A powerful societal pressure against being a slut in traditional European culture was the inability of a slut to provide for herself if she bore a bastard child . A man was not obligated to take care of a whore's child and thus women were pressured to be conservative because they risked not having a financial means to support their child if they simply whored themselves out.
Sluts have managed to circumvent this aspect of traditional society since the 20th century with the rise of modern child support and alimony laws. This lets sluts to whore themselves out and then collect a paycheck once enough of the sluts countless partners have taken paternity tests. Slutty behavior can be directly tied to the consequences of slutty behavior: if it is a financial risk, less women will be slutty.
Lets eliminate the aspect of the legal system that incentivizes slutty behavior. Get rid of alimony and child support.
view the rest of the comments →
Adminstrater ago
Everyone wants to focus on laws.
The problem is with proper moral education.
A moral society is a functional society.
Crensch ago
This is probably the stupidest thing I'll read today.
It's the law that forces men to finance sluts. It's the law that forces taxes to go to single moms. Take those away, and morality magically becomes fashionable again.
Or, you know, you could act like the virtue-signalling busybodies of the past 50 years and become repellent to the masses. Nobody wants to be told what they can't do by holier-than-thou faggots, whether on the left or the right.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Maybe men shouldn't have sex with sluts then, or with any woman that they would not want to be the mother of their potential children. It's not like you guys have great birth control options, and the law isn't exactly on your side, so why take that risk? If men are going to play a stupid game then they too deserve to win a stupid prize. The fault here is not only on women's shoulders; the men that slutty women are having sex with are also responsible for any kids that are conceived and for whatever fallout results. They should've made better life choices.
Crensch ago
Idiot.
Any woman can be tempted to ruin a man, no matter how sure the man is that she is wife material.
Get your head out of the clouds, faggot.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Men are pretty weak-minded then, if that's the case. Maybe you guys are the weaker sex if all it takes to ruin a man is a pretty face and some pretty little lies.
At any rate, my point is that men need to take responsibility for their own choices. If a man chooses to sleep with a slut, or to have hookups and casual encounters with women he barely knows, or to jump in bed with a new girlfriend right away, that's his own damn fault and he has some responsibility for whatever happens.
Crensch ago
Maybe you cunts are the weaker sex if all it takes to ruin a man is a false rape accusation.
And with that your entire narrative, and attack on men is destroyed.
Get back in the kitchen.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Aren't we triggered. Look, sarcasm aside, all I'm saying is that if you want women to be responsible with their sexual choices, why don't you want the same for men? Why should women be the only ones to be smart about their reproductive capacity while men should not have to take any responsibility for the consequences of spreading their seed? All you are advocating for is men being irresponsible and childish.
Crensch ago
I'm advocating for the law to not punish men for trusting women. Not having a law that punishes men is NOT a punishment for women.
All YOU are advocating is for men to be forced by threat of government.
Get back in the kitchen, cunt.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Having to financially support a child that you helped conceive via consensual sex is not being "punished" for "trusting women", any more than making abortion illegal constitutes "punishing" women.
Again, I think that abortion should be illegal unless it is the only way to save the woman's life, or if the baby is so terminally diseased that if it survives birth it will die in pain. So it's not like I only think that men should have to take responsibility for the children they conceive. I think women should too. I don't think people should be able to fuck off and either abandon their own child or outright kill it - both are equally selfish and reprehensible.
If you are going to have sex with a woman and risk making a baby, you'd better make damn sure that she is trustworthy and that you are in a position where you can afford to provide for a child if she gets pregnant. Same goes for women - if you're going to have sex with a man and risk pregnancy, you'd better make damn sure that he is trustworthy and that you are in a position to provide for a child if you get pregnant. Both men and women need to be more careful about their sexual choices. We used to have stigma and social pressure to keep people in line and it worked way better than this current climate of abortions and "financial abortions" - there were fewer out-of-wedlock kids, for starters, and fewer moms who were single because they had fucked their life up rather than because they were widows.
No. What concerns me most is not what stupid, selfish, irresponsible adults want to do to rid themselves of the need to be accountable for the results of their shitty choices. What concerns me most is that children are not butchered in the womb before birth or abandoned by their worthless fathers after birth. You are advocating for the equivalent of abortion for men and I think it's pathetic. Deadbeat dads are pathetic.
