Ecotogenesis Provokes Hilarious Response From Feminists

The idea of Ectogenesis (artificial womb technology) has been with us since the 1920s. Its implications have been discussed in Brave New World and even the Matrix. The purpose of this article isn’t to predict the viability of this technology but to highlight the feminist response. The evolution of this technology began to gain momentum about twenty years ago and the feminist response has been quite amusing. Some feminists like Shulamith Firestone believed that anything which would free women from reproduction ought to be welcomed. Soraya Chemaly writes:

In her seminal work, The Dialectic of Sex, written in 1970, Shulamith Firestone argued that inequality between genders, and women’s virtual imprisonment in the home, was the direct result of biological reproductive differences and women’s correlating investments in mothering.  For her, ectogenesis, accompanied by revolutionary social changes, was the way to free women from the tyranny of their own biology put in the employ of patriarchal structures, including the traditional family.  She noted that, so far, these technical and social changes have been impeded by medicine’s domination by men, who have no vested interest in upsetting the traditional status quo. (Emphasis mine)

It is remarkable that feminists who wage war against their own female biology should have the temerity to brand others “misogynists”, but that is the subject for another post. Nevertheless, we must give Firestone credit for remaining faithful to the tenets of her ideology, demented as it may very well be. Other feminists have responded with great alarm that this technology (when fully developed) would result in the obsolescence of women.

From the same article:

Prominent feminists and activists, including Andrea Dworkin and Janice Raymond, have concluded that not only will women be further marginalized and oppressed by this eventuality, but they will become obsolete.

Fertility, and the ability to be the species’ reproductive engine, are virtually the only resources that women collectively control, they argue. And, although women do have other “value” in a patriarchal society–child rearing, for example–gestation remains, worldwide, the most important.  Even in the most female-denigrating cultures women are prized, if only, for their childbearing. If you take that away, then what? This technology becomes another form of violence.

The irony here is delicious. The same feminists that have been broadcasting that “women need men like fish need bicycles” have reduced the worth of women to their reproductive function. You would think that feminists would have greater faith in their sisters’ ability to compete with men on equal footing, but clearly this isn’t the case. Perhaps feminists aren’t as disconnected from reality as we may previously have thought. Dworkin in her own words:

Women already have the power to eliminate men and in their collective wisdom have decided to keep them. The real question now is, will men, once the artificial womb is perfected, want to keep women around?

Australian sociologist Robyn Rowland has argued that the creation of artificial wombs would spell the end of women’s innate power.

“We may find ourselves without a product of any kind with which to bargain,” she writes. “We have to ask, if that last power is taken and controlled by men, what role is envisaged for women in the new world? Will women become obsolete?”

I have my doubts regarding the authenticity of the Dworkin quote, but if she indeed did utter those words a few comments are in order. Perhaps women in their “Collective Wisdom” realize that “keeping men around” entail certain advantages such as lifetime alimony, child support, and a host of other welfare handouts exclusively targeted to women courtesy of the male taxpayer. It would also mean that men would continue doing the heavy lifting that allows women the comfort and security to denounce men as oppressors.

I suspect the real threat that ectogenesis poses is that it threatens to unravel women’s parasitic relationship with men in modern society. HL Mencken famously predicted that gender equality would cause women to lose “their old power to obtain special privileges by sentimental appeals. Men, facing them squarely, will consider them anew, not as romantic political and social invalids, to be coddled and caressed, but as free competitors in a harsh world. When that reconsideration gets under way there will be a general overhauling of the relations between the sexes, and some of the fair ones, I suspect, will begin to wonder why they didn’t let well enough alone. “

We know that this prophecy has not come to pass as women have selectively dismantled those areas of patriarchy that regulate their behaviour and hypergamy, whereas choosing to keep those aspects that coddle and protect their interests. I haven’t heard a single feminist complain about the gender inequality in criminal sentencing. Women demand the benefits of socio/political autonomy while rejecting any responsibility that ought to go with it.

Women’s reproductive function has historically earned them the special privilege of becoming the “protected sex” whereas men have always been the “disposable sex”. Ectogenesis threatens to take us one step closer towards realizing Mencken’s prediction and several steps closer towards rendering women the “disposable sex” for the first time in the history of our species. It is this latter prospect that terrifies the handful of women that have thought the issue through. Outside of reproduction, women serve no real net benefit to our species. We don’t need them to build bridges or lay down underwater cables in the ocean. We don’t need them to design technology nor write the programs that govern that technology’s behaviour.

Feminists are correct in assuming that Ectogenesis (if it ever does become viable)will allow men to divorce women on a species wide level, but only this time, women aren’t getting the kids.

This entry was posted in conservative values, Feminism and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Ecotogenesis Provokes Hilarious Response From Feminists

  1. Christopher says:

    Ectogenesis would be a great way of further populating and overpopulated planet.

