~ archived since 2018 ~

Getting around the censors at mensrights : FeMRA

[deleted]

August 22, 2012

3 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRA/comments/ynn70/getting_around_the_censors_at_mensrights/

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Getting around the censors at mensrights : FeMRA
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	3
Comments	23
Date	August 22, 2012 8:28 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/ynn8c/getting_around_the_censors_at_mensrights_femra/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/getting-around-the-censors-at-mensrights-femra.1015246 https://theredarchive.com/post/1015246

Comments

[–]ignatiusloyola 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]buylocal745 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The problem is when the "solution" is worse than the problem. Here's one of the best things I've ever read about all the government support for single mothers:

There is no balance or equality to be found. I’m not a historian, but as far as I know, the West is the first civilization to attempt to use government to assuage the inherent risks of promiscuity and casual sex. We refuse to allow people, especially (exclusively?) women, to bear the costs of risky sexual behavior.

There’s a term in finance called ‘moral hazard’ that describes this situation. When the costs of a risk are borne by people other than those engaging in the behavior, that situation increases the total damage of the risk. This was instrumental in leading to the 2008 financial crisis. Lending standards were lowered, or even ignored, because the lenders would securitize their bad mortgages, lie about their quality, and sell them to other suckers who would eat any potential losses stemming from borrowers’ inability to pay. The direct analogue is women failing to choose good mates because they simply don’t have to. In fact, if they fail in this task, they are given financial support and cultural adulation.

If we institute feel-good policies like child support, the net effect on human suffering is actually far greater than if nothing was done at all. The fundamental action is to lower the cost of a woman conceiving in high risk situations, such as is the case in casual sex, or with the fellow in your example. She can be certain that if things don’t work out, that cad will be forced to participate in alleviating her unfavorable outcome. This leaves women to follow their worst instincts and ignore the safe beta males who would love and support their children; enabling women to feel safe about their inherently risky behavior.

It’s certainly bad when men do not take care of their children, but in our efforts to minimize the harm of that, the effects of this policy have rippled through society, distorting behavior patterns that had previously been self-sustaining, long-term solutions to the challenge of effectively rearing children. We could call it unintended consequences, but I would call it another success of the social engineers using the power of knowledge and foresight to subjugate a once proud people.

The only self-sustaining, long-term, economical solution is for the girl in your example to not be interested in romps with questionable men. Any attempt to respond to the situation with mitigative action will just make more girls feel safe in taking on these risks.

We don’t have 40% out-of-wedlock births in the US because 40% of men don’t want to be fathers. The percentage of scum is far, far smaller, but the incentive structure makes having children outside of a stable relationship a more favorable option for women than the added responsibility of obligations to a man.

I haven’t heard this said much in the MRM, but I’m going to come out and say it: I am for the total abolition of the forcible transfer of wealth from fathers to mothers, aka child support. Not because I’m trying to create a perfect world for men at the expense of women and children, but because child support creates a massive, destructive distortion in the sexual marketplace that leads to women offering sex and their reproductive capacities to men who ought to receive neither. When that situation inevitably doesn’t work out, it gets blamed on the men in general and we are all made to bear the costs.

[–]buylocal745 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]buylocal745 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]buylocal745 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Manatee7474 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Demonspawn -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]atlas720 -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]truthman2000 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link