Crensch ago
Stupid whore. If a man has to financially support a child, that child is HIS, not hers. Period. She gets NO say in the child's upbringing, and the child lives with him.
Also, THE GOVERNMENT FORCING THIS is fucking wrong, and you're a sick fuck for wanting it.
Stupid argument. Chances of happening so astronomically small that there's no reason to litigate on it at all. Just let that one in 500million woman die.
Also, I'm NOT ARGUING FOR ABORTION HERE. You really are fucking stupid.
So you're pro-abortion? You think the government will just leave well enough alone? That it won't legalize for a gimp leg? Or for it being white (in the U.K., for instance)?
You want the GOVERNMENT to step in and force this. Stupid, stupid, stupid cunt. Massively stupid cunt.
Now you're just rambling like a whore to try and obfuscate the shame you should be feeling for having been so dishonest. Some part of you knows you should admit you're wrong, but you're too cowardly for that.
You're arguing something that literally nobody else was addressing here, and you're too stupid to understand that.
THE LAW was the only thing I was arguing against. Re-read my words, if you have the reading comprehension ability to do so.
Nobody gives a fuck what you think. This doesn't address a goddamn thing I've said. It's an argument against words I didn't speak, and a position I don't hold.
It's an admission that you haven't thought any of this through, and you're responding like a stupid woman would respond when she's trying to act like she knows something. Stupid. Stupid stupid stupid.
You're really, REALLY fucking stupid.
Show me where I advocated for this. Here, I'll quote my own words for you:
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
I think I would rather wait until after you've calmed down to talk to you. You're very emotional right now and obviously not up to the challenge of having a rational discussion. Perhaps by morning you will better have your feelings and your temper under control. Maybe give this a read. What I'm getting from your rather ridiculous screed is that you want there to be no laws whatsoever to protect children and ensure that their parents don't just fuck off and abandon them; you are pissed at women because they are able to take everything and leave a man with nothing; and you think what is better for everyone is if men can take everything and leave women with nothing. Whatever, bitch. It doesn't matter what you want to happen; that isn't how things work in society. Thank God for that because your version sounds even more shitty than the way it is now. At least now kids have at least a bit of protection, and deadbeat sacks of shit don't all just get to run away and abandon their kids.
Crensch ago
Let's play a little game:
I'm going to quote my original comment, then I'm going to pick apart your first response, and we'll see who's being reasonable here.
That's what I wrote. Now we'll analyze your response:
Who said that men should?
What does it matter if they have sex with a potential mother if there are cash and prizes enticing the woman to screw him over?
Taxes STILL go to single moms.
What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?
Women can write a man's name on a birth certificate and get money.
Women can falsely accuse of rape.
Women can take a man to court for watching her kids once and have a reasonable odds of getting child support
Taxes STILL go to single moms.
What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?
They don't even have to play. They just have to be around, or have a name.
Taxes STILL go to single moms.
What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?
Who said it was? Who said they weren't?
Who is going to hold them accountable? The government?
Taxes STILL go to single moms.
What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?
Again. Other than literally not having a name that can be written on a birth certificate, what choice? Even avoiding women entirely is near impossible with hiring quotas for businesses.
Taxes STILL go to single moms.
What did these words even accomplish here, besides showing that you aren't capable of responding to my arguments?
You addressed exactly zero of my arguments. You made an emotional, anti-man diatribe that you thought would be received by a roomful of white knights nodding in agreement because they want what's between your legs.
Your mental faculties are woefully underdeveloped, and it's very obvious that your white knights don't care; the only value you have rests between your legs, and it's the only reason men accept you. If you were a man, you'd be the village idiot.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
You were talking about the law and how it "forces men to finance sluts". No man will ever have to pay child support to a slut if he did not have sex with her and help get her pregnant in the first place. The law is what it is right now, and so men need to be really careful about the choices they make so they won't find themselves in this situation. Your comment is like feminists screeching about rape culture - sure, it'd be nice if women didn't have to worry about their safety while drunk in public, but that's not the culture we have so women need to stay sober and be careful not to get themselves into a compromising position.
Because the majority of women are not going to be "enticed" to fuck a man over just because the law would probably side with them. Not every woman is a golddigging reprehensible whore.
