Is the Pill a plot to destroy femininity?

14 Aug

Like almost every other woman I know, my experience with hormonal contraceptives began in high school, and like every other one of my girlfriends, taking the pill had nothing whatsoever to do with preventing pregnancy. We all swallowed down our daily doses for one reason and one reason only:

Taking the pill allows you to predict, pretty much down to the hour, when Aunt Flo will be making her monthly appearance.


If there is anything more horrifying to your average high school girl (at least in my day) than the thought of a bleed out in chemistry class, I don’t know what that would be.  Why are those damn coats white?

We all knew the pill had certain side effects, and some of those were very much desired.  The kind of pill that completely prevents a woman’s natural production of testosterone leads to nice clear skin, so naturally we all wanted that kind of pill.


Of course, YAZ has also been implicated in thousands of deaths due to blood clots and other nasty side effects, but if that was ever mentioned, it wasn’t done in a way that made any impression on me or any other girl I knew. According to pulmonary embolism is also listed as another nasty yasmin side effect.


We all understood that the pill would also prevent pregnancy, but that was not the primary motivation to take it as a teenager.  God, guess I’m really old!  I must be the last generation that came of age when sexuality was something you discovered with a boyfriend you had been dating for a really long time.  Going steady.  When I was in highschool, there was no such thing as Google, the internet was something geeky kids were really into and porn came in magazines you had to be 18 to buy.

Things have changed.

But the idea that the pill was liberating, that it had changed women’s lives was very much alive and kicking.  The birth control pill was what set women free and the act of taking it was highly symbolic.  Popping those pills made us free women.



Turns out the pill has some interesting side effects, which are probably quite positive for very young women, but have some pretty far-reaching consequences for older women and society in general.  For one thing, by interfering with natural cycles of ovulation and fertility, the pill actually works to dampen women’s desire.  The natural lust most women experience at the peak of their fertility cycle is dulled, often to the point of non-existence.  And women’s desire for effeminate men becomes more or less their permanent state of being.

A study of 85 couples who met when the woman was already taking oral contraceptives, and the same number of couples who met when the woman was not on the pill, found that the women in the first set picked men with more feminine features.

What’s the science behind this? By stopping ovulation and replacing the ebbs and flows of our normal monthly hormone cycle with a constant, fixed stream of synthetic hormones, the pill messes with the biological signals we send to and receive from guys.

In highschool, that’s great!  In the grown-up world, that’s a little bit disconcerting.  Grown women who are not experiencing natural hormonal cycles and who have a strong preference for effeminate men have become the new normal. Four out of five sexually experienced women are taking hormonal birth control pills, and in doing so, they are changing the definition of what it means to be a woman.


Holly Grigg-Spall’s new book, Sweetening the Pill: Or How We Got Hooked on Hormonal Birth Control, available in the US on September 7, investigates our complex relationship with human alteration, pharmaceutical interests, and the benefit of a “natural” state of femaleness.

…the author is proposing the idea that oral hormonal contraceptives are actually a tool of a capitalist patriarchy intent on altering and suppressing femininity, and that women’s unquestioning acceptance these powerful medications is, at best, an uneducated recalibration of the brain and body, and at worst, an acquiescence to a culture steeped in hatred of the feminine.

The pill affects women in some fairly profound ways.  A 2011 study found that being on the pill made women recall events in terms of emotional impacts and feelings, while those women NOT taking the pill were able to recall facts and details from the same event.

Women who use contraceptives like birth control pills experience memory changes, according to new UC Irvine research. Their ability to remember the gist of an emotional event improves, while women not using the contraceptives better retain details.

How we remember the world we live in and the experiences we have had will obviously have a huge impact on how we understand that world.  If women on birth control pills are more likely to recall the emotional impact of any given experience and fail to recall the actual details and circumstances, might that not be an explanation of why so many of them think how they FEEL about certain events trumps any actual facts?

feels bad

Could that explain rape?  Women FEEL they have been raped, therefore they have been?  The actual circumstances do not count as evidence?

Grigg-Spall argues that if memory contextualises our past experiences and governs our future behaviour and understanding of the world, then a drug that alters it in even a slight way might have far-reaching consequences.

Rather fascinating.  I think Griggs-Spall is on to something when she talks about a world that hates the feminine, and I will be curious to read her book and see if she lays the genesis of that hate where it belongs:  modern feminism.  No other ideology hates traditional femininity as much as the Andrea Dworkin/Lindy West brigade.  And have you seen those ladies?  Not too difficult to take a stab at just why they can’t stand women who look and act like …. women.


