Categories
alpha asshole cock carousel alpha males antifeminism beta males evil sexy ladies evil women imaginary oppression it's science! men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men paranoia PUA red pill

Red Pill Theorist alarmed by the prospect of women freezing their eggs, having sex in their 40s

Dirty scheming bird women!
Dirty scheming bird women!

So the manosphere blogger who calls himself The Red Pill Theorist has managed to work himself into a tizzy over a Wall Street Journal piece by a woman who — gasp! — froze some of her eggs in her 30s in order to give her more time in which to find the right guy with whom to have kids.

In her op-ed, titled “Why I Froze My Eggs (And You Should, Too),” Sarah Elizabeth Richards wrote:

Between the ages of 36 and 38, I spent nearly $50,000 to freeze 70 eggs in the hope that they would help me have a family in my mid-40s, when my natural fertility is gone. For this baby insurance, I obliterated my savings and used up the money my parents had set aside for a wedding. It was the best investment I ever made.

Egg freezing stopped the sadness that I was feeling at losing my chance to have the child I had dreamed about my entire life. It soothed my pangs of regret for frittering away my 20s with a man I didn’t want to have children with, and for wasting more years in my 30s with a man who wasn’t sure he even wanted children. It took away the punishing pressure to seek a new mate and helped me find love again at age 42.

I have a lot of reactions to this op-ed, ranging from “damn that’s a lot of money” to “that’s kind of a sad way to look at your past relationships” to “congratulations to you, I guess, but I don’t think this is really a solution to the work-life dilemma faced by most working would-be-moms.” (See here and here for discussions of this latter issue that are a lot more informed than my gut reaction.)

The Red Pill Theorist had, well, a different reaction, worrying that egg freezing could become a “grrlpower-enabling” technology, much like the birth control pill before it, and predicting that evil Democrats will soon demand that it be covered by Medicaid.

His real worry? That egg freezing will allow women to have sex with a variety of men into their 30s and even — gasp! — their 40s without “settling down” with the hardworking betas who’ve been waiting patiently on the sidelines for a chance to score a little nookie with the ladies before these ladies get completely old and ugly.

If women begin freezing their eggs en-masse at thirty, and embark upon fifteen more years of debauchery, watch out.  The current trend of beta misery, female misery, and alpha ecstasy is only going to get worse.  Now 30-35 year olds with a lick of sense leap off the carousel with all the alacrity they can muster.  But what if they don’t have to?  They’ve got frozen eggs, and early-thirties women can be decent looking.  There’s going to be a massive increase in the supply of female sexuality in the dating market.  We all saw how well that worked out for women in the sixties.

The Red Pill Theorist imagines that somehow these gals will manage to stick those poor, pitiful, endlessly used and abused beta schlubs with the bill:

In the future, there won’t just be divorce-rape.  There will be pre-divorce rape.  Crafty college gals will extract financial resources from their beta boyfriends to freeze their eggs, and then unhaapyness will set in, and the beta will be stuck with the bill.

His grand conclusion:

Egg freezing is one more brick in the wall of total sexual marketplace deregulation. Bit by bit, the chains that once encircled the hypergamic beast are falling away.  There’s never been a better time for men with options, never been a worse time for men without them.  …  It’s the next sexual revolution, except this time, women 30-40 will get to have some ill-advised fun.

Imagine that. Women in their 30s and 40s. Having fun. The horror!

241 replies on “Red Pill Theorist alarmed by the prospect of women freezing their eggs, having sex in their 40s”

The moderate position on abortion is “it’s none of my business what other people do with their bodies”.

So kindly shave yourself with a blunt razor

I did this a while ago on my calves when I was shaving off all of my body hair. Not fun! X_X Two bloody gashes. It’s better than that Nair shit, though…chemical burns are way less fun.

@Aaliyah

You wrote,
——————————————————————————————————————-
Also off-topic BUT I JUST FOUND TWO FUCKING SPIDERS IN A BOWL OF CEREAL I WAS ABOUT TO EAT

I hate everything.
——————————————————————————————————————-

Yuck just through it away, and wash the bowl. Than make sure there are no arachnids in the cereal box. Worse case scenario, call an exterminator.

“The moderate position on abortion is “it’s none of my business what other people do with their bodies”.

Yes. This.
Also, all hail Man Boobz regulars.

P.S.
I really hate spiders.

Nair is crap. I haven’t had burns from it (ow!) but I tried the version that’s supposed to be for facial hair. One, it didn’t work, and two, it stinks.

