Men Going Their Own Way love to fantasize about a future in which women are rendered obsolete — replaced by sexbots (for men to make the sex with) and artificial wombs (for men to make the babies with).
But one MGTOW Redditor has an even better idea: instead of growing the next generation of men in some Brave New World baby factory, why not secretly impregnate the “low quality sluts” of the world with future babies that aren’t even theirs — thus enhancing the pleasures of sex with the pleasure of reverse-cuckolding women.
I’ll let the bold visionary who came up with this plan explain it to you, because I sure as hell can’t. Take it away, Redditor-who-calls-himself-penisassociate.
Imagine advances in nano machines enable a delivery system of minuscule scale transferring an embryo through the vagina, cervix and into the womb.
Sounds like the world’s worst remake of Fantastic Voyage.
You are Chad Thundercock. You want to maximize your reproduction with high quality genetics.
I’m pretty sure most guys having casual sex with multiple women are trying their hardest not to inadvertently reproduce, but whatev.
Problem is it’s too slow to go around looking for the top 20% of women.
MGTOWs, such romantics!
You have found one however, bred her, and you’ve gotten a lot of her eggs.
Er, what? Are you thinking of human women or brood hens?
Now you go around implanting unwitting low quality sluts with your preferred sperm & egg combo. Imagine the implantation process can be easily done during sex so there’s good reason to suspect, for the woman, that biologically it’s her child.
At this point I’m fairly certain that Mr. penisassociate has never had sex; I’m also thinking that maybe he should be prohibited by law from ever having sex.
On a similarly pub-inspired digression, I just saw the most political hat ever: a black beret with pussy-hat style ears. I had to congratulate the woman wearing it.
@PeeVee
Watching ~6 hours of Fox News and having Breitbart headlines read to him every day all week is hard work.
My winter hat is a black knit cap with pink/black cat ears that I had bought prior to the election.
I was wearing it the other day (because now it is doubly useful to me), and some yahoo drove by and shouted “Fuck you, cunt!” and threw a McDonald’s drink at me.
I blew him a kiss.
Trump’s America.
I don’t think mankind is gender neutral. The word “man” may have gender neutral etymology, but that’s not all that important. Meanings of words change over time and these days “man” means adult male human. Then again, “human” and “woman” both have “man” in them and are gender neutral and feminine, respectively. Somehow though, it makes a difference to me, if only psychologically, that those have “man” as a suffix. With “mankind” the “man” part just somehow stands out more and has more meaning to me.
I can see the argument that it is gender neutral, but why not just say “humanity” or “humankind” and remove the doubt?
Chad Thundercock! Long time, no see!
But it’s us who are dividing the country by being so mean to Trump voters and it’s up to only us to heal the divide because Trump voters never do anything rude or divisive at all!
Sorry that happened to you 🙁
Just the use of the phrase “low quality sluts” is a pretty strong indication you’re dealing with a special quality of virgin.
@Alan Robertshaw I’m going to chime in as a linguist, but not an etymologist (nor a gender studies expert) and come down on the side of mankind having been traditionally considered gender neutral.
After all, many other languages (with masculine and feminine nouns) routinely use the masculine plural to stand in for a mixed plural.
‘Mankind’ doesn’t make me feel excluded. ‘Humanity’ makes me feel actively included, which is even nicer.
WWTH,
Right?
Honestly, they can KMA. These fools don’t want tolerance (and if I hear that “party of tolerance!!11!! one more time…), they want everyone to agree with them.
And, thank you. I appreciate it.
@JoeB, yeah, I feel sooooo bad for him. It must be tough having to be told what his political opinions are, in between the ego massages.
PeeVee:
Well, it’s a working weekend, at least partly. He has a meeting with Jeff Sessions and John Kelly at Mar-a-Lago today. Obviously it would be cheaper to do this in DC, but I think Trump feels Mar-a-Lago is his safe space. It would be terrible if people were to spread a rumour that the place is bugged!
As a different linguist, I’m gonna have to disagree with the other linguist. Etymology doesn’t mean much of anything when it comes to current usage, and using a masculine form as a part of speech as a stand-in for a gender neutral form definitely doesn’t make the masculine form any less masculine.
I wrote a fairly long comment here once discussing gender neutral pronouns in Swedish. Let’s just say that there are many very angry men who absolutely freak out at the idea of replacing the default masculine parts of speech and writing with actually gender neutral ones. That should be a pretty clear hint as to how gender neutral such words really are, in the eyes of actual speakers.