Not sure what it's like in the US or wherever you live, but in Canada if you are a single father you can apply for the same government benefits - they are handed out based on income level and not gender.
If the man is actually the biological father of the child then maybe he should have to help pay for it. Why the fuck shouldn't he look after his own kid? and if he isn't the bio dad he generally will not be made to pay child support.
Yes they can and it's fucking horrific that it's as common as it is. What does this have to do with child support and alimony?
Really? Do you have a news story or something to demonstrate when this has actually happened?
That mostly doesn't happen though, now does it?
Your original post pretty strongly implied it!
The government also holds women accountable for abandoning or neglecting their kids too.
Not having sex with a woman that you don't know and trust, for starters. Don't have hookups. Don't mess around with a slut.
Dude nobody is getting sued for child support by a coworker who writes their name randomly on the birth certificate. That isn't happening.
Oh for fuck's sake, have you been reading what you've been writing about women in general and me in particular? Fuck yourself.
Crensch ago
Emphasis, mine.
Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong
Admit you're wrong before we go any further. You're deliberately trying to ram this through, you dishonest cunt.
I'll happily respond to the rest after you admit that you're full of shit on this one point.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
There are men who wind up paying child support for kids that aren't biologically theirs - I should have written my sentence more carefully. But it's a pretty small percentage of men - "Stupid argument. Chances of happening so astronomically small that there's no reason to litigate on it at all. Just let that one in 500million man pay." Whatever. Right? You don't give a fuck when we're talking about women being fucked over by a man, and you want society to return to the way it was when women had no legal rights to their own kids because you seem to think that's better, so why the hell should I care? You don't seem to give a shit about the opposite sex yet you berate me for allegedly not doing so myself. Your way is not substantially better for anyone except men. You don't seem to give a shit about anything else, including the kids.
Listen. Questions aside, I think we actually agree more than disagree. I think it's reprehensible to force a man to pay child support for a child that is not his if that isn't what he wants to do. If you're not the father there should be no strings attached. And if a man is biologically the father, making him pay more than he can afford is wrong. It should be a reasonable amount that still leaves him enough of his income to be financially solvent instead of making him work like a slave while the ex remarries. And fuck, if she gets with someone else then the child support should end because it's no longer needed...if she's going to find another "provider" to replace her kid's dad he should be off the hook. I think the way it's handled right now is in need of a serious overhaul.
The rise in all of these new "identities" is a result of Marxism - a political system which, by the way, was invented by a man and which predates women's voting rights by quite a few decades, and which historically was always put into power at the hands of men. These things are being pushed for by the Jews and by cultural Marxists and not just by women in general. For what it's worth I find the whole thing as horrific as you do. The whole "protect the kids" thing is a fucking lie that is being used by certain people in the government to justify slowly sexualizing children. If you look back at the last couple hundred years, you can see the way laws which were brought in to protect children in European countries actually did a lot of good in the long run. There are no more workhouses full of hollow-eyed kids anymore; most children are now literate, fed, and relatively healthy, and don't have to work all day long to keep from starving. There are other factors behind that besides just the legal system - the economy and the way society has changed through the development of technology has drastically changed the way we live and has made this possible. But the legal system has helped too.
Oh I fucking hate it when they do that! Who the hell do they think is going to protect the kids - some unarmed retard who screams "stop! don't!" when someone is hurting people? It's never really about the kids when they say that; it's just an appeal to emotion so we won't object so strenuously when they steal our guns and violate our right to bear arms. It's bullshit. They don't care about kids.
There is a very long and very detailed history of the ways in which different societies used underage boys and girls as sexual entertainment - kids being available in brothels, kids being sold and used as prostitutes, kids being sold as sex slaves. Apparently in the Weimar Republic, before Hitler rose to power, prostitution was so bad and so degenerate that you could have any age you wanted, or a mother with her child. It was fucked up and one of the things that propelled Hitler's rise - he wanted to clean up the streets and restore traditional morality. The Romans had their catamites; Muslim countries have a longstanding tradition of ladyboy whores. As tragic as it is to see transgendered kids becoming more common, as much as I long to strangle the parents of that poor little drag queen boy in Quebec, I wish we could say that this is something new. It's not. And as shitty as that is, as much abuse as kids sometimes endure in the foster care system, there are times and places where it has been worse and still is. We desperately need to make some changes though.