Blunt razors are all douchecanoes who want to force us to give birth or be men’s slaves in any other way deserve.

Yeah, I was thinking weevils. Haven’t seen those since my days in Libya and ew, so much more ew than spiders.

Most horrible thing I’ve found in food in the last few years was the unopened bag of rice that had some sort of freaky looking moths hatch in it. I could see them flapping around inside trying to get out as I threw it away. Ew…never buying from the store where I got that again.

Nair is crap. I haven’t had burns from it (ow!) but I tried the version that’s supposed to be for facial hair. One, it didn’t work, and two, it stinks.

I haven’t used Nair myself; I’ve just heard some horror stories from a fellow trans* woman who used to use it. Speaking of her, I wish she would hang out here some day. One of the nicest people I know.

The earliest contraceptives I know of are Egyptian (so… IIRC, about 1,500 BC, maybe 2,000). The recommend a pessary (that is a lumpen suppository) of dried crocodile dung in a small linen sack.

Sort of like a sponge. As might be imagined, this is more effective than a modern would think, as it 1: blocks semen, and 2: change the ph of the upper vagina to one which isn’t good for sperm.

It’s also got the bonus of being something any woman who can find crocodile dung (personally, or in the market) could make/use herself.

And either Rome or Greece (maybe both) drove a plant to extinction for this reason (might’ve been abortion, not birth control but either way, 2k+ years of natural family planning)

Argenti: The extinction of sylphium was caused by Rome, but the most plausible reason is gourmandise. The volume of writing about it’s savory qualities dwarfs the references to it’s abortifacient properties.

The same is true of the nature of the complaints about it’s becoming rare.

It’s also not clear it was actually able to effect an abortion; though the evidence is that it was thought to be so (being referred to as, “the best method”, but not the only one.

This may be an artifact of who was writing, but given the odds ways in which the Romans were supportive of personal/bodily autonomy, it’s not that women were being kept from it, nor from writing about it. But the writings we have of it as an abortifacient are more in the nature of treatises, and the laments of its loss/paeans to it’s tastiness are in letters.

So I suspect it was a more generic consumption which put paid to it.

I am currently working on a treatise about the true nature of gender relations.

*giggle*

true nature of gender relations

*snort*

Newsflash, follower of a “kinder, gentler” despot…there is no such thing as a “true nature” of any human relations, because how humans relate to each other is learned.

Moths freak me out. One of them once flew into my face in the middle of the night when I went to the bathroom and I screamed so loud Mr C came running in thinking I’d hurt myself. And then I made him find it and kill it, because misandry (and also he’s scared of rats and mice, not moths).

CassandraSays, Did you see David’s question to you about using your “lightbulb moment” comment as a post? I’m sleepy, so I might have missed it, but I bet you’re okay with it so if you haven’t already said so… here’s your chance. 😀

I usually love moths. Ever since I was 6 I’ve been able to catch them with my own hands and then release them (without crushing their wings!). They’re just as soft as they look. And they’re cute, too.

Moths that scare me, though, can fuck off forever.

@ cloudiah

What post was that on? And hmm, actually I’d rather not have David do that, since I’ve seen what happens when the MRM is pointed at any specific woman online.

Pecunium — guessing you aren’t caught up yet, as if it works like wild carrot, I explained how wild carrot works. Of course, wild carrot is also, duh, tasty, so it being driven out more by general food use makes sense.

I can’t even remember what thread but the comment was very recent… And fair enough! (It was a cool lightbulb moment though. Maybe you’d be willing to let him paraphrase?)

Aaliyah – I just ate a bowl of cereal. It was ever so slightly stale but still good. I don’t think (I HOPE I HOPE I HOPE) there were any spiders in it. *shudder*

ProPatria – a patriarchy run by women is an oxymoron. For…obvious reasons. Don’t make me spell it out, FFS.

Also, “the true nature of gender relations”?! LOL. The problem is the word “true”. Gender relations are not a one-size-fits-all phenomenon. There never has been and never will be a “true nature of gender relations” because everyone is different, everyone relates to each other in different ways, gender relations in the past were different from gender relations today, and gender relations in the future will be different from gender relations today.

You use words like “moderate” and “marginalize” like a politician – i.e., like someone with no real understanding of the words or the context you’re attempting to use them in.

Aaaaaaand…it’s time for bed, kids.

Pro Patria Truthiness: Pop Quiz:

Which does the church condemn most stringently.

