Penises and Uteri as Weapons of Mass Destruction

And the title of the craziest statement of the week goes to:

To put it even more bluntly, men have killed far more women by ejaculating inside of them than they have by any other method. Semen has killed more people than any other body fluid.” (Emphasis isn’t mine.)

And according to this logic, women have killed more men with their uteri than by any other method. I mean, when you give birth to any person, you know they will die eventually. So by giving birth, all those horrid women have condemned every member of humanity to death!

I say we outlaw both penises and uteri as horrible weapons of mass destruction. Is it even normal that people are allowed to carry them (and concealed, too!) all over the place?

Jokes aside, the tragedy is that there are many unintelligent people who will excuse their hatred of gender equality by deciding that this is what feminism is all about and condemning all feminists as unhinged weird people.

Rate this:

29 responses to “Penises and Uteri as Weapons of Mass Destruction”

Danny

June 7, 2012

Based on that logic and the fact that most pregnancies result from consensual sex is it men killing women or women dying from assisted suicide?

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

June 7, 2012

Ha ha ha! Good point!

LikeLike

Reply

Wirbelwind

June 7, 2012

I can’t see how anybody can die from sperm unless it is by drowning… and I just can’t imagine all the hard work (heh) somebody would have to put his hand in (sorry for the incredibly lame puns, but this is just…) to make it possible.

LikeLike

Benoni

June 7, 2012

Death from childbirth, maybe? And I’m REALLY giving that weirdo the benefit of the doubt here.

LikeLike

Reply
1. el
  
  June 8, 2012
  
  Had you read the post, you would’ve seen he’s talking of childbirth.
  
  In previous centuries most women couldn’t say “No” to sex with their husbands, were constantly pregnant and huge numbers died in childbirth.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    June 8, 2012
    
    This is a gross exaggeration. Which countries are we talking about? Which eras?
    
    This is as ridiculous as the statements by those people who blame women for all the lives men lost in fighting wars. Their logic is: men make the majority of soldiers and always have. They died massively in wars while women sat there enjoying themselves, knowing that men fought their battles for them. This gender imbalance killed huge numbers of men and still does.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
2. Kamran Khan
  
  June 9, 2012
  
  How do you find that to be a gross exaggeration? Maybe you haven’t heard of the Middle East? South Asia? In patriarchal societies, it is men who are given the privilege to choose how many children they can have. There is no access to birth control for women, and abortions are out of the question. This is actually a very common familial norm in most of Islamic societies, where a baby is considered a blessing, and women are subservient to their male partners.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    June 9, 2012
    
    See? You have already specified a geographic region. Wasn’t that hard, was it?
    
    And you also mentioned that lack of access to abortion and lack of childbearing choice is what kills. Not penises. This is why your comment is intelligent and reasonable and the post I quoted is not.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply

gudenuf

June 8, 2012

If sperm is responsible for the bad parts of pregnancy, isn’t it also responsible for the good parts? If sperm gets 100% of the blame for lives ended by pregnancy, it also gets 100% of the credit for the lives created by pregnancy. The entire human race was created by pregnancy, so I guess sperm deserves credit for everything humans have ever done.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

June 8, 2012

A good example where this faulty logic might lead.

LikeLike

Reply

gudenuf

June 8, 2012

I just read this asshat’s column about a female teacher who had sex with her male student. He actually claims that THE TEACHER was a victim because her mean student objectified her.

http://www.rolereboot.org/culture-and-politics/details/2012-06-hot-for-teacher-or-hot-for-praise-what-a-school-sex

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

June 8, 2012

I read that column. I don’t know on what planet that teacher can be seen as a victim of anything. This is ridiculous. It’s the same old story as always: male sexuality is always predatory and female sexuality is always victimized.

LikeLike

Reply

musteryou

June 8, 2012

Well, if you read about the life of Freud, for instance, as I have done, many of the books say he abstained from sex after having umpteen children because it was killing his wife to be eternally pregnant and giving birth.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

June 8, 2012

I agree that the bourgeois women in the XIXth centuey had a horrible existence because they were perennially pregnant. Obviously, that’s an extremely tragic existence. But blaming sperm for that is as silly as blaming toes for the Bubonic Plague (people walked around spreading infection, so toes are to blame) or blaming ears for the Holocaust (people heard the Nazi propaganda with their ears, etc.).