Wait, are we talking about the guys that have to be forced by law to provide for their family...? The ones that get a woman pregnant and then split? The ones who knocked up a slut? Doesn't sound all that responsible.
Women also work. Women also make money. Her money, her family. This shit goes both ways. Women who are receiving child support are often working moms, not stay-home moms. She isn't living on his dime; she's making her own money.
From that link: "Several studies have indicated that once economic factors are taken into account, children from single-mother families fare better than children from single-father families." Ruh roh.
No argument here. Kids need both parents. I'm not arguing in favour of single parenthood; I just don't see how a man taking the kids and leaving the woman with nothing is substantially different or better than a woman taking the kids and leaving a man with nothing. It's the same thing in the end: a broken home and broken kids.
No argument there either. Of course this is true. Kids need their dads.
Single dads bad too, at least according to that one link you sent me! Single parenthood is not ideal for anyone, not for the kids and not for the parents. I'm not defending single parenthood. I'm simply trying to defend the idea that if a man has a kid who is biologically his, he needs to look after his kid, and having a legal system to make him do so is not a bad thing. I keep talking about abortion because I want you to understand that I think the same needs to be true of women: if we have a kid, we need to look after that kid, and having the legal system there to keep women from having abortions or otherwise fucking off and abandoning their kid is not a bad thing. The legal system as it stands right now is NOT handling this issue properly - I agree with you on that! - however I don't think the solution is to scrap it entirely and let this become essentially a free-for-all.
Crensch ago
That wasn't so hard, now was it? Really, you deserve some respect for this, but only a little. It took you this long to finally admit you were wrong about something, and you've been wrong a LOT.
Right. Because that's how society worked. At a conservative estimate, women initiate 70% of divorces. Who killed the family?
Women did. Because they had the option to trade in for free license to ride the cock carousel and free money from the ex husband.
If you remove the financial benefits of doing so, take a wild guess as to what would happen.
I berate you for being a stupid cunt. You are stupid, but even more to the point, you're acutely ignorant of the realities of the situation.
Better for men, who built civilizations, is better for everyone. Period. Women were given the vote, and where they have the most power, the societies collapse.
I give more of a fuck about the kids than you do, apparently, because I take the time to adjust my views based on new information. Kids are healthier in a 1950s style society than they are in the current society.
We agree once again.
MAKING him pay is wrong.
Explain to me exactly how you would structure a governmental law/rule system that wouldn't devolve into giving women free shit from men.
Seriously. Break that one down for me. How do you prevent beta cucks from handing shit over to women, or litigating free cash and prizes for them if they screw men over?
Better than the current situation, but that's just kicking the can down the road.
It was invented by a Jew, and PART of that plan was pushing for women's rights. I wonder why? Is it because women vote in ways that will destroy their own societies? Yes. Yes it is.
At least you're redpilled there. Jewish males are not men, though, and they're certainly not human. They cannot even build their own civilizations - they're parasites.
And yet you want men forced to pay for kids because of the children. You want to hand power to your government to protect children.
The government responsible for public "schools" and CPS. I already mentioned what CPS really is - can you honestly say that I'm the one that doesn't care about children here?
There are certain protections I'm not prepared to do away with, but those are protections aimed at predatory businesses, not forcing action on an adult at the point of a gun.
No, the legal system has been a hindrance at almost every stage. Copyright laws, DMCA, TSA, Corporpate personhood, frivolous litigation...
You seem so damn reasonable all of a sudden with some things. Look at your argument about me not caring for the kids, then look at what the gun grabbers are doing.
We have kids taking HRT on billboards and TV shows. Having their parts chopped off or constructed. And this is heralded as virtuous, and a thing to be emulated.
Truth.
Continued on next one - character limit.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
It didn't work for everyone which is why there was such a push to change things.
Jews.
I don't agree, and I don't see evidence from history that this is true either. All we have done is spend a century swinging from one extreme, where men's sexuality could be largely unrestrained without consequence and where they had all the rights to the children and could take them and leave the woman in the dirt with nothing, to another extreme where women can have abortions without the father's consent, where family court swings in favour of women, etc. The fact that this current extreme is also shitty doesn't mean that the fix is to return to the previous extreme. Neither one of these is balanced and neither one is universally good for everyone. As is usually the case, I suspect that something in between these two extremes would be better for everyone...a state in which both men and women have social pressure encouraging them to restrain their sexuality and look after their children, and where the priority is ensuring that kids aren't being aborted or abandoned.