There are even self-avowed feminists who see that when feminism sneers at women who prefer to actually be feminine, they are in fact practising outright misogyny.

Antifemininity is misogynist. What you are saying when you engage in this type of rhetoric is that you think things traditionally associated with women are wrong. Which is misogynist. By telling feminine women that they don’t belong in the feminist movement, you are reinforcing the idea that to be feminine and a woman is wrong, that women who want to be taken seriously need to be more masculine, because most people view gender presentation in binary ways.

Griggs-Spall thinks the birth control pill is a capitalist conspiracy to get women to buy a product they do not absolutely require for most of their adult lives. Loyal customers indeed.  But I disagree.  First of all, the fact that capitalism would like to create products and have you buy them is not exactly secret information.  We would all be living in grass huts and trading dried berries for handspun wool if it were not for capitalists continuously creating products and improving on them and trying to get us to buy them.

Who really benefits from women who are completely out of touch with their natural hormonal cycles, and who prefer feminine men?  Who would like to see BOTH masculinity and femininity destroyed?  Who wants to see gender eradicated as a meaningful distinction?  Griggs-Spall throws the word “patriarchy” in as if that means something, but the patriarchy has never, ever hated the feminine.  You can accuse the so-called patriarchy of many things, but hating the feminine isn’t one of them.

If the goal is to eradicate the feminine by disrupting women’s fertility cycles and to destroy the masculine by making certain only feminine men are able to eventually reproduce, the pill looks to be an excellent way to go about it.  No wonder Sandra Fluke is so adamant that her birth control prescriptions be covered by her healthcare policy.


I’ll bet her boyfriend is very pretty, too.

Lots of love,


49 Responses to “Is the Pill a plot to destroy femininity?”

  1. Ron R. August 14, 2013 at 17:59 #

    love it JB,
    right on the mark, except you are younger then me, and growing up in the 70’s the sex was easy, not something done only with a long term girlfriend/boyfriend. I was 14 and lost my virginity to a college girl of 19 after a beach party. Maybe I was riding the last wave of the 60’s sexual revolution, but what ever it was, I sure as hell enjoyed my teen years.

    And yes she was on the Pill, and I always worried about that until 24 when I got clipped. And I never have had a problem getting a date, and I am not some metro guy, but a normal male that like feminine women, you know, the ones that still wear dresses, heels, and look good when they leave the house, not the jeans and yoga pants kinda of girl. Ohhh, wait, that explains it, and fits your premise, since I did not worry about a woman being on the pill, most were not, and thus have been more feminine, got it.

    Thank you pill industry, it has left the girly girls for us real men to date, and the rude, self absorbed ones for the Metro”s. God I love science, better living through chemistry



  2. freetofish August 14, 2013 at 18:55 #

    Interesting topic. You’ll have to update us JB after you red the book because I doubt most of us men who frequent here will be reading it.

    I can definitely concur there is a major difference between women who are on or have been on the pill for an extended period of time and one who hasn’t. I have dated both over the years and I can almost always pick out the woman who is on the pill.

    My current +1 hasn’t been on the pill for over a decade and it shows. She is one of the most feminine and kind women I have ever dated. Not to mention the sex drive!


  3. judgybitch August 14, 2013 at 19:00 #

    Interesting that you can tell. My experiment with the pill was short lived because I couldn’t find one that didn’t make me gain weight. I haven’t touched artificial hormones for 20 years.


  4. RS August 14, 2013 at 19:05 #

    I must be a rare breed because I never needed the pill to regulate my cycles. I only needed it to prevent pregnancy while I was in a long-term relationship. If I wasn’t with a long term boyfriend I stopped taking it because I didn’t want to mess with my hormones. I guess it’s a good thing I was off the pill when I met my husband. I stopped taking birth control after I had my kids (husband got snipped) because the idea of taking those hormones long term scared me. But I always thought about the risks of blood clots and cancer- I never dreamt it could impact my taste in men. But it makes a lot of sense when you think about the societal trajectory we’ve been on since the pill was introduced.


  5. Goober August 14, 2013 at 19:16 #

    The pill destroyed my wife’s sex drive after our first baby. She got off aboit a year ago and things are much more fun now. Hormonal birth control is a bad idea.


