Let's see what insights into the female psyche we can glean from this:
38% of French men surveyed on the phone said "science permitting, they'd like to have carried their children through the nine-month gestation". So what does the female author accuse them of? Insanity and lack of manhood. I'm not saying it's healthy or that these men would actually do so when push comes to shove, but isn't there a glaring hypocrisy here? Women that have the choice to do male things are considered to be empowered and are encouraged (this includes impossible physical things - see the movie Boys Don't Cry). But when men want to do female things, they aren't considered men.
You may argue that getting pregnant is obviously exclusively female and therefore it would be insane for a man to want such a thing. But imagine if they would invent a way for men to carry the baby. Suddenly, a role/activity that was considered purely female would be open to men as well and it would empower them to make a choice. Sound familiar?
Then we are informed of the fact that science is actually closing in on a solution for an artifical womb. Quote: "Already some feminists are concerned about the threat such wombs may pose to abortion rights."
Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor.
Women will still have the choice to not carry the baby and protect their body but may no longer have the choice whether to kill the baby, and this is a big problem. Am I missing something here?!
This confirms my fears. Abortion is not about 'my body my choice', but about control to the point of possible murder. If this artificial womb ever works, it may be possible for a man to legally demand his baby, have it extracted instead of aborted (if she doesn't want it), then sue her for child support whether she wants the baby or not. Hurrah! A taste of her own medicine.
It's pretty obvious why feminazis don't like it.
Moving on, we come to another amusing statement: "...we note that only those who view pregnancy as burden and abortion as 'choice' would fail to see the greater insult to womankind. Strapping on our Huxley hats, we easily visualize a brave new world in which women, no longer essential to procreation, are eliminated."
When have men ever declared war on women to the point of 'eliminating' them? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only cries for gender holocaust that I remember came from angry fanatical women. Then again, I suppose it's commonplace for closed minds to project their own thoughts or fears on their enemy.
By the way, most cynical male viewpoints would agree that we should at least keep women around for sex.
But let's assume the author didn't mean something this drastic when she used the word 'eliminated'. Perhaps she means women will become completely irrelevant, barred from male activities and generally ignored. A later statement seems to support this: "That rapping sound you hear is the sign going back up over the treehouse door: 'No girls allowed.'"
What is it with you women and wanting to be included everywhere? What is so wrong with male-only clubs? We men often want time alone with other men and not have to deal with women. I'm sure you women can understand that. So why this angry feeling of being left out and wanting to stick your nose into our man-talk? Why aren't you satisfied with your own female-only clubs? And I also resent the insinuation that male clubs are basically immature boyish tree-houses.
And finally: "These 'hybrids' are looking for 'a more radical affirmation' of who they are, and want to 'test out all the barbarity of modern life,' says Pierre Francois Le Louet, managing director of Nelly Rodi. 'Why not put on a pink-flowered shirt and try out a partner-swapping club?'". To which the author retorts: "Wait. Because normal people would think you're a loo-ser?"
Yet more hypocrisy. If they said this about women it would be described as 'exploring their sexuality'.