Birth Control
Capital Punishment

How about this pair:

Abortion
Unjust War

How does the Encyclical Humanum vitae address those issues (and to what degree)?

Does the Official Position of the Church on Capital Punishment relate to its attitude on Abortion, if so how?

Should John Kerry be refused communion, based on the official policies of The Church?

How about Antonin Scalia?

(both of them are confirmed Catholics, in case you didn’t know).

When did the present position of the Church get codified? What was the previous opinion of the Church?

What caused the change? How does that affect the moral status of the opinion of the church?

What is the nature of sin when a person takes part in an abortion? What about the use of Birth Control?

Why does the Catholic position differ from that of Judaism? In what ways does that difference reflect the difference between the two Covenants? And why is the more liberal covenant (i.e. that of the Sacrifice of the Cross, “the new covenant, for you and for all men”) the one interpreted as that which is more limited?

How does that reflect on the relative moral strictures of the two faiths? Which is the one which is (absent the presence of Divine Punishment) more “moral”.

Why do you say so?

If the Sacrifice of the Cross was enough to wash away all sins, and God is omniscient, and motive is material to the question venal/mortal sin; and God is all loving, and Heaven awaits for all who die without sin (and the Blood of the Lamb can wash away the taint of original sin; and baptism of those who are born with fatal birth defects) why can’t a moral decision be made about the quality of life for the living, while avoiding the pain of limbo for the child?

Since the present position of The Church is that unbaptised infants no longer go to Limbo, what is the moral problem of abortion? The fetal child isn’t being condemned to eternal separation from God (which is implausible; see, The Sacrifice of the Cross, the New Covenant, and the Omni-Benevolent, All-Forgiving God), so that aspect of the equation can’t be used to say it’s a greater harm, in the afterlife, and so the living must suffer, lest a soul be damned.

Does the doctrine of Just War, which says that when one is under an existential threat one can act in corporate defense, even when innocents are going to suffer; because war is impossible to limit to just the hostile parties, allow for the idea that an, “innocent” child may need to aborted, if the result of it’s birth would be so detrimental to the living that it might be better if it were never born?

These are all questions moral Catholics are asking. They are questions Catholic Theologians are debating.

What makes you so certain you are more educated in theology then they? Are you “touched by the Holy Spirit, and so become a prophet”?

Or are you courting the Deadly Sin of Pride, which goeth before The Fall?

*I am a Catholic. I considered taking Holy Orders. This is a serious set of questions, not meant to mock you, but rather to challenge your assumptions, because they seem to be somewhat less than clearly framed, and lacking in the perspective required to come to the certainty you are presenting.

Kittehserf, check out Democrats for Life. We support both strict regulation of abortion and strict regulation of the economy for the good of the people. Unfortunately the juggernaught of the pro-choice left movement, libertine/libertarians which control both the feminist blogosphere and the manosphere, and the conservative pro-life movement, continually marginalize us. The leader of Democrats for Life and the majority of its members are women. Reasonable men and reasonable women need to form an alliance against the abuse/violent/military/industrialist patriarchy and the abortionist/Mind Control/anti-family matriarchy. I’m probably moving on to the manosphere blogs to start preaching my message there and it will be interesting for you all to follow their reaction. Any recommendations on who to start with?

LOL “libertines”. Anyone using that word who’s not talking about the band needs to go find a time machine to take them back to some time before the 1960s.

Argenti: You summoned me, I came.

I saw the comment, after I had written. Being a bit of a food historian, as well as being interested in lots of things, I’d seen the stuff about silphium as an abortifaciient. And I believed it.

Then I was studying food in Rome, and the disparities in how it was described started to show up. The efforts made by gourmands to obtain the last bits of it are what tipped me over to the, “even if it was that perfect” the food demand was greater.

It’s also a bit of a logic problem. How many women were looking to abort, at any given time, versus how muh people who could afford to have pies made from hummingbirds tongues, would do to obtain something which was supposed to have the best qualities of onions, and garlic, and none of the defects (gas, odor, affect on the breath).

In a world of conspicuous consumption, I’m betting on consumption.

Why didn’t I go to bed? Why did I take one more look?

Pecunium, I actually know the answers to many of the questions on your pop quiz. And I’m not Catholic. I’m not even Christian. I have very little interest in it (in large part because I find the basic concept of religion and spiritual faith to be incomprehensible).

I know the answers because so many of the Catholics and various Christians I’ve met didn’t have the first fucking clue about the history and tenets of their own religions, so I had to go learn about them for myself.