  6. freetofish August 14, 2013 at 19:17 #

    Well, lets just say I’m not what anyone would mistake for a metro or feminine kinda guy. Yes I can cook better than most women (used to be a chef) sew and can be a bit of a neat freak, but I’m also 6’3 weight close to 250lbs, shaved head and sport a long beard and I tend to attract a certain subset of women….

    Everyone, male and female has a different sex drive. Some people are high octane ready to go and some aren’t and everywhere in between. My experience is women on hormonal birth control can be all over the map in any given month, while women who aren’t are fairly steady to wherever they land on the spectrum.

    Again, that’s just my personal experience with the women I have dated. YMMV.


  7. freetofish August 14, 2013 at 19:19 #

    and as goober mentioned below. Those on hormonal BC tend to mostly be of a lower sex drive for the majority of the time than those who aren’t.


  8. Chris P. August 14, 2013 at 20:11 #

    I love your blog, but you are not being fair to Sandra Fluke. The important point of her testimony was about not requiring insurance to cover bcp’s even when preventing pregnancy wasn’t the issue and therefor none of the religious objections applied. Here is a link to the entire testimony.

    The story about her friend with the cysts is the kind of bullshit that goes on everyday whe some bureaucrat is trying to save a buck for an insurance company.


  9. judgybitch August 14, 2013 at 20:23 #

    I actually have no problem with Sandra Fluke and I think it’s ludicrous that anyone’s religious objections can be used to justify another person’s healthcare, or denial thereof.

    But you have to admit, Sandra Fluke is kind of irrevocably linked to birth control pills, no?

    That’s why I referenced her. She is shorthand for liberal white feminist on the pill.


  10. Greg Crawford August 14, 2013 at 20:58 #

    Trigger warning needed for picture of Dworkin.

    Great article


  11. Goober August 14, 2013 at 21:45 #

    The problem that I have with Sandra Fluke revolves around contract law and individual agency.

    Her friend signed up to a health insurance program that specifically excluded paying for a certain type of medication, and then acted shocked – shocked, I tell you – when that insurance policy did exactly what it said it was going to do, and what she agreed to upon signing up for it. Is she an adult? Does she have agency? Or is she a child that needs to be lead through life by a benevolent government, saving her from her choices and fixing it when things go wrong for her?

    She could have chosen a different policy. They are available.

    Or – and I know this comes as a shock to a lot of people – she could have just paid for the medication herself instead of trying to get everyone else to pay for it because “patriarchy” or some other such nonsense.

    The entire discussion that Sandra Fluke put out there was so full of logical non-sequitors that it just pisses me off to no end that this is the end product of our educational system today. If other people don’t pay for your medicine, you aren’t being “denied access to that medicine.” You just aren’t getting it for free. You can have it any time you want, as long as you pay for it.

    If I can’t afford to fill up the tank in my pickup, and I being “denied access to gasoline?”

    No. I’m not. And to say that I am is ridiculous. So why is it any different when we are talking about medicine?

    The fact that this is tied to birth control is clouding the issue, so let’s take birth control out of the discussion. I’ll use an example close to my heart, because, well, the example is me…

    I have debilitating arthritis in my lower spine. It is a condition called ankylosing spondylitis. For the better part of four years, I was nearly crippled as a result of it. I needed a specific medication to fix the problem. However, that medication is insanely expensive, and my insurance company would not pay for it until I tried several other systemic treatments and they failed. For three years I suffered, taking treatments with nasty side effects (one drug required me to get regular liver biopsies – look it up) that weren’t working. I did this so that I could qualify for the medicine that I needed.

    After all of this, I finally was given the medicine that I needed, and the problem is more or less solved at this point.

    The reasons that I hold absolutely none of this against my insurance company are as follows:

    1. It says right on the policy, that I signed up for, that for expensive or experimental drugs that there may be a qualification period;
    2. If they readily gave everyone that wanted it the most expensive drug out there, without first trying other drugs that might work that are far less expensive, the cost of insurance would be much greater. Doing what they did to me helps keep the cost of insurance down.

    Sandra Fluke would think that what I went through was unconscionable, but I can’t see why it was. It was exactly what I agreed to when I signed up, and it is good business practice. What’s the problem?


  12. Modern Drummer August 14, 2013 at 21:55 #

    If this hyphen thinks patriarchy caused this she is a delusional feminist (but I repeat myself)
    Feminism hates the difference between men and women and has been the biggest pusher of BC I know of.


