Saturday, July 18, 2009

Neil Lyndon on Feminazi Eugenics

I wanted to draw your attention to a recent article by Neil Lyndon in The First Post, Synthetic sperm brings mad feminist dream a step closer

"The news that scientists at Newcastle University have artificially created human sperm - in pursuit of research into the causes of male infertility - has triggered yet another outing for that hoar-gnarled feminist fantasy of a world without men.

"A world without men? How Wonderful !!!!" writes a contributor to the Daily Mail's website.

"Women have always known that men are a waste of space," declares the Daily Mirror. "Now British scientists have proved how unnecessary blokes truly are by creating the first human sperm from stem cells."

"Bye bye baby," celebrates the Fairfield Life blog. "The new science means the biological role of the father is under threat."

These lightweight, flibbertygibbet voices are continuing a tradition as old as feminism itself. A potty eugenicist strain has always infected that ideology and it continues today, frequently espoused by leading heavyweights of our culture."


Lyndon briefly sketches the history of feminist eugenic thinking.

As I commented at the bottom of the article, the remarkable thing about such feminists is the level of juvenile spite on display. Do they really think anyone is going to be impressed? They seem to think that flirting with Adolf Hitler - because that is what they are doing - is somehow grown-up and cool. They don't seem to realise how stupid and tawdry they look. The truth is that men will only be redundant until the first time there is a spider in the bath or the dishwasher breaks down. It really is an exercise in childish posturing.

I invite you to go there and post your own comments.

5 comments:

tiredofitall said...

They don't seem to realise how stupid and tawdry they look.

I honestly doubt they give a shit what anyone without two X chromosomes think anyway...


The truth is that men will only be redundant until the first time there is a spider in the bath or the dishwasher breaks down.

You're giving them far too much credit.

The second that they realize no one will be around to foot the massive bill for one of these "designer babies" but them, they'll go running mad looking for Prince Charming to save them.

It really is an exercise in childish posturing.

And you expected what else out of a bunch of nasty feminist types?

paddybrown said...

It's bizarre. The first use that occurred to me for artificial sperm is to help infertile men have children. But that never seems to have occurred to most female columnists in the British press, who have leaped on the notion that it makes men "redundant" - as if men are only here to meet female desires and needs, and if we're not doing that we may as well not exist.

Sorry, but I'm an individual with my own needs and desires and my own human dignity. I don't have to justify my existence by how useful I am to women. I am a human being - not a means to an end.

All my life I've been hearing about how men "objectify" women, and how the dominance of the "male gaze" means the media ignore the female point of view. It's pure projection.

BrusselsLout said...

A world without men might just happen -- because most men are that stupid, I'm afraid, they might just let it happen.

But the creation of sperm in a lab?

BULL.

Read William Dembski's Intelligent Design.

DNA is so complex it's beyond anyone's comprehension. (And it can't develop by chance through evolutionary changes either. The universe, at 16 billion years old, is not nearly old enough. Dembski calculates you'd need to add another 100 zeros to the age for there to be a realistic chance!)

Professor Dembski -- a mathematician specialising in probability theory applied to microbiology -- makes a powerful argument for intelligent design in the universe. He argues that the probability that life came into existence by chance through natural occurrences (even over a number of billions of years) is infinitesimal.

This takes us to this superlab that "nearly" created sperm. If natural forces over such enormous periods can't create DNA, then neither can men (who want to do themselves out of their very existence) in a lab. The complexity of DNA is such that even tiny portions of it (themselves extremely complex) are so unstable they would fall to pieces almost immediately on creation.

Yes, it may be possible one day for men to a take, say, a mouse sperm, jiggle it around with a frog sperm, and get the sperm of an as-yet unheard of animal. But this is cheating it -- the complexity of the component DNA is already there, in the form of the original sperms.

Gentlemen. It won't happen.

JimmyGiro said...

And what's the probability of Professor Dembski making a mistake?

BrusselsLout said...

And what's the probability of Professor Dembski making a mistake?

Don't forget that the claim that men decended from ape-like creatures is still an assumption. There is NO proof of it. No one has ever found a link between the presumed prehistoric apes and men. (Or indeed, between such apes and chimpanzees.)

So either way we are making a bet.

Dempski argues that the change in DNA between the two is still far too complex to evolve through chance changes over a miniscule period of time like 16 billion years.

This makes Darwinian/Dawkinsian evolution the outsider here. With odds of the order of 1 in 10^(-100), Dardawk is not a good horse.

In short, my money is on Dempski.

Back to the article, I'm sceptical these biologists actually created sperm in a lab (unless they used material from other sperm -- which would make it a false claim).

But let's do some logic as well. Just suppose they DID create sperm through chemical means. (Any other means would be cheating.) Then what would stop them creating EGGS in a lab? Surely that would render women ALSO superfluous.