If we could find a way to make society into the best parts of 1950s family life, where the norm is dad putting in his 40-hour work week while mom stays home and takes care of their four or five kids and keeps a tidy house, fuck yeah, that would be awesome - sign me up! I've been doing that for almost 15 years already and it's fuckin' awesome. And it absolutely does make for healthier and happier kids...I see the difference between my kids and the friends they've made in town here that come from broken homes or homes where the parents don't give a shit, and it's honestly so sad. I agree with you here that the way things are currently done is not ideal; i just don't agree that the fix is to dial it back to the other extreme end of the spectrum where men had all the rights and women had none.
I would say that, first of all, the woman's finances should be taken into account. Is she able to find a job that enables her to provide for her kid's needs? Is she able to make ends meet? I think it's wrong to make a man fork over hundreds or thousands each month when there is no genuine need on the other end. I would also say that the money should go directly into a special account that can only be used for the child's needs, or be measured out in a format like food stamps so that it can only possibly be spent on school supplies or clothes or lessons or something that the child needs to keep women from spending it on themselves. The father's income level should also be a factor - if he barely has enough money to provide for himself then he should never be compelled to give more than he can spare. And along with child support should be better visitation rights for fathers. Every other weekend is bullshit. Kids need more time with their dads and dads need more time with their kids. And if the father is the one awarded primary custody then the mother should be the one dealing with child support payments, and the same regulations should apply. If the primary custodial parent takes up a new relationship, child support should end when the financial need ends, while visitation rights remain the same.
This is just off the top of my head...I hope it's at least coherent. I'm recovering from a massive blood loss and in truth I've been finding that the lack of oxygen to my brain lately has made writing harder than it normally is, which is also why my replies are slow in coming. The gist of this is that instead of child support being something punitive it needs to serve the purpose of just ensuring that the child's needs are being met and should only last as long as the need continues, and it should never be more than the kid needs or than the other parent can provide without being driven into poverty.
I don't think that's why. I think they pushed for women's rights because they wanted more wage slaves to tax. I don't think it was because they knew how women would vote. How would the have known that? Women had never had the vote before, and before they did there were a lot of women who opposed it because they didn't want the responsibilities and expectations that came with it.
Furthermore, I think a lot of people in general truly don't understand how leftist voting will eventually destroy a country, men as well as women. Ever talked to a leftist guy before? They don't have a fucking clue.
Oh fuck, public schools are the worst. I wish we could go back to the days of one-room schoolhouses because that was the only way public education ever really worked well, and it was much harder for students to wind up indoctrinated into liberal propaganda. I think everyone who can should homeschool their kids.
In some ways it has helped, but you're very right - we have way too many laws and way too much government involvement in many areas of life, right down to our recreation. Did you know that you can actually lose your driver's license in Canada if you get caught driving a boat on a lake while drinking? How fucking retarded is that?? Too much government. There are some ways in which having a legal system is useful but it definitely goes too far.
I know. It kills me. They are being turned into homunculi to the thunderous applause of a small demographic of mentally ill deviants. Most trans kids will grow out of it once they're through puberty. Someone needs to tell these perverts to just leave Britney alone already.
Crensch ago
The amount of people it didn't work for numbered in the Jews, and a few of the genetic dregs of whites. That's not a legitimate number, or a legitimate plaintiff in the case for pushing to change things.
Good answer.
Every civilization I've read about that gives women the right to vote has collapsed in degeneracy.
This is the natural default for humans. Only once the above has resulted in a calm, safe lifestyle have women been given any rights. Men conquer and build countries and civilizations, hand it to the women, and get destroyed.
Middle ground can be a pretty big fallacy, and I'm pretty sure you're engaging in it - especially since that middle ground would have to be forced by the courts.
Take a wild guess how that came about. Men rule the societies that turn this way, not women.
Guess what kind of family laws existed then. Go ahead.
It's not an extreme at all. It's how the 1950s worked. Men went to work. Men ruled the house. Men built things. Men owned the family.
No, they shouldn't.
No. She needs to make her man happy, or pay the consequences.
And if you want to talk about her picking the wrong man, ask yourself how that's any different than when you admonish men for picking the wrong women.