LikeLike

Reply
1. musteryou
  
  June 8, 2012
  
  Nothing can be *blamed*. But I think this is an attempt to engage with the metaphysical discourse, whereby we try to find the agents of harm and draw certain moral conclusions about them. This kind of thinking has a long history in the Western tradition. There’s the idea, for instance, that female attributes, or indeed the presence of women in certain contexts (churches, ships, battle-zones, etc.) drag men “down”. Women are down and men are up. It’s a metaphysical assumption that’s worked its way through language. This idea seems to be in the same tradition, only attempting to operate in another direction.
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply

June 8, 2012

He is right, though. Not that long ago married women had to stay married because of economic reasons too, especially if they had several children, and I bet the husbands wouldn’t accept the position of No Penetrative Sex.
Look at Sex tips for wives in 1894:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/woman/1833968/Sex-tips-for-wives-in-1894-and-today.html
Some people would call Ruth Smythers “dark” or “hilarous” or whatever, but had I become pregnant after each time we had sex with my spouse, I would rather not have sex at all too. Those tips cover this dark reality.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

June 8, 2012

You are talking about a tiny social class that, in terms of the entire history of humanity, lasted for 15 seconds. It now seems like the XIXth century bourgeouisie is all that ever existed, but that is not true. As I mentioned many times before, over 1,000 means of contraception were known in Medieval Spain. There was a person responsible for contraceptive culture and abortion services in every tiny little village.

The culture of permanently pregnant housewives only appeared very recently when men came about who could buy such women. Yet, this didn’t mean that every XIXth century bourgeois woman had 15 children or was a victim of her husband.

Simplifying reality until it looks like a caricature is not very useful. All it does is make the goals of feminism harder to achieve because the animosity between genders is the favorite tool of the patriarchy.

LikeLike

Reply
1. el
  
  June 8, 2012
  
  //The culture of permanently pregnant housewives
  
  I gave that as only 1 example of 1 time & place.
  
  Didn’t peasants in Russia have numerous children too? I thought that with peasants a young mother was often working in fields, while old people looked after children. That’s how Nekrasov described it in “Кому на Руси жить хорошо. Крестьянка” –
  
  Носила я Демидушку
  По поженкам… лелеяла…
  Да взъелася свекровь,
  Как зыкнула, как рыкнула:
  «Оставь его у дедушки,
  Не много с ним нажнешь!»
  …
  Снопами нагружала я
  Телегу со стропилами
  …
  
  Didn’t poor people in many times & places had many children, partly because of lack of contraception? F.e. in Victorian (?) times I read about numerous newborns left by mothers near children’s homes and that most of them died till reaching 1 year. Were those mothers too lazy to use this accessible and good contraception?
  
  Another example: on forum for discussing Duma’s “The Three Musketeers” people said that in those times Church forbade contraception and that marriage meant many children. I don’t say those people are 100% right, but considering that most people were more religious than now, how would contraception be widely accessible? Wouldn’t Church be against it because of encouraging extramarital sex & abortions?
  
  May be, you would like to post on Contraception Through Ages one day? How effective those Medieval Spain’s methods were? What about dangers of poisons and abortions for women’s health in times without antibiotics?
  Besides, Medieval Spain was 1 place at 1 time too. Didn’t things change to make contraception less accessible?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    June 8, 2012
    
    My peasant Jewish great-grandmother had 7 children. My peasant Ukrainian grandmother had 6 children. I have no reason that either of them did not choose to have these children or felt victimized by sperm.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply

June 8, 2012

I don’t mean they “felt victimized by sperm”, but do think that people always make choices in a specific social reality. If there is no good contraception, social norms will be different. Choices one can make will be vastly different too. Would each woman choose to have 6+ children, were good quality contraception available?

After contraception was improved, birth rates went down. Of course, there were other reasons for it too, but good new contraception definitely played a part. Without it many women would “choose” to have more children than they had.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

June 8, 2012

I’m not arguing with what you are saying. The liberation of women from the burden of constant childbearing is a hugely important issue that needs to be discussed. But turning it into a circus by taking about sperm that kills and penises that victimize is ridiculous. “Lack of reliable contraception is tragic for women” is a reasonable statement. “Sperm kills people” is not.

