Progressive Patriarchy

Case #1:

It seems it’s just me, but whenever I see a male politician or media spokesman telling me he’s going to defend my right to choose, I feel mansplained to. When a man tells you he’s fighting for your reproductive freedom, just imagine he’s patting you on the head while he’s doing it.

He has no stake in the matter. He is patronizing you, telling you what he thinks you want to hear. Necessarily.

Case #2:

Progressives are blind when it’s convenient. The faddish love affair with non-traditional families. Behind every happy photo of two men rejoicing over their baby stands unseen a woman—a surrogate. She is paid like a servant to risk her life and give away the child she bears. Sometimes she is the biological mother of the child, and sometimes she carries a baby created using another woman’s egg.

Every time you see a gay couple with a child, understand that your are seeing a child who has suffered a deep, permanent loss, and this loss has been forced upon that child deliberately. The best possible case is that the child has begun life with the loss of one parent. The child of a surrogate has lost three mothers—her biological mother, the mother who carried her, and the mother who might have raised her. We are expected to cheer the fulfillment of adult desires, and to dismiss the negation of children’s needs. Toward both mother and child, it is the most elitist, classist, opportunistic act possible.


9 thoughts on “Progressive Patriarchy

  1. Citizen Tom

    Reblogged this on Citizen Tom and commented:
    Here a reblog of a post worth thinking about.

    My own two cents? There are two sexes, only two. Is there an endless number of genders? Is our foolishness only limited by our imagination?

    When a man and woman engage in holy matrimony, the two become one. That includes making and raising babies, human beings like us.
    To make our families work, we need to harmoniously resolve our differences. When our leaders invent a bunch of absurd genders and selfish freedoms, they are just trying to divide and conquer us.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. sklyjd

    Why does the issue of gender, gay couples with a child, surrogate children and homosexual relationships etc have any effect on any of you? Call it what you will, it may be a freak of nature, or something biological that did not line up during the babies development in the womb, similar to being born with a missing limb or internal organ.

    Homosexual tendencies have been observed and disfigured young have been born by all mammals, therefore what is the big deal? Kids that have same sex parents are far better off than without parents, and again mammals of both genders will nurture each others babies, and regardless of what anyone’s ideologies may claim sexual orientation is not just simply chosen like the flavour of an ice cream, mammals that include humans are far more complicated than that.


    1. madblog Post author

      If you will look again, I said nothing at all about the legitimacy or illegitimacy of homosexuality. I made one simple point— that the child born of a surrogate has started life with a great loss forced upon him deliberately, and that’s bern done for the purposes of fulfilling the desires of adults. This is the case no matter the adults are gay or straight, male or female. I chose to feature the gay male couple because that is the rosy picture most ideally promoted, and the tragedy there is most insistently overlooked… It should not be the burden of little babies to sacrifice to accommodate adults; it is adults who are supposed to sacrifice to accommodate children.


      1. sklyjd

        Ok apologise for my mistaken understanding of your post. The fact is that there is no evidence to support your belief that the child is disadvantaged and how would a married male couple be able to raise a child? The most serious damage to young children from fulfilling adults desires is religious indoctrination that includes the discrimination against gay people, that is most dangerous.


        1. madblog Post author

          So you’re saying there is no disadvantage to a baby to be intentionally deprived of his mother. Are you understanding the post? Do you understand what happens when a surrogate is hired to carry a baby for a couple? Maybe look it up before you raise objections


        2. sklyjd

          I agree it is not the most desirable outcome to separate a newborn from the mother, that is a fact, however many children suffer the loss of a parent as my own daughter has without detrimental long term effects. Many children are adopted and fostered, beaten and raped by adults or even kidnapped, this separation from a mother who is not wanting the child and is simply in it for financial benefit is an emotional episode for the baby but best in the long run as they would have the love and support required throughout their lives whether it be any combination of carers.


        3. madblog Post author

          Let’s be clear on the basics. I am referring to children who have been deliberately separated from their parent, and that separation is designed and planned by the new parents. To take on the care and responsibility of a child who has tragically lost his parents, or who has had to be removed from abusive parents is nothing but heroic and admirable. But we are talking about the opposite— intentionally depriving a child of his parents, being the perpetrator of his lifelong loss! Because you want to be a parent. In this situation, the grown ups have their preferences met, and the child’s needs are dismissed. Two very different cases.


Leave a Reply to sklyjd Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: 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 )

Connecting to %s