"Dear government, tell me how to raise and spend money on my child"
When are you going to get it through your head that this leads to exactly what's going on right now with family courts?
No. If the parents of the child cannot, or will not provide for it, their genes are faulty, or they're just unlucky. Having the government force you to do ANYTHING with your money is fantastically stupid, and leads to a terrible society. Society > unwanted/genetically inferior children.
If you disagree, then you must like anchor babies, and want spics and sandniggers to invade with their children to replace yours.
You swallowed that lie that women never had any power before now? Hell, even if we just counted the beta-fuck men who get into power and hand women free shit because pussy, we can easily see what happens to societies when women gain even indirect power.
I could get rich betting that they had single mothers, or that their dads were beta cucks, giving their wives whatever they wanted, and being de-facto absent from the kids' lives.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
History would suggest otherwise, given that there was a push to change things, and enough people behind it to make the push successful.
There haven't been many societies in which there was equal pressure on both men and women to restrain their sexuality. What you typically see is one where women are more heavily stigmatized for stepping out of line sexually, while there is far more leeway for men to do so.
Men taking everything and leaving women with nothing is as much an extreme as women's rights are today. The only reason you don't see it as an extreme is because such a system would put you at the top of the heap and that seems natural and just to you.
Sure they should. If she has the kid living with her for the majority of time and she wants child support from her ex, why the heck shouldn't they take her finances into account so they make sure that the man isn't being asked to give more than her child actually needs?
We're talking about a couple who are no longer together. The days of prioritizing "keeping her man happy" are done. He left, or she left, either way he is no longer her man and his happiness is no longer her concern.
It absolutely isn't any different. I am forever amazed at the stupidity of a woman who will sleep with a man who's got a few kids with a few different women, or who is obviously bad news. How dumb can one person be?? Why take that risk? A lot of women have shit taste in men and those are the ones who often wind up single moms.
This kind of thing is why I said before that you don't seem to care much about kids.
Who the hell do you think society is made of?? Society is people. These kids are part of society and their needs matter just as much as yours and mine; the difference is that we are adults (assuming here that you are not, in fact, the angsty teenager that your initial responses would indicate) and we can look after ourselves, while they are little and dependent on the goodwill and character of those around them.
Much logic. Wow such sense. This is a really ridiculous assumption on your part - why would disagreeing with you mean that of course I must support demographic replacement? NO, I don't support demographic replacement. I am fucking furious with the Trudeau government and the way they have butt raped Canada by bringing in hundreds of thousands of third-world immigrants every year. We can't afford it; we don't need it; and right now they are pushing hard for us to believe the narrative that these people coming in are the only way Canada will survive. It's a travesty. Canadians need to have lots of babies and we need to stand up and say no to the influx of immigrants.
But as a country, as a society, we owe it to our own citizens who were born here and who are actual, real Canadians to make sure that our own citizens' kids are not going hungry or being neglected. They are part of our country too and their lives matter. I don't think we owe it to refugees and illegal immigrants and hordes of people from third-world shitholes to take care of all their kids; that is the responsibility of their own families and their own nations, not us.
When did I say that women had no power? All I said was that women being able to vote has not happened much at all through history, so the idea of someone giving women that right on the basis of "mua ha ha now they will all vote to destroy their country like they always do!" seems far-fetched. I think it had more to do with a long game with the end goal of having more tax payers and breaking apart the nuclear family.
Crensch ago
No, there were nepotistic, subversive, powerful Jews, and a few token sheeple. The entire media being owned by Jews makes their voices far louder than their numbers would ever have otherwise.
And those were still healthier societies than ones where women have power.
Horseshit. Men build civilizations while women sit at home and tend the kids. EASY "work". That's all you cunts had to do, and it wasn't enough - you thought men went to work and had fun without you, so you fought for the right to go do the same.
The more men made your lives easier, the more unhappy you became, which is a big reason why we're in this mess.
No. Court. Should. Force. Wealth. Transfer. In This. Case.
None.
And answer these - seriously, or we're going to have a hangup like we did before:
You trust a court to take her finances into account when people lie constantly to courts and IRS? You trust a court to determine what a child needs?
And his family is no longer her concern. She fucked up.
You're really quite stupid.
Even if the man didn't have other kids, or hadn't fucked anyone else, this can still happen. What then? Who will you blame?