LikeLike

Reply
1. el
  
  June 8, 2012
  
  //The liberation of women from the burden of constant childbearing is a hugely important issue that needs to be discussed
  
  I agree with that, but how does this statement go together with what I understood to be your claim RE great contraception in Middle Ages? If it were so great, why all excitement about and influence of Pill & good, available to all (more than ever before) condoms?
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply
  1. bloggerclarissa
    
    June 8, 2012
    
    Because many centuries passed between the Middle Ages and the 1950s. The world changed completely.
    
    As I said, this issue has a very long and complex history. Saying “all women always had numerous children everywhere because there was no contraception at all before the XXth century and no women ever could refuse sex to their husbands” is ridiculous and not helpful to any reasonable cause.
    
    LikeLike
    
    Reply
    1. bloggerclarissa
      
      June 8, 2012
      
      Human history is complex, gender relations are complex. I understand when a comedian at a club makes statements about killer sperm. But the author of the OP is a college professor. When I think that he actually delivers these rants to his students (since he teaches gender relations), I cringe.
      
      I had precisely this kind of a male prof once, so this traumatizes me.
      
      LikeLike
      
      Reply

Peter

June 12, 2012

Just to clarify, the victimization of women over the centuries is just one of the most ridicules points feminists are grasping (for a straw);
Man had role as support person and with more children the obligations to provide was ever larger. It was mans responsibility to provide for the family. Women had been expected to look after the house as men was expected to look after the financial welfare (or bringing food) and safety.
It was odd for a man to look after the home and women to work or hunt this times. The gender roles had been separated due to the biology. As such it is ridicules when I hear comments of oppressing women by generalization.
After all, why man would open the door for women or pull the char out? This are clear signs of respect for women. Man doesn’t do this acts for other man.
Unfortunately or fortunately man couldn’t be pregnant, and that is it! I fail to see any risen to discuss this any further.
Over centuries man had attempted to protect and shelter women and children. During war times, women and children had been protected. Although Titanic case is one of its kind it shows that 20% of man had survived, 50% only of children had survived (I believe this is outrageous!) and over 70% of women. Notice, feminism wasn’t the risen for high rate of women surviving this terrible disaster, it was man actions that ensured women survivor rate. I still wonder what had happen to the 50% of children on Titanic, who was looking after them?
Now thanks to feminism, women are engaged more and more in army and women will be the casualty on a battle field, in police force. Women are expected to work and contribute to welfare of the family unit, etc… the Chivalrous area of man that had provided and cared is over. It is replaced with government policies protecting the women, i.e.: in divorces, financial settlements, child support payments, etc… This policies had made me believe that the role of a man had been replaced by the role of government. So there is no change for women in meter of fact. Clearly Chivalraty is still with us but is hidden by government policies.
Personally I believe it’s time that women start contributing equally as man but with obligations comes responsibility. I fill that feminists are after all the benefits but no responsibilities and there I see a problem. Just see the crimes penalties for man and women, how about the support women have and the spending on research and study are hugely disproportionate! How about this silly quotas for upper management roles but not quotes for teachers for man or quotes for women truck drivers, etc… If women are after quality then be equal.
No thanks to feminism but to the contraception women really had become free to do what they like. I know many women who had been encouraged by their fathers to study and do something with the lives and the same women had sad that it was their mothers who had used all the tricks to stop them from going to universities.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

June 12, 2012

“Man had role as support person and with more children the obligations to provide was ever larger. It was mans responsibility to provide for the family. Women had been expected to look after the house as men was expected to look after the financial welfare (or bringing food) and safety.
It was odd for a man to look after the home and women to work or hunt this times. ”

– I’m sorry, Peter, but you lack basic education to discuss these subjects. May I ask at which university you acquired this specific bit of knowledge? I’d also like to hear the name of your professor because s/he was a total quack. I’m prepared to make him / her a laughing stock in the academic community after you reveal this charlatan’s name.

“After all, why man would open the door for women or pull the char out? This are clear signs of respect for women. Man doesn’t do this acts for other man.”

– Are you serious??? My husband always holds the door open for absolutely everybody. And so do I. Because we are polite people. As for “pulling the chair out”, normally people do this for small kids of either gender. I’ve never seen anybody do this for a non-disabled adult.