  2. Janus says:

    Like most women, feminists see no conflict in wanting it both ways if it serves their interests. In this case though, I agree with this hypocritical feminists that the idea of ectogenesis is disturbing.

    Rather than serve the interests of men as individuals versus women, ectogenesis would likely serve the interests of government versus the individual, since government would be most able to afford the technology. For the first time, states could produce their own customized sources of manpower and train them as they see fit. Natural-born people could then be disposed of.

    Even if ectogenesis would simply become one more service available to the consumer, the tech would act to further divide men and women from one another, further divorcing sex from reproduction. Most mothers feel a biological drive to nurture and protect their children. Those who buy their children from a fake womb would gradually see their children as a commodity that can be thrown away like an unwanted puppy. This is a very dangerous power.

    • Dota says:

      I completely agree with everything you’ve said above. As a conservative, I don’t want to see the destruction of the family unit which would invariably lead to communist/state totalitarianism. What I was trying to convey here is that when push comes to shove, women subconsciously realize that their wombs are their greatest asset. Even the remote possibility of Ectogenesis has caused so many of these feminists to backpedal on their rebellious rhetoric.

      Also regarding women and ideology, I don’t think women are capable of sincerely pursuing any ideology. Women are solely motivated by self interest. Women aren’t even intellectually honest with feminism. You see this in the way they attack those areas of patriarchy which attempts to regulate their unruly behaviour while hypocritically preserving the area of patriarchy that coddles them. Most women in the west claim to be liberal (or atleast vote that way) yet the classical definition of liberalism (toleration of vice) doesn’t apply to the vast majority. Women will never tolerate the vice of prostitution because it threatens their monopoly on sex. If any individual professes strong commitment to an ideology, be it Marxism, libertarianism, or neo-conservatism, and if that individual happens to be a woman, that should tell you all you need to know about her commitment.

      • Janus says:

        Generally speaking, you are right to doubt women’s commitment to any ideological cause. For them, relationships and personalities can trump rules and goals. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that women are this way.

        It is actually a desirable trait in women; they are willing, subconsciously, to conform themselves to the wishes of authority. If a husband maintains his authority over his wife, if she is a typical woman she will conform outwardly to his wishes and gradually even conform inwardly to a large extent.

        Direct female power arises when men willingly give up their power, be it socially or politically. Women aren’t comfortable with direct power, nor are they usually very capable of utilizing it. No one, not even women themselves, tends to respect direct female authority. It violates the natural order of human social hierarchy.

        Women might shriek and rebel like spoiled children when men eventually, by necessity, reimpose their will upon them, but once they see that men will consistently uphold their male authority, women will not only accept it but will do so happily, as a whole. It is biologically hard-wired. This is why women are attracted to powerful men.

        Women do and should have power, but it should be indirect power.

      • Janus says:

        Adding to the last comment, this is why I don’t worry very much about feminism. It will quickly disappear as a force to reckon with when men want it to.

      • Dota says:

        So long as our elites back feminism for their own twisted ends, it’s going to be an uphill battle.

      • euroglory says:

        “Women do and should have power, but it should be indirect power.”

        Reminds me of that line from my big fat Greek wedding: “The man may be the head of the household. But the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head whichever way she pleases.”

        There is surely some truth to this. Women can be skilfull at getting their husbands to agree to their preferred course of action, especially when they feel it is beneficial to the children.

      • Dota says:

        I think that after a certain point, women just don’t care about children. The suffragists used children as effective props in their propaganda campaigns but now that feminists have the upper hand, the little buggers have been conveniently jettisoned.

      • euroglory says:

        …sometimes the husband just wants an easy life and I imagine it was the same in traditional cultures. Rather than him always ruling with an iron fist, he probably agreed to things just so his wife would stop going on about it.

      • Gaawwwwd dang says:

        Let me guess, you all also support unregulated capitalism, and see nothing wrong with child labor, as long as “the child gives consent”, amirite?

        Wowsers you guys are really idiotic.

    • Gaawwwwd dang says:

      Destruction of the family??? Wow. You guys talk about refusing refugees and subjugating women into submissive roles, and then talk about family values. If “family values” means women are going to be subjugated, then fuck family values.

      • Dota says:

        I’m not surprised you dislike the traditional family unit. Your two mothers have raised you well. Anyhow, you’re banned for repeatedly violating the comments policy. You can disagree with us all you want, but you can’t openly bash us.

      • Janus says:

        That was a quick ban. He/it/that tried to say we should advance a ‘live and let live’ policy to our own destruction, then proposed we should be legally silenced in order to advance it/that’s hysterically solipsistic position. So you then ban it without delay! I really enjoy your irony. Good show!