  13. RS August 14, 2013 at 22:01 #

    My rheumatologist wrote up a diagnosis for me that basically says I have arthritis in every joint it’s possible to have it in. Fun isn’t is? I’m not on any meds for it currently but I’m looking at a minimum of 4 joint replacements in the near future. I know I’m going to pay through the nose for my medical care and it kind of pisses me off to see the Sandra Fluke types who are put out over paying for cheap birth control. I payed for my own for my own whenever I used it and it was never a huge expense.


  14. Kai August 14, 2013 at 22:54 #

    I understand this feeling, but despite generally favouring personal responsibility, I would happily have my country cover all contraception and sterilization for anyone who wants it.

    People who don’t want kids make poor parents, and it is to everyone’s benefit if we can keep unfit parents from conceiving. Society will easily make back the money spent by not having to spend it on welfare and prison.


  15. Kai August 14, 2013 at 23:09 #

    I am quite confident that the pill is pushed because it is one of the easiest ways to prevent pregnancy when you don’t want children. There are side effects, and yes, perhaps feminists would see some of those as only possible benefits, but there is no mass conspiracy, and thinking that is just irrationality.
    Know what? It’s really nice to no get pregnant unintentionally.

    I started on the pill to have sex with my husband. I’ve been on it pretty steadily, with a couple of short lapses. Neither I nor my husband have noticed any differences in my emotional state, ability to reason, or anything else. But then, I don’t get mood swings, PMS, cramps, or any of the other stories off the pill either.
    The only difference is that I don’t get pregnant, and my period is about half as strong. And those benefits are awesome.

    I’m not huge on messing with my hormones, but if those hormones are trying to get me pregnant, fuck them. I would welcome a better way, but for now, the pill is the best option I have. And its benefits well outweigh its risks.


  16. Kai August 14, 2013 at 23:10 #

    (I say this as a person who paid for her own pills for a number of years, and now has it covered by employer insurance. I would still support covering everyone else’s if I had to opt out of it. It is just never to the benefit of society for unwanted children to be created.)


  17. Fred August 14, 2013 at 23:24 #

    You gals questioning the pill might chew over this reality: Motherhood has never made any woman more feminine.

    Strollers inhibit boners.


  18. judgybitch August 14, 2013 at 23:25 #

    Not in your husband, they don’t.



  19. Exfernal August 14, 2013 at 23:41 #

    “In highschool, that’s great!”

    The last part of the human brain to mature throughout teenage years and early adulthood is
    prefrontal cortex:
    This brain region has been implicated in planning complex cognitive behavior, personality expression, decision making, and moderating social behavior. The basic activity of this brain region is considered to be orchestration of thoughts and actions in accordance with internal goals.
    The most typical psychological term for functions carried out by the prefrontal cortex area is executive function. Executive function relates to abilities to differentiate among conflicting thoughts, determine good and bad, better and best, same and different, future consequences of current activities, working toward a defined goal, prediction of outcomes, expectation based on actions, and social “control” (the ability to suppress urges that, if not suppressed, could lead to socially unacceptable outcomes).

    The maturation process has two main components:
    – so called synaptic pruning in cortical gray matter (affecting personality development, among others):
    Generally, the number of neurons in the cerebral cortex increases until adolescence reflecting a growth of synapses.A decrease in synapses is seen after adolescence reflecting synaptic pruning, and approximately 50% of neurons during development do not survive until adulthood. Pruning is influenced by environmental factors and is widely thought to represent learning.[…]
    In a study conducted in 2007 by Oxford University, researchers compared 8 newborn human brains with those of 8 adults using estimates based upon size and evidence gathered from stereological fractionation. They showed that, on average, estimates of adult neuron populations were 41% lower than those of the newborns in the region they measured, the mediodorsal thalamic nucleus.

    – and myelination of white matter (affecting the “processing speed” aspect of intelligence):
    Myelination is only prevalent in a few brain regions at birth and continues into adulthood. The entire process is not complete until about 25–30 years of age.

    Let me guess, is it a good idea to disrupt the metabolism of endogenous neurosteroids that are involved in the process above?

    For older women, well, it depends


  20. judgybitch August 14, 2013 at 23:44 #


    I was thinking more in terms of dampening natural lust in teenage girls who are PHYSICALLY at peak fertility, and perhaps steering them towards the more gentle boys until they figure the whole relationship thing out.

    I’m a few years away from my daughter making any birth control requests, but you can bet I won’t just automatically assume the pill is the way to go.