Pecunium, very interesting post. I am not able to answer all of these questions tonight; I will try to get back to you more extensively later. I will just say that the argument for the morality of abortion based on just war theory is incredibly weak. Relying on other humans, even the mother, to make those decisions, leads to the devaluation of life, which is likely to lead to more war and violence in the long run. I have a physical disability; according to your argument, it might be better for me not to have lived at all. It is reasonable for the state and the Church to protect the interests of people who cannot yet be represented because they are too small.

Cassandra, do you want credit, or should I leave it vague (“a regular commenter” or some such).

Actually I’d prefer if you didn’t even mention it was a regular commenter. You know the more behaviorally challenged of them will just go track down the comment if you do.

Pecunium — oh I’ll bet on food consumption too, point of my more recent comment was I would be surprised in exactly zero ways if it induced menstruation (if it is like old carrot, I believe this is only in the absence of pregnancy hormones, but am not sure, in any case, I’ve only see wild carrot used as a sort of morning after pill)

And morning after pill is not abortion come one mom! (Yes, we had that discussion, yes she does think that). Also, damned pecunium, I can only answer maybe half of those and we’ve discussed this before!

Also, g’night internet. Last call for email replies pecunium, tangential to one of those convos, my other cactus is blooming again, two buds. Was not expecting that.

Also, I oppose capital punishment and war, and believe the Church’s teaching should be interpreted against all of them. I’m not a big fan of the idea of denying communion to people based on their beliefs, unless they are excommunicated by the highest authorities for their activism.

Yes it’s true that the aborted babies go to a better place. But it is the place of the Church to ensure that people get a chance at this life on Earth.

I need to go to bed…

Libertine/libertarian? Two completely different things, I don’t even know what you’re trying to say there. And they control the feminist blogosphere? Uh…no. Feminists control the feminist blogosphere. The libertarian blogosphere is elsewhere, and the libertines…I can’t even use that word without laughing.

“abortionist/Mind Control/anti-family matriarchy”…LOLWHUT? Next you’ll be claiming that the feminist movement is based out of Area 51 or something. This is real life, not “Gattaca” or “Brazil” or “Dark City”.

*bangs head on wall*

Re: abortion based on disability = should never have lived at all — so! You’d have never been born, this is obvious. I mean, you just said as much. So if you where never born, wtf do you care? It’s just as likely that your mother would’ve decided to continue the pregnancy anyways. Allowing abortion isn’t saying “you must abort if X” it’s saying “if you want to abort because of X, you can”. And see, reporting from the bipolar corner of the room, I have no intent to pass that gene on, that seems far more immoral (intentionally allowing a life that will suffer the same mental illness I do, the same suicidal predisposition, etc) than never allowing that the happen, whether that means effective birth control, or abortion. But please, go on and tell me how I have to be celibate because having sex that could result in pregnancy means I want all bipolar people to have been aborted.

My goal is to set up a kinder, gentler patriarchy, governed primarily by traditionalist women, as Andrea Dworkin (who I am informed converted to christianity shortly before her death), outlined in her work on right-wing women.

HAH! Also, Darwin renounced the satanic lie of EVILution on his deathbed and Margaret Atwood wrote an excellent manual for ordering a just society called “The Handmaid’s Tale”. And that’s real.

Pro Patria Truthiness: . I will just say that the argument for the morality of abortion based on just war theory is incredibly weak.

It’s only, “very weak” if 1: you privilege the unborn over the living; and discard any questions of quality of life; i.e. privileging being born, and baptised in the living flesh over living a full and happy life, and 2: ignore all other questions I posed.

That wasn’t a bunch of single questions, it was an integrated problem of Catholic Morality.

It’s those issues which make a majorty of European and American Catholics (who are all more likely to be well versed in the broader theology of the Church) to be pro-abortion.

Here’s another pop quiz: What was the position (insofar as it was known) of Pope John Paul I on the matters of BC, and Abortion?

How would those beliefs have affected the official positions of The Church had he not died so shortly after becoming pope?

Also, I oppose capital punishment and war, and believe the Church’s teaching should be interpreted against all of them. I’m not a big fan of the idea of denying communion to people based on their beliefs, unless they are excommunicated by the highest authorities for their activism.

That’s not quite what I asked.

An officiant has to make a choice, whenever someone presents themself at the rail: “Do I think this person to be in a State of Grace?”. If the officiant is of the opinion the person at the rail isn’t, they are obliged to refuse the communion (and instead make a blessing).