“Over centuries man had attempted to protect and shelter women and children. During war times, women and children had been protected.”

– As I said, you lack very basic education. The civilian casualties in any war far exceed those of soldiers. How is it even possible for an adult person not to know this basic fact? Have you learned anything about the casualties in WWII, for example?

“Now thanks to feminism, women are engaged more and more in army and women will be the casualty on a battle field, in police force. Women are expected to work and contribute to welfare of the family unit, etc… the Chivalrous area of man that had provided and cared is over.”

– Yes, this is wonderful!!

” Clearly Chivalraty is still with us but is hidden by government policies.”

– That quack of a professor did not even inform you that chivalry was a myth? You wasted your money on that college education, my friend.

“I know many women who had been encouraged by their fathers to study and do something with the lives and the same women had sad that it was their mothers who had used all the tricks to stop them from going to universities.”

– Obviously. This is a self-evident result of the patriarchy.

LikeLike

Reply
1. musteryou
  
  November 4, 2012
  
  I think Dambudzo’s description of rape during war really brings the issue home clearly enough, as to how gender relationships are manifested during war.
  
  RHODES: Your daughter, Judy, is right there with [my sister, behind the wall]. I can see them. They are kissing.
  
  ROBIN: My daugher kissing who? Be careful what you say. She was a pure, innocent, beautiful young thing until your comrades did things to her and slit her throat.
  
  RHODES: She’s kissing Cecilia. They are very much in love with each other. What you did to both of them left them with nothing but sheer disgust for men. For this world. [Pauses. Looks away]
  
  LikeLike
  
  Reply

Peter

November 4, 2012

Bloggerclarissa,
Lets address you selective points;
“Man had role as support person and with more children the obligations to provide was ever larger. It was mans responsibility to provide for the family. Women had been expected to look after the house as men was expected to look after the financial welfare (or bringing food) and safety.
It was odd for a man to look after the home and women to work or hunt this times. ”
I’m sorry, Peter, but you lack basic education to discuss these subjects. May I ask at which university you acquired this specific bit of knowledge? I’d also like to hear the name of your professor because s/he was a total quack. I’m prepared to make him / her a laughing stock in the academic community after you reveal this charlatan’s name.

You joking -right? If not, than you really believe that it was a women primary role to provide($) for the family or even hunt for the animals and provide safety? Or if a professor didn’t teach you that at uni you luck of grasps of gender roles in history eludes you? Rather than putting you point forward you had opted out with you stupid comments.

“- Are you serious??? My husband always holds the door open for absolutely everybody. And so do I. Because we are polite people. As for “pulling the chair out”, normally people do this for small kids of either gender. I’ve never seen anybody do this for a non-disabled adult.”

You really live on different planet? Only once in my live a women had open a door for me, I am glad it happens to you and your husband all the time. The point is (and you check before you open you month with you professor this time try a man please) why man was standing up when women come to a table or had been leaving the table.

“Over centuries man had attempted to protect and shelter women and children. During war times, women and children had been protected.”

As I said, you lack very basic education. The civilian casualties in any war far exceed those of soldiers. How is it even possible for an adult person not to know this basic fact? Have you learned anything about the casualties in WWII, for example?

More I read your comments more you proving that you out of you mind! Read my statement once again, and run to you educator to explain it to you. If I would comment that man had gathered bunch of woman and children and send them to the front lines, than I would agree with you.

I was surprised you didn’t comment on this paragraph…. Don’t please, I will not read yours articles any more, you had already provide me with so much insides I can take.

Oh boy if stupidity could fly, I would see you high in the skies…. I wish you all the best in you endeavors child.

LikeLike

bloggerclarissa

November 4, 2012

“Only once in my live a women had open a door for me, I am glad it happens to you and your husband all the time.”

– That is very understandable. You sound like a total freakazoid. Who would open a door for a hysteric like you?

As for the rest, you lack basic spelling, vocabulary and grammar skills to discuss anything on this blog. Please learn to read and write and then I might let you come back. Here is a small test for you: when you realize why ‘Lets address you selective points’ is an idiotic and meaningless sentence, I will allow you to come back. But not sooner.

LikeLike

Reply

Clarissa's Blog