  21. Kas August 15, 2013 at 00:35 #

    (First time commenter)

    If you haven’t Googled “Sandra Flukes’ boyfriend”, do so. He is as pretty as you think. Dainty, even.


  22. judgybitch August 15, 2013 at 00:42 #

    Oh my.

    Isn’t he just so pretty? Delicate. I wonder what the lime green bodysuit is all about?


  23. Ed August 15, 2013 at 02:07 #

    Apologies if this has already been mentioned. I scanned the comments and didn’t see it.

    /Griggs-Spall thinks the birth control pill is a capitalist conspiracy to get women to buy a product they do not absolutely require for most of their adult lives. Loyal customers indeed. But I disagree. First of all, the fact that capitalism would like to create products and have you buy them is not exactly secret information. We would all be living in grass huts and trading dried berries for handspun wool if it were not for capitalists continuously creating products and improving on them and trying to get us to buy them.

    There was birth control for men invented in the 80’s, but approval was derailed:

    “In human tests, RISUG performed extremely well. In the first clinical trial of 17 men, published in 1993, all the subjects who received above a certain dosage became azoospermic—that is, they produced no viable sperm. By 2000, it was in Phase III clinical trials in India, the final stage before approval. The compound was injected into 139 men, and the early results looked promising. In May 2002, it was announced that RISUG was on track for approval in India and would be rolled out on a limited basis within six months.

    But within India, at least, RISUG still seemed to be headed for approval. Then, in mid-2002, after Guha and his team had spent years cultivating allies in India’s infamous bureaucracy, a new health minister took over, and the Indian Council for Medical Research (equivalent to the US National Institutes of Health) put the brakes on the trials. Before new patients could be injected, the NIH asked that some of the subjects be analyzed further and that basic toxicology studies be redone.”

    Capitalism is lovely when incentives are aligned correctly, but unfortunately regulatory capture can fuck shit up, as seems to have happened for birth control, at least in India (which in this case means the rest of the world as well). A one-time deal (the proposed male birth control) would not be nearly as profitable as a monthly (or daily) product (current female birth control), especially when the patent expires and male birth control becomes generic. Various interests, therefore, even apart from ulterior motives of destroying femininity, have an incentive to prevent male birth control coming to market. And with the state being what it currently is, they have a means of preventing it.

    Making products so people buy them is wonderful, using various regulatory structures to keep competing products off the market is not.

    (Some people may find it interesting that birth control for men is having regulatory troubles. On a related note, there’s a place where you can donate to help fund the drug trials, but I can’t seem to find the link atm.)


  24. Ed August 15, 2013 at 02:08 #

    OH and VERY nsfw on the link to wired. (shows the procedure)


  25. Modern Drummer August 15, 2013 at 02:10 #

    Believing patriarchy is behind BC as it appears the author of the book does is irrational.


  26. Goober August 15, 2013 at 03:04 #

    “Pay for my birth control or else I will kill you”

    This is my only quibble with what you said, Kai. Follow the link to see what I mean.


  27. Goober August 15, 2013 at 03:10 #

    Yup. Agreed. My wife is a sexy mommy.


  28. Goober August 15, 2013 at 03:13 #

    “Making products so people buy them is wonderful, using various regulatory structures to keep competing products off the market is not.”

    Its also not capitalism in the strictest sense of the term. It is corporate cronyism at it’s best.


  29. Dire Badger August 15, 2013 at 06:19 #

    Actually, I always thought that the whole birth control argument was another female class war… distribute free pills, and stop those lower-class women from breeding.


  30. Ed August 15, 2013 at 11:36 #

    Found it.

    “10 months of rabbit studies have shown no sperm from the second semen sample onwards! The goal is to have it on the market as an alternative to vasectomy as early as 2015, with the first clinical trial beginning in the first half of next year (2014).

    Want to see Vasalgel make it to market? Since long-term methods aren’t a big money-maker (it’s a lot more profitable to sell pills to men’s partners every month), big pharma isn’t interested– so we’re relying on public support. Here’s how you can get involved:”

    Love the internet. Cheers.


  31. Ed August 15, 2013 at 11:44 #

    /Its also not capitalism in the strictest sense of the term. It is corporate cronyism at it’s best.

