact that these urban kids did not quite live in the same world as her. Or perhaps she was being ironic, and I am the one who is missing her point...

Anyway, it came as quite the surprise to see this article referenced in one of Dalrock's posts.
An educated woman who is financially independent and who was herself raised by a single mother wants to become a single mother.

This woman's mother became a single mother not by choice, as she states early on in the article. Which makes her decision to become a single mother all the more hard to digest.
This woman is not the daughter of some narcissistic mother who wanted a 'mini-me'.
Her mother never said negative things to her about her father growing up. Even though it is clear that her father was not an ideal father.
The problem was not his large beard, as she claims. The problem goes far deeper than she lets on.
Society dies another little death each time a young woman adopts her kind of attitude.

Each to his or her own. Life is full of choices.
But hopefully, one is allowed an opinion.
Here's mine.

Do we not yet have enough evidence to suggest that it is better for children to have two loving parents rather than one, in general?
Not to say of course that children of single parents are necessarily worse off.
Everyone would agree that on the whole an abusive parent is worse than no parent. Children who have had to grow up without one parent make do, and overcome, but often not without a lot of hardship first.
The point is, given the choice, why would anyone want to deny a child something that is good for them? Deliberately.

The whole 'single by choice' thing by women and men is cool. Everyone is free to make a choice that affects them.
'Single motherhood by choice' is not cool. Because a bad decision is being made for another human being even before they have begun life.


'Single motherhood by choice' is bad motherhood. Because any woman who does not know by now that denying a child their God-given right to a father (if that father is a good enough fellow who is not abusive or dangerous) is at risk of one day becoming a bad mother. It cannot be stressed enough the importance of Father in the lives of both boys and girls. Why must people always be left to discover this the hard way?
Not enough feral kids on the streets already? Not enough damaged people to make us all sit up?

Adults who were adopted as children go through this yearning to find out their roots practically their whole lives until they get the information they need. It has been likened to the need to scratch something that is not there, ala the 'phantom limb syndrome' of amputees.

Is this what we want for our children?

This woman doesn't want to be bothered by the stresses of a relationship with a man. But she wants a child.
Is this woman even mature enough to be a mother?
What if said child becomes too difficult to live with? Will he or she be chucked out too?

She doesn't give a sensible reason to choose what she has. Her father was not the best, agreed. But should this not be the impetus for her to improve things for the next generation?
Most people who are born poor strive to do better for their children one day. Most people who grew up without a father either want to be a good father or ensure they couple up with a good father for their future children.
This woman seems to have had a great mother. This exemplary mother did the best she could so that her daughter had a great upbringing and life. Mother did so well in this task that daughter now believes that single motherhood is easy.
Unfortunately, Mother's heroic efforts are about to be nullified by a daughter who doesn't get it, who doesn't understand the sacrifices Mother made.

She just doesn't want the 'hassle' of being with a man, the possible father of her desired child.
She is proving the point that a woman essentially brought up exclusively in a matriarchy ala Kim K is at high risk of becoming a narcissist. Unless she gains insight into the problem and self-corrects. Such women are unfit for marriage because they are way too selfish, so they will try to find alternative family-building strategies, like this woman is trying to do. She sees it as her 'right' to have a child, by any means necessary. Who gives a monkeys about the needs of the child? As long as she gets what she wants, stuff the rest.
It is not her fault. We are all products of our environment afterall. But Mother cannot be held responsible for this selfish woman's decisions. If what she says about her mother is true, Mother did a great job, along with her grandmother.
But I fear daughter is showing exactly why she needed a father growing up. Pity she cannot see it herself. Let's hope she does not succeed in propagating this problem.
And this should be a lesson to voluntarily absentee fathers, and mothers who deliberately separate their kids from their fathers. This situation creates little Frankensteins.


Which conditions have gone awry in this woman's situation allowing her to unashamedly declare her abhorent intentions to the world?
All three.


Quite rightly, what incensed a lot of men in the comments section was her noble promise that she would somehow provide a 'male role model' for her future fatherless child.

Yes. Some poor man who may or may not have ties to her will be roped in to play part-time 'daddy' to her kid from a distance, at occasions and in a manner of her choosing. Just like in the movies.

In all humility, might I appeal to her better nature here, fully acknowledging the possibility that this young woman, like the rest of us may have been 'misguided' in her thinking?
That she simply needs to wake up soon and say to herself: 'Something's wrong with our modern life. Things are not supposed to be this way'  like many women are doing now.

Because those who do not, ever in their lives, are the ones on the non-stop express train to Crashville. Some are in the first-class compartment paid for by feminism.


Can and will this woman get off the poisoned train?

She has a chance to prevent this 'part-time daddy' nonsense she wants so badly from becoming a reality now.


Doesn't she know that it is a last resort option that people (including her lovely, commendable mother) have to take when all other attempts to prevent this have failed? Does she really believe it is fun for a kid to have a 'part-time' father-substitute? To watch as Uncle X leaves to go home to his own children? To always feel that no-one is his/her own to keep, that every adult man he/she comes into contact with is 'borrowed'?
From what she says in her article, she should know!

You are not supposed to be choosing this option for your future children from the get-go, Dear Friend.
Uh-huh.
You go, girl.


I really must stop here before I implode.

Too late!