So, If you were the officiant, and Kerry presented himself to you, would you think him able to be in a State of Grace?

How about Scalia?

Yes it’s true that the aborted babies go to a better place. But it is the place of the Church to ensure that people get a chance at this life on Earth.

No, it’s not. The duty of the Church is to see that those who can, are provided the means to salvation; and so be able to avoid the pains of Hell, the Perils of Purgatory, and the loss of the Presence of God.

Again, what makes you think yourself more versed in theology, and/or better directed by the Spirit than those who have dedicated their lives to this study?

Esp. when you don’t have the answers to those questions; and show so basic a misunderstanding of basic issues as the requirements for receiving the sacrament of the Eucharist (and some apparent misunderstanding of what the Anathema of Excommunication means), and the Mission/Duty of the Church is?

Is the “libertine” thing meant to be condemnation of sex-positive stuff? I suppose from a worldview of strict conservative Catholicism people who have sex outside of marriage with birth control, or talk about it in non-negative ways, could count as libertines?

Libertarian could be in the original sense, I guess – there is an anarchist thread to feminism, but not nearly as prominent of one as there could be – liberalism seems to dominate the discourse.

Pro Patria Truthiness: . I have a physical disability; according to your argument, it might be better for me not to have lived at all. It is reasonable for the state and the Church to protect the interests of people who cannot yet be represented because they are too small.

Not according to my argument.

I haven’t made an argument. I asked a set of questions. You have inferred an argument.

But even in the context you pose as being my argument you have mistaken it. The questions I posed are about the lives of all.

A known disability isn’t, under the limited cross application of Just War grounds for aborting. So, absent all other factors, you wouldn’t have been aborted.

Does that make you feel better?

Is it reasonable for the State (and why you want to bundle them is a different question: don’t want them co-joined), to harm one person for the putative benefit of another?

At what level does that right to strip one person of all rights, in the interest of another, begin?

Lots of women feel that they are better off under a patriarchy than under any new system which might take control.

Take control? Of what? Of whom? You seem to think that someone *must* be in control or take charge of ….. I’m not sure. Relationships, women, men, families ? Families have done perfectly OK over the millennia thank you very much. And thank you not at all to the priests, politicians, power-hungry of all kinds who’ve tried to interfere and “control” these private matters.

I strongly suggest that instead of “preaching” to anyone you do some reading first. Not the hard academic stuff unless you get a taste for it. Start with The Subversive Family: An Alternative History of Love and Marriage by Ferdinand Mount. If the name’s familiar it’s because he was a long time editor of The Spectator magazine – so not a raging feminist but a British conservative. Also not a professional historian or sociologist, just someone with journalist’s skill for tracking down evidence about a topic.

As for abortion, I’m one of those less fortunate, but not exceedingly rare, women whose endocrine system over-produces a hormone, relaxin, during pregnancy. So, by the time I’d finished with one miscarriage and two healthy children, I was left with a hip, pelvis, lower back “structure” where all the joints were, and still are, best described as _loose_. I was unable to bathe my second child myself because of excruciating pain, either my husband did it or a volunteer who came to the house a couple of times a week – and I’ve suffered with chronic pain ever since. What do you think our best option would have been had I got pregnant again. Life in a wheelchair for me? Additional burdens for my husband? Three children with a mother unable to move much, drugged up with pain meds, not able do much for them? A simple early weeks abortion would have been my choice and people like you should have no say in the matter.

He made some snarky comment about pro-sex people framing them as the enemy earlier so I’m guessing he’s using libertine to mean likes sex.

(Can we not at least have drugs too? And indulgent meals? And fancy clothes that serve no practical purpose?)

Hey, ProPatria Truthteller, if these lady friends of yours like being second class citizens for whatever reason, fine, whatever, that’s their business. As for me, I like being paid fairly for the work I do, I like when people take my opinions seriously, and I dream of doing something other than becoming a perpetual baby-making machine.
Grand gesture there, by the way, defending the freedoms of women that support patriarchy. Do you plan on defending their right not to vote by abolishing the nineteenth amendment?

My previous activity online was writing anti-racist posts on so-called white nationalist websites.

Oh. My. God.

ANOTHER white supremacist.

I think they can shut up about minority birthrates, given the rate at which they appear to be breeding.

Also, ew, spiders in food. I will never eat again. (For reals, putting your cereal in plastic containers is a great idea. Makes it easier to pour, too.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.