    I totally agree. I don’t know if a semantic argument has ever convinced anyone. When you and I use the word “Capitalism” we’re probably referring to pareteo efficient transactions. When someone who doesn’t like “Capitalism” uses the word they’re probably referring to existing structures, which are def. NOT pareto efficient. xD

    It’s like if there’s a pile of apples that someone has taken a shit on. One person can say “The pile of apples” and be referring to only the apples (which is totally reasonable). Another person can say “The pile of apples” and be referring to both the apples and the shit (which is also totally reasonable).


  32. Liz August 15, 2013 at 12:40 #

    I thought the sticking point for Miss Fluke was that she wasn’t given the birth control pills for free (free for herself, she expected taxpayers to field that bill). As I understand it, she was a student at the time.


  33. Liz August 15, 2013 at 12:58 #

    I was put on the pill when I was 15 because of amenorhea (sp?). I was very athletic and skinny, so my body fat went below 10 percent, and at that point a woman stops menstruating (survival mechanism). The doctor assured my mother there would be no side effects because the pill was low-dose (hahahahahaha!). I really didn’t have a choice, my mother and the dr decided this was best for me and at 15 I believed them. I proceded to swell up like a balloon (a bit hyperbolic, but gaining twenty five percent body weight in four weeks not terribly hyperbolic). I looked like I had beri beri. I went crazy too, hated everyone. My mom mentioned my weight gain to the doctor and all she said was, “she must look a lot better!” They were the worst thing that ever happened to me, and I spent my last two years of highschool on them. I tried them again for my honeymoon (different doctor tried a different type of pill). Those made me even more crazy. My husband threw them in the trash because we weren’ t having sex anyway by then, and I was literally throwing and breaking stuff around the house.


  34. Spaniard August 15, 2013 at 14:04 #

    Jusgybitch, I presume you are around 40, so, you lived the 80s as a teenager.
    Remember that, at that time, in every videoclub there was a porn section. I remember in the 80s, there was no more than 50 female pornstars (maybe much less) who were performing all the fims, Now it seems there are thousends of female pornstars. Probably, present day, being a pornstar is part of the dreams of a lot of teenage gilrs, like in the past were being a model. I think this is interesting as a sociological study.


  35. Eric August 15, 2013 at 14:36 #

    JB: “God, guess I’m really old! I must be the last generation that came of age when sexuality was something you discovered with a boyfriend you had been dating for a really long time. Going steady.”

    I realize this was a tangential point, but it caught my attention.

    “Going steady” as a prerequisite for exploring sexuality was the norm when I was in HS, too.

    There are pros and cons that the Manosphere schools can pick apart, but on the whole, I thought a measured developmental progression of sex and intimacy relations for teenagers, or JHS/IS through HS stages, psychologically benefited boys and girls. Building up to sex that way also constructed a healthier social-cultural context for sex and intimacy relations.

    Has the de-civilizational college hook-up culture – which, as we have come to realize, is driven by social-cultural-demolishing feminism and opportunistic PUAs – permeated HS? The Pott and Parsons cases you covered earlier are indicators that the answer is yes, but I didn’t know whether the behavior surrounding those cases has become normal teenage culture.


  36. M3 August 15, 2013 at 15:30 #

    I’ve also been saying it for a while, feminists are the true misogynists because they hate women when women act like women instead of aping men. They hate women who choose not to be as feminists want them to be.

    Feminists truly hate everything that encompasses ‘being a woman’ because they view femininity as weak compared to men. If that’s not true misogyny.. i don’t know what is.

    Also, i love this chunk of quote:
    “oral hormonal contraceptives are actually a tool of a capitalist patriarchy intent on altering and suppressing femininity, and that women’s unquestioning acceptance these powerful medications is, at best, an uneducated recalibration of the brain and body, and at worst, an acquiescence to a culture steeped in hatred of the feminine.”

    Of course it was a plot by capitalist patriarchy… for fuck sakes. Even when women choose en masse to adopt taking something Feminists told them would liberate them left right and center.. once any problems surface from following.. once again agency must be stripped and we must once again find a way to blame it on teh patreearky because men hate feminine women…

    someone please kill me.

    Again.. the only people that hate feminine women and the only culture steeped in a hatred of the feminine can be found over it Jizzabel and their beasts that believe a woman isn’t worth fuck all unless she’s earning a paycheck and busting mens balls.


  37. Kai August 17, 2013 at 03:33 #

    Agreed. In my first sentence I stated the only thing I believe can reasonably be said to be behind it.