  3. Pingback: The Red Pill Parent |

  4. In the previous post, Bay Area Guy noted that his favourtie site for mining leftists nonsense is Al Jazeera. My go to leftists new source is the where I can’t help but read feminist articles when the title is annoying enough They just published a corker entitled ‘Gender inequality is a problem men created- now they must help fix it’: (

    This was my response:

    “Women give birth and ideally (& naturally) women feed children from their breasts for the first couple of years of life and at least for the first six months. This makes them the de fault primary carer of babies and infants, a pattern seen throughout the animal kingdom. It was thus logically the role of men to provide for mother and baby, by hunting in prehistoric times, by working more recently.

    Gender roles came about for good reasons. It made sense for women to do child rearing and gathering and for men to do big game hunting and fighting/protection. Then there is the imo strong possibility of evolved psychological differences due to genetic adaptations to gender specialised roles.

    Traditional gender roles are not purely the result of “socialisation” or the “fault” of men.

    This encapsulates the problem with feminism: anti-nature, anti-science, anti-man, anti-woman even arguably.

    Not everybody has a career. Most people have jobs they have to do to make ends meat. If one person gets to stay home with the baby and the other has to go to work, who is to say the worker is more priveleged one?

    In any case, I’m not saying women shouldn’t have careers or jobs. And if the man and woman both work, it is obviously fair for them to equally share the care of children, post breast feeding.

    What I am saying is that the traditional role for women should be valued and respected too and they should not feel like they are being regressive minded anti-feminists if they feel they would be more fulfilled by that kind of life. As a culture we should be comfortable with women taking some years off from their careers while their children are young, without worrying that some inequalities in pay and power will persist.

    There is no need to chase some perfect state of equality when men and women are psychologically different and emotionally fulfilled by different things and when a certain traditional division of labour is still rational up to a point.”

    Dota: I think I’ve come closer to your point of view and am singing a similar tune but no doubt you don’t think I’m not going far enough.

    btw I didn’t read the last reply of whatever his name was to me on the debate about feminism. I never got a notification for it and when I came here a while later and saw he replied in the margin, the moment had passed and I couldn’t be bothered anymore. Maybe go back to that sometime.

  5. Gaawwwwd dang says:

    You know, free speech has gone way too far when they let you people do this shit. If it is illegal to threaten the President, it should be illegal for you assholes to do what you are doing. Free Speech my ass, a truly free speech society would have no limits. As long as there are limits, why not rein your asses in and make you shut the hell up? I

  6. poseidon740 says:

    Just found this blog by it being mentioned at Rollo’s.

    Interesting subject, artificial wombs with the unintended consequence of eliminating much of women’s power over men. There is another resource women have that cannot be fully duplicated that men will continue to desire, to varying degrees. The vagina. We now have high quality porn to view. Sexbots will be available soon. Neither of these options fully substitute for a real human female vagina. Especially young men will want to experience a quality women’s body. Therefore, women will not be totally deemed obsolete as a result of the artificial womb. But we’re getting closer. And I’ll add that for me I find this to be poetic justice due to the way so many totally selfish women have treated men for the past 50 years.

    I really cannot fathom a way to totally substitute for a real women due to the allure of the vagina.

    • Dota says:

      I don’t want women to become obsolete either. Like Rollo, I believe that the both sexes are meant to compliment each other. The point of this article was to show people that when push comes to shove, feminists fall back upon a line of defense that they have always pretended to oppose ideologically. I’ve said it before but I believe that the cruelest thing you can do to a woman is to make her equal to a man.

    • Janus says:

      I guess real women could be genetically bred without fully functioning brains. And presumably women could also have retarded men to play with.

      I’m not at all in favor of this, as it continues to divide the sexes in unbalanced and psychologically destructive ways, but it is one possibility.

      • poseidon740 says:

        Janus, that is both sad and funny at the same time. When I first read your response I thought no way that would be allowed, but then I thought about how mass abortion would seem unthinkable only 100 years ago.

        I’ve read that in ancient Rome relations between the sexes were bad also. I wonder if there was a culture and point in time during this world’s history that have endured such negativity between the sexes. Of course there have been numerous examples of race issues, but sex issues??

      • Janus says:

        Like you, poseidon, I vaguely recall some historical situations where the sexes didn’t seem to get along very well, such as in ancient Rome and Greece. It’s difficult to imagine that such ancient cultures would have experienced anything like today’s ideologically- and technologically-driven antagonism between the sexes.

        It’s safe to say that any ancient culture that did have the level of sexual conflict that we see today didn’t survive long enough for many people to know their story.

        It will be interesting to see if this cultural malaise sticks around long enough to destroy Western civilization in a single lifetime or if people in general can deliberately relearn what once came without thinking.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s