Earlier, a poster responded to this thread by saying:

Why is there a sudden influx of misandric dreck lately? Last week it was some insane ramblings about 'female domination' dressed up as 'real feminism'.

It's bollocks like this that makes people think feminists are crazy man-hating lesbians who don't shave.

Whilst I was composing my reply, the poster deleted his or her comment. But I'm posting my reply anyways, as I spent a good deal of time on it. So here it is:

This is not a new idea. I wrote an article very similar in 1990, albeit not from a religious or conservative perspective.

Pray tell, why is your immediate reaction to write this off as "misandric [sic] dreck" and "bollocks"?

Look at all the health risks and damage to our bodies and mental well-being that girls and women are expected to put up with as a matter of course to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and to deal with unwanted pregnancies when they occur.

Hormonal BC pills have horrible effects on many girls & women, as do longer-term hormonal implants and the MAP, along with devices like IUDs, which are painful to get inserted and often lead to a host of deleterious effects such as perforated uteruses and chronic inflammation. And let's not forget those awful Essure devices that were put into the Fallopian tubes for the purpose of causing so much irritation and inflammation that enough scar tissue would form to cause the tubes to shut.

Even if a girl or woman has no moral qualms about abortion, it's not a pleasant procedure. On the contrary, it can be very painful. It's also expensive, and in many places a legal abortion is difficult or impossible to obtain, particularly within the permissible time frame. What's more, even legal abortion can be risky. In the USA, for example:

Although deemed safe, therapeutic abortions, as well as spontaneous miscarriages, can lead to a variety of complications. Most complications are considered minor such as pain, bleeding, infection, and post-anesthesia complications, while others are major, namely uterine atony and subsequent hemorrhage, uterine perforation, injuries to adjacent organs (bladder or bowels), cervical laceration, failed abortion, septic abortion, and disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC).

The total abortion-related complication rate including all sources of care including emergency departments and the original abortion facility is estimated to be about 2%.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK430793/

With the number of abortions done in the USA estimated at 1 million+ annually, that's more than 20,000 girls & women who end up with complications. I personally know three women who almost died of post-abortion infections, including two for whom it led to sepsis.

Back when I wrote about this in 1990, most vasectomies still required small surgical incisions, and did or could involve some pain and could lead to complications. However, the complication rates were no higher than those for abortion, and the negative long-term health effects for males post-vasectomy were considerably lower than for females with IUDs and on hormonal birth control. What's more, as of 1990, only two men in the US had ever been reported to have died of a vasectomy. Which was far, far fewer than the number of girls and women who to that point in history had died due to complications of pregnancy and childbirth and abortion.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12317890/

But all that is besides the point today because since the 1980s huge advances have been made in vasectomy methods, and nowadays "no scalpel" vasectomies are widely available. The methods used today are very quick (10 minutes), require little down time (normal activity can be resumed in 48 hours), and they entail very little pain - meaning not only is no knife involved, but no needle is required to provide numbing medication either. Today's methods of no-knife vasectomy also have very low rates of complication.

https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/no-scalpel-vasectomy#recovery

What's more "gentle touch" vasectomy in the USA also can be obtained relatively inexpensively especially when compared to the costs of years of female BC and procedures. (A gentle touch vasectomy today costs $850 USD, including follow-up care & semen check at 3 months, compared to $1200 -$2500 for knife vasectomy plus aftercare.) Also, in the US vasectomy is covered by many insurance carriers.

https://www.bestvasectomy.com/gentle-touch-vasectomy/

A final point of utmost importance is that vasectomy does not interfere with males' libido or their ability to get erections or to ejaculate. Nor does it diminish the force or pleasure of their orgasms.

So why is the proposal that all males routinely get this 10 minute, painless, low risk procedure evidence of being "crazy" and "man-hating"? And WTF does this have to do with "lesbians who don't shave"? The woman who wrote the article in the OP is an apparently hetero married mother of six who's a Mormon - dunno if she shaves or not, and I find that immaterial, but she's clearly not a lesbian or a feminist.

Far from being "misandric [sic] dreck" this proposal actually is very pro-male. Even pro patriarchy in a sense. Coz for the first time ever, it would give all males absolute control over their own fertility; they would truly be "masters of their domain" when it comes to fathering a child. Which means no more worrying about accidentally knocking a girl/woman up, no more getting "tricked" or coerced into marriages or LTRs with female lovers against their will, no more paternity suits, and no more having to pay 18 or more years of child support for kids they never wanted in the first place. All of which are things that men have been complaining about for decades.

What's more, the proposal would eliminate all the situations where a girl or woman has an abortion when the father of the fetus would much prefer she didn't - which some males find unfair and have been griping about since abortion became legal.

The benefits to society would be huge too because this proposal would mean that the only children who come into the world are those who were wanted. It would save a huge amount of $$ now being spent on female health care related to contraception, abortion and complications of pregnancy and childbirth when conception was accidental and unwanted by the girl/woman.

I won't go into all the ways this proposal could benefit girls & women, coz they should be obvious.

Rather than just dismiss this idea as "misndric [sic] dreck" and "bollocks," please list and explain why you find it so. And when you do so, please consider that when you make statements such as:

It's bollocks like this that makes people think feminists are crazy man-hating lesbians who don't shave.

Maybe what you're really revealing is that it YOU who thinks that way.