@Samyann_Writer - man didn't make women breeders, it's just an inescapable fact of the world we live in

Funny thing about pregnancy: it's something only women can do.

Okay maybe not particularly "funny" in a ha-ha sense. It's just one of those universal truths. Pregnancy certainly requires male input (literally), but only the woman actually gets pregnant.

Leftists hate this basic truth, of course, and think for some bizarre reason that it was some sort of male conspiracy.
Of course, the first thing you might note from Sammy's retarded little tweet is the reference to cows. The second thing you may note that it's in response to a discussion about how FakePresident Biden is expanding the murder of babies across the world using U.S. taxpayer dollars, and that such a viewpoint doesn't particularly jive well with his (supposed) religious beliefs. Since you are being asked to note both things on this blog, you've probably surmised that they're related.

I could talk a lot about this: I could note that the allusion to the animal world kind of betrays the fact that human women being the half that breeds future generations nicely corresponds to how cows are the half that breeds future generations as well (it's why the beef you eat -- except for low-cost hamburger harvested from cows who have undergone bovine menopause -- always comes from surplus young steers). I could note that women already can "make up their own mind" and the side who thinks that making a Facebook post about how somebody is a "homo" should bar you from all future employment suddenly fears consequences in return for being a slut. The whole time I'd be doing this, though, it would be in the back of my brain that somebody else already did it and better.

So let's let the master instruct the class from here on out. As always, this column is lovingly OCR'd from the legendary Ted Byfield's "The Book of Ted". The relevant section is in red below.

I've been convicted of murder but I'd like to make a point

The blame, it appears, has now been assigned for the shooting death of fourteen young women last month at the University of Montreal. The killer himself who committed suicide was not the real culprit. Rather, it was the conservative anti-feminists of the country whose views incited the man to do what he did. This has apparently become the official feminist explanation for the tragedy.

Thus, when I was at Golden, B.C., west of Banff, last week, I was accosted by a grim, formidable woman of about 50 who said that she had read two recent columns in which I had criticized the feminist revolution. Fixing me with a cold eye, she added something like this. "Fourteen young women have died in Montreal at the hands of a man who hated feminists. I think you should know that the difference between you and the man who killed them is merely a matter of degree."

In precisely the same vein, Thomas Walkom, a columnist in the Toronto Star, declared that Ted and Link Byfield on the one hand, and Montreal killer Marc Lepine on the other, "are disparate parts of the same phenomenon." Lepine, says Mr. Walkom, "represents the crazy edge of anti-feminism" while the Byfields "articulate a version which is more acceptable," but both are pursuing the same end.

The case against us, of course, is never stated in full. It is made by innuendo in a kind of sweeping generality that is intended for unexamined acceptance. That's because it will not bear much examination. Stated in full, it would go something like this:
Many men harbour a deep, subconscious hatred and fear of women. Males have given vent to this hatred by creating a society which women are subjugated into drudgery, made to serve male masters, rear children, and tend the home. They are denied any significant social, economic or political role. The feminist movement seeks to deliver women from this servitude, and establish instead a social system in which both sexes share power. Feminism is therefore a threat to the male power establishment. People who oppose feminism, knowingly or not, are inciting this male hatred of women into violent reality, causing unrestrained males to explode in the kind of incident we see at Montreal. Conclusion: since opposing the feminist movement subjects women to physical violence, one must not criticize or oppose the feminist revolution.

Now let's apply the same reasoning to other instances of mass mayhem - for instance to the appearance of a gunman several years ago in the Quebec National Assembly who also took a considerable toll of life. One would reason as follows:
Many people have an inherent resistance to the coercive authority of government. Politicians represent government in the popular mind. People who criticize politicians are, knowingly or unknowingly, inciting this inherent hatred of authority into violent reality, causing the kind of incident we saw at Quebec. To criticize the government, therefore, is to subject politicians to physical violence. Conclusion: one must not criticize government.

Or in the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan:
Many people have an inherent resistance to the constituted authority of government. The president of the United States symbolizes government in the popular mind. People who criticize the president, knowingly or unknowingly, are inciting this inherent resentment of government into violent reality, as in the attempted assassination of president Reagan. Conclusion: one must not criticize president Reagan.

Now Mr. Walkom (I do not doubt) was a persistent critic of president Reagan. By his own reasoning, he and the man who tried to assassinate the president are "disparate parts of the same phenomenon." Similarly, the woman at Golden who resents male domination, and that woman at Vancouver who, apparently out of the same sentiment, last month murdered her husband and children before killing herself, are "separated only by degree."

Now it is possible to construct a very different explanation, if not for the specific tragedy at Montreal, at least for the situation in which women now find themselves, namely one of extreme danger and increasing vulnerability to violence at the hands of males. It is an ironic thing that the modern young career woman probably has a thousand freedoms her grandmother did not share. But her grandmother was safe on the streets at night, and she is not. Like the case against the Byfields, this one too must go back to root causes.

Point 1: The chief cause of the subjugation of woman is not the man. It is the child. Because the woman had to nurture and rear young children, she has never had the freedom available to the man.
Point 2: Since all animals lay this responsibility upon the female, one must conclude that it is not the result of some male conspiracy, but an act of nature itself (That is, unless male dogs at some prehistoric time conspired to enslave female dogs, boars to enslave sows, drakes to enslave ducks, and stallions to enslave mares, then men didn't enslave women; God did.)
Point 3: Humanity, however, developed a device to ease the burden upon women, notably the family, an institution in which the woman cares for the children and the man cares for the woman. Out of the family came the tribe, and out of the tribe came successive civilizations which rise and fall throughout human history. None is permanent. The higher the civilization the greater the freedom of women. Feminism is a product of the current civilization and will end when it ends.
Point 4: Hence, the best protection for the woman is the civil order. Anything that threatens the civil order threatens pre-eminently the woman, and when the civil order fails, as it has in parts of many modem cities, women are the first casualties. The basis of the civil order is the family, and any threat to the family is a direct threat to the safety and freedom of women.
Point 5: The greatest threat to the family today is posed by feminism which has resolved to either abolish the family, or change it into something else entirely. By attacking the foundation of the social order, therefore, feminism threatens, rather than enhances, the lot of women, and destroys the very basis upon which women have won such freedom as they now enjoy.

Conclusion: Both men and women should resist and oppose the feminist revolution insofar as it threatens the family, and "people like Mr. Walkom want to find the real source of violence against women, they might look a little more closely at what they have been writing themselves.
- Ted Byfield, January 22, 1990