This kind of thing is why I said before that you're unqualified to comment.
Who cares more about kids:
-The guy that wants a healthy society for healthy human kids to be raised in?
-The woman that cares more about kids lives than having a healthy society for them to be raised in?
ADULTS. Society is ADULTS.
They grow up to be adults, but their opinions and actions as kids are unimportant, and irrelevant to society. A healthy society raises kids into healthy adults.
Guess what happens with single mothers?
That's incorrect. Their needs are secondary to functioning adults. If two adults and two kids were the only people left on the planet, and either the kids or the adults had to die, which would you choose?
A society that puts kids needs at or above the needs of its functioning, adult citizens is a society that will quickly spiral to "save the children". It's emotional bullshit.
Your responses indicate that you're stupid, at whatever age you happen to be.
So someone more concerned with the "goodwill and character of those around them" than the children themselves, to your mind, doesn't care much about kids.
Got it.
Because your logic is just as stupid. At every level.
Hell, don't make 'em anchor babies, let's make 'em single-mom babies at their 20 and 30% delinquency rates. Your position is absurd and untenable. Placing children as more important than a healthy society, full of well-adjusted adults who keep children's needs below theirs, and below their society's needs, is absurd.
All of this whining and complaining and pissing and moaning that SINGLE MOTHERS aren't the cancer they are.
But you support single mothers ruining ~25% of both male and female children for society. Top notch. Let's not make 'em brown, let's just literally destroy the minds of 1/4 of the whites out there.
Because men historically were more redpilled on female nature, and the countries that were conquered because of it didn't get to write history books.
Sarcastatron_9000 ago
Not all of them.
If this is your idea how how human civilization has always worked, then I really don't know what to say to you. You realize that most of human history has not been some 1950s utopia, right? Most people who've ever lived had to scrape out their survival in a state of abject poverty, and died young, men and women alike. This idea that women only had to sit on their asses and play with babies is ludicrous; history does not back this up in any way.
What is this "you"? I was born in the 80s, long after all this came about.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
Yes and no. Some courts/judges seem to do a better job of this than others. It seems to me like if you really wanted to make sure someone was telling the truth, it wouldn't be that hard to figure it out with someone investigating their life.
What if he's the one that fucked up? Why is there no room in any of this for men to take responsibility for their mistakes? You place everything on women; I have yet to hear you acknowledge that men might have even a little bit to do with any of what we've been discussing.
For pointing out that women who sleep with deadbeat dads are more likely to become single moms?
If a man is a deadbeat that's on him. If he chooses to walk away from his kid and leave his ex on her own, that's on him. If a woman is stupid enough to risk her life like that, that's on her. If she chose to risk having a kid with a man she didn't want to have a kid with, that's on her.
Society is people. Kids are still part of society - they don't contribute much yet but they are still part of society, which is why society has agreed that taking measures to ensure that our kids can be healthy, fed, sheltered, and educated is important. One day they will be adults and will then be able to have more of an impact on society so we'd damn well better make sure that we aren't sending them out into the world fucked up.
71% of them raise their kids into healthy adults, if the statistics you shared are accurate.
This is why I don't believe you when you say you care about kids. I still remain unconvinced. Look at the animal kingdom - when animals have young to care for, if they are a species that doesn't just spawn a bunch of eggs and then disappear like sea turtles and fish, they place the needs of their young above their own needs in many ways. They will fly hundreds of miles to bring home food for their chick, even if that means going without food themselves (it often does). They will risk their safety to protect their cubs from an alpha male. Finding food and shelter for their young and teaching them how to survive on their own is their top priority until they have successfully raised their young to adulthood. Guess what, humans are animals too, and generally speaking (shitty deadbeat parents aside), when someone has a child, that child's needs become as important, if not more important, than their own needs. The needs of kids may not matter to you personally, but if you look at the way society functions it would appear that the majority of people do things differently, even cross-culturally.
Got it.
Well yeah, by definition if you think that kids aren't part of society, that their needs should take a backseat to the needs of their parents, and that their opinions and behaviour don't matter to society, you obviously don't care that much about them.
Don't lie in order to try and make your point. I would invite you to go back through my comments and find the place where I said that I think it's good for kids to be delinquents or where I support single parent homes as a good thing.