  38. Exfernal August 17, 2013 at 09:37 #

    Who knows, it could be funny if some subtypes of hormonal birth control were to be shown to possess nootropic properties…

    I’m making a wild stab in the dark now, but… remember “girls closing and reversing the IQ gap”?


  39. elegant_ejaculation August 19, 2013 at 19:48 #

    I think part of the trouble with hormonal birth control is that there seems to be a fundamental misundersanding of what estrogen is and does in the body. From a bio-energetic persepctive, anything that fucks with your fertility, fucks with everything else (mind and body).


  40. Goober August 19, 2013 at 22:29 #

    There’s a whole big batch of logical non-sequittors going on there. Financial strain, job loss, mental health issues (he claimed he was in a bout of depression) , extended unemployment. With that long list of things laid out un front of him, he chose her going off the pill as the reason his marriage crumbled.

    Coincidentally its also the only item on thelist for which he is 100% blameless.

    Wonder why he chose it?


  41. Moses August 20, 2013 at 09:21 #

    This. Feminism hates hates hates the feminine.

    Why else would feminists labor to eliminate nouns that show female in favor of using only male or neutral? E.g. “flight attendant” instead of “stewardess”, “actor” instead of “actress”. They prefer male or neutral over female.

    I still chuckle every time I see a woman on TV describe herself as an “actor.”


  42. M3 August 23, 2013 at 00:57 #

    a fair point. the fact remains that most women would fight to keep a marriage together or even try. if the science is sound and women are attracted to different men depending on whether they are on or off the pill, then i can rightly look at it as a possible reason given the short timeframe between her going off the pill, and my marriage imploding. the problems we faced together where no so terrible or insurmountable providing she was still attracted to me.

    i fought for it. she did not.

    Feel free to continue castigating me as the villain if it makes you feel good.


  43. Goober August 26, 2013 at 23:14 #

    Not castigating. Not recriminating. Not even trying to assign blame. I’m not trying to judge you, or even say that what you did was right or wrong. I’m just putting my observations up there, since you linked the article as part of the conversation. I’m a strict adherent to logic, as much as I can be, and the article you linked commits a post hoc, ergo proper hoc fallacy. It is when someone says “thing A happened after thing B, so thing B must have caused thing A.”

    Sometimes it is true – sometimes thing B DID cause thing A, but the logical fallacy comes with assuming that thing B caused thing A simple because of the order of them, without any other evidence.

    There was a long list of things between you and your wife that could have been the root cause – you stopped being a provider when you lost your job, so she lost respect for you. You stopped being the man she once knew once you entered depression, and she wasn’t a good enough person to stick by you through that, and understand your condition. She would have left you in spite of all these things because she decided she wanted to a year before any of this happened. You wanted kids, she didn’t, and she was scared of that and instead of telling you she left.

    I could go on for a while, but I’m assuming that you get my point. I wasn’t there. I didn’t see it unfold. All I can base my opinion on is what I read in that article, and it looks to me like there are a bunch of different reasons for what happened to happen, and the author chose the one for which he was blameless.

    In full disclosure, I did not, at the time I read that article, realize that you were the author, and so I was a bit less diplomatic in my response as I would have been had I known that you were the man who penned that piece. I apologize for my insensitivity – I fell victim to the bravery inherent to sitting behind a keyboard instead of sitting face to face – a condition that I’ve fallen prey to on rare occasion.

    You have my respect and sympathy for your situation – especially the depression part. Having tangled with that dark beast on more than one occasion, I fully understand your situation, and lose much respect for your ex-wife for not sticking by you through it. She’s what you needed, and in your hour of need, she left you on your own.


  44. Diet is simply not always the response, but eating well
    helps. If you have a constant period that begins greater than 28 days apart, then simply subtract 18 from the
    average number of days between periods. It can be disappointing when other individuals happily
    announce their pregnancy while you are nevertheless battling with your aim.



  1. P-piller får kvinnor att bli känslomässiga och föredra fjolliga män | Yasers hörna - August 16, 2013

    […] [Is the Pill a plot to destroy femininity?] […]


  2. Link Love Friday | M3 - August 16, 2013

    […] Is the Pill a plot to destroy femininity? […]


  3. Lightning Round -2013/08/21 | Free Northerner - August 21, 2013

    […] Is the pill a threat to femininity. […]


  4. La pilule contraceptive: le moyen de détruire la féminité? | Libres Pensées - February 1, 2014

    […] Article original ici […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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

%d bloggers like this: