We women who grew up reading Heinlein are different. We know that we are different, but know we are as capable as men of creating a future worth living in, and more important than men because only we can give birth to the future.
The women of feminist-offense can doubtlessly find something to complain about in everything Robert A. Heinlein – a man who loved women – wrote and said. And I hope they enjoy it. But only we Heinlein women are capable of giving birth to children who will take over the stars.
Sarah Hoyt
July 31, 2017
Robert A. Heinlein: The Man Who Loved Women
[Aside from some difficult to quantify genetic contribution, Robert Heinlein was probably a greater influence on my personal philosophy than anyone else in my life.—Joe]
First off, if women are equal to, or even superior to, men in every way, then they’ll have to explain why they’ve allowed themselves to be oppressed by men for thousands of years. If A is true then B must be by choice alone, and if women have chosen to be oppressed, then…. I’ll let you finish the sentence in your own way.
“…we are as capable as men of creating a future worth living in, and more important than men because only we can give birth to the future.
I don’t believe any mortal is capable of “creating” any future.
Last time I checked, it was still pretty much axiomatic that “it takes two to Tango”.
“Giving birth to the future” is pretty presumptuous. It sounds very Pan-Theistic, like a Stone Age creation myth. (what if you ended up giving birth to the past when you were hoping for a future?) (Wait, doesn’t someone then have to give birth to the present also – else where do we get the present if no woman gives birth to it?).
Does not the future arrive, strictly speaking, minute by minute, millennium by millennium, with little regard to what happens in your womb? Yes I know; it depends on what we mean by “future”.
Anyway, you can’t give birth to the future (or to any other tense) and defend the Martian outpost all at the same time. Someone else has to be there for you and the baby during your period of vulnerability, which is kinda the whole point.
That “someone else” in the feminist Progressive theology, is to be the coercive power of government. That coercive power is “Justice” for ten thousand+ years of oppression of women by men.
So you’re the mother of the future, coercive power is your husband and nurturing father of your baby, and your bastard child, born by an angry victim-mother and nurtured with coercion, will be the future, which will be mass destruction and death.
And anyway, in the Progressive theology, it wouldn’t matter who (or what tense) you think you’ve given birth to because the public education system, in concert with Child Protective Services, the media and the legislatures, et al, is going to mold and shape the children into what society needs, as decided by the central planning committees.
In that model, which the “Progressive” Western World has been upholding for the last 120 years or so, the woman only supplies the womb. The child belongs to the state.
So who are the supposed misogynists again?
Dear Joe,
Starship Troopers: the book, not the “vershlugener” movie, was the most important political treatise of my formative years. The concept of Citizenship based on service resonated then, and persists.
I bear no respect for those who take without giving.
I admit my bias, but those who have signed that blank check have a leg up on service.
Bob