By the way, the word “mankind” makes me feel excluded, and I’m almost a man myself.
@PeeVee
Doesn’t it strike you as mildly ironic that these shining examples of humanity choose to insult and denigrate women by calling them the name of the orifice they so very badly want to get into? It sure does me.
Update!
Original content of that reddit post has now been removed, and penisassociate’s reply to a comment has been deleted.
Sad!
@PeeVee
Reminds me of something I saw circulating during the debate over Nazi-punching (all for it, BTW), regarding the ethics of punching nazis, basically responding to the claim of leftist tolerance with ‘we’re supposed to be the smart ones too, but we still fall for that bullshit’, which brings to mind the so-called ‘paradox of tolerance’, namely the question of whether or not a tolerant society must tolerate intolerance. I hold generally with the view that being tolerant of intolerance will inevitably lead to the destruction or marginalization of tolerance, and that therefore any intolerance thereof is justified, but I would like to hear other people’s thoughts on the matter.
That turned out a lot longer than I expected it would. sorry.
@Alan Robertshaw
I think of “mankind” in much the same way as I think of historical references to “man” and “men”; gender specific and chosen to refer to the only people that mattered in those societies. Compare, for insurance, a statement such as “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal”. We know that this statement was deliberately intended to exclude women from the fact that they weren’t given votes in the newly independent country.
(Also, the definitions of “men” and “equal” used in that quote are somewhat interesting)
Mankind makes me feel a bit excluded. It’s not that huge of a deal but I much prefer humanity. Mankind may have a gender neutral intent, but it highlights that men are the default people. That’s my issue with it.
@Banananana dakry,
Yeah, it does, and it also gives me great pleasure to know that the cretin who thinks it’s acceptable to call women these things is most likely to never have access to one, given what a charmer he is.
I’d be willing to bet that he’s somewhere online, boasting about how he screamed out the window at some woman, giving himself allocades at how he told that big ole meanie wearing a cat hat a thing or two. Such brave. So wow.
@Moggie,
He should be denied the safe space he desperately desires, given it’s on the taxpayer’s dime, and he has no problem making others fear for their goddamned safety with his profound stupidity…
Oh, it would indeed be a pity if M-a-L were found to be bugged. Anyone know if the Russian Ambassador ever visted there?
If anyone wants to try their hand at that Chuck Tingle-esque fiction, here’s some cover ‘art’:
“Mankind” makes me feel pandered to in a skeezy way. I don’t want to be part of anyone’s “subset of humanity which includes only the people that matter.”
Whether it was once a gender-neutral term or not is irrelevant, IMHO. What matters is that it isn’t one now.
Whatever the etymology, mankind does strike me as a strongly gendered term from a 2017 perspective. But I don’t think it would be a word I would ever reach for anyway.
And people use womankind these days, which no matter the original roots, shows that in usage, mankind is perceived as a gendered term.
Thanks to all for the input on the mankind thing. The general consensus here was the ‘default = male unless otherwise stated’ view. Like you never hear “all male rock band”.
PeeVee:
I’m beginning to get the impression that the ambassador speaks to everyone, so he’s probably been everywhere. If my photoshop skills were better, I’d be shopping him into improbable meetings, starting with the photo from the end of The Shining.
@Moggie,
That would be awesome! Oh, this needs to be a meme! Random people with him shopped into photos!
Kermit the Frog having tea with Kislyak.
Me wearing a trenchcoat and my cat hat with Kislyak.
Oh! Kislyak marching in the women’s marches protesting Trump!
The possibilities are endless.
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/swtn.gif
@on the “is the word mankind gender neutral or not” discussion:
Hardly related, but helps to compare: In portuguese “mankind” is often translated as “Homem” – yes, folks, “Man”, with capital first letter and everything. They also say in portuguese that its supposed to be understood as neutral. It makes even less sense because woman in portuguese is “mulher”, which is a very different word.
Whoever studies latin languages here sure have heard of how gendered and patriarchal they are. For example, “professor/professores” means “male teacher/male teachers”. “Professora/professoras” means “female teacher/female teachers”. But when you have a gender diverse group of teachers, its called “professores”, as if the female teachers didnt matter. If you try saying “professoras” to a group of 99 female teachers and one male, you can bet he will raise his hand to signal his presence and say “ahem, professores, actually”. This happens with most pronouns.
So, for me, this is very clearly one of the few examples where the english language is sexist like ours.