696,979 posts

Dalrock: Should we fine tune our replacement of marriage? "In the past, marriage granted men fatherhood rights they otherwise could not expect to receive. It also granted women the right to support from the father... marriage is now about the moral primacy of romantic love."

Reddit View
June 27, 2019
45 upvotes
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/06/26/should-we-fine-tune-our-replacement-of-marriage/


Post Information
Title Dalrock: Should we fine tune our replacement of marriage? "In the past, marriage granted men fatherhood rights they otherwise could not expect to receive. It also granted women the right to support from the father... marriage is now about the moral primacy of romantic love."
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 45
Comments 24
Date 27 June 2019 04:19 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/244443
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/c67ih6/dalrock_should_we_fine_tune_our_replacement_of/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
Dalrockthe red pill
Comments

[–][deleted] 20 points21 points  (7 children) | Copy

Reading through the actual thread, it's a bunch of women saying essentially "don't want to be a father? Keep it in your pants asshole!"

Imagine saying that to women.

Laws allowing men to opt out of child support will probably never happen (purportedly because "muh hungry children" even though child support isn't even required to be spent on the children, and isn't limited to funding keeping them fed,

but really because society loves punishing male sexuality while lionizing female sexuality).

So fuck it, let em ban abortion. If sex is consent to being a parent for a man, it should be that way for women too.

Personal responsibility should be for NONE, or for ALL.

[–]5Imperator_Red4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

don't want to be a father? Keep it in your pants asshole!"

This is also a horrifying inversion of the biologically natural way of things, as a woman never had a means of forcing a non-married man to provide for the child before dna testing.

[–]valenin4 points5 points  (5 children) | Copy

Imagine saying that to women.

They did say that to women. Up through the 80s and early 90s. It was one of the major suggestions offered by conservative groups to those who wanted abortion to be/remain legal.

You can see how that went over.

But nobody seems to (want to) remember that.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy

Right what I mean is in our current political environment, it's hypocritical because it goes only in one direction. No one was telling those women that back then while simultaneously saying men should be able to opt out.

In fact many of those people were tradcon patriarchs who would especially be horrified at the prospect of "enabling deadbeat dads"

What we have now is more insidious...women saying that women should be free to fuck without responsibility but the response to men who think they, too, should be able to do so is "keep it in your pants asshole!"

That kind of hypocrisy should be punishable by death for fuck's sake. That's not even a human. That is a "personal interest optimizing machine"

[–]valenin0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

Agreed that it is what it is, and it’s completely fucked. It should immediately signal that we should pay zero attention to anything that person has to say on the issue.

Death, though? Not going that far.

[–]5Imperator_Red0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy

I love how you say shaming women to prevent them from slutting it up and getting pregnant with bastard children didn’t work in the 80s and 90s therefore it was dumb, ignoring the fact that it worked pretty well for.... the entirety history civilization up until that point.

[–]valenin0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I’m not saying it wasn’t effective. It was. Shame is a powerful force. I was trying to convey ‘look how well that worked’ in the sense that it didn’t work because we basically decided as a society to drop the facade that we don’t cater to women’s feelings and agreed to sacrifice various social checks and controls on the altar of gynocentrism.

It worked. Until it didn’t. But men don’t have such an altar, and it’ll probably work—now, on us—because who cares about hypocrisy anymore.

We’re fucked.

[–]Emervila13 points14 points  (3 children) | Copy

accidental pregnancies

So she was walking near a pool and trip over something falling into a condom-less dick? how fucking somebody is accidental? she entered the room looking for a bathroom in darkness so when sitting into the toilet she later realized it was a dick ejaculating inside her? BS!!!

The child support model

No, we don't live in such model, we live in the Women Spoil Model. If it's "support" why is always money and any items man provides are just an extras but never into account, if it's for the child why there's no control over how women spend the money or how much is really needed

[–]TheEgyptianConqueror16 points17 points  (1 child) | Copy

Your last point is something that I really can't understand how people look over. Like, how do you not see that child support is for the woman, not the child? If it were, the mother would have to provide receipts or something proving the money went to the kids. If that were the case, then I wouldn't actually mind child support, cause the money would go to the kid, my kid. Instead it goes to some fat whore to whore around

[–]Emervila2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy

That's actually my point. They call it child support but in fact is spoil for women. I'm stating the name of the system is a lie bc it serves only women purposes.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

If it were true child support, there'd be more structure in place.

Ie:

  • vouchers specifically catered to supplying the child's needs

  • auditing system in place to ensue money was spent on kids

  • request lists for items needed, to be preapproved by government agencies

I don't know how many times I've seen thots online boasting about spending their child support on nails/hair/tanning salons etc. These same hoes out here talking about 'gettin that money'. It's fucking farcical.

[–]AdeHMar4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

This would be disastrous for women. Every irresponsible twat who didn’t feel interested in his kid would opt out and there would be no prospect of the mother ever being supported.

Does she know what abortion is?

[–]HereComeTheIrish130 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

God forbid it be incumbent on women to actual vet who they sleep with...you know to not get knocked up by irresponsible twats...

[–]yomo863 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy

I see your point but going back in the legal history of almost every legal system that was or is in place paternity rights were in fact duties. Seeing your child was in tandem with caring for him which was preluded by acknowledgement of fatherhood. Take away the default acknowledgement by marriage and you simply got a woman stuck with a kid no one will pay up for. Nowadays seeing your child is an obligation sold as a right as acknowledgement is based on the woman's word first and foremost until proven innocent by a paternity test which ironically is outlawed in France and made highly difficult in other jurisdictions.

[–]TheRedPillRipper0 points1 point  (10 children) | Copy

If you're man enough to stick your dick in; you're man enough to bear the consequences. The emphasis is mostly the financial cost to support a child; but less so on the raising. For example you can be a successful human, a terrible father; AND still raise kids that are COO's and Diplomats. By most parameters of society you've done well. The true value however is how emotionally intelligent your children are. Will they care for you if you're stricken down? Or the rest of your family, clan or even community?

I'm fortunate because in our culture there's tremendous value placed in children; so when my ex and I split I shifted my priorities; and life; to ensure I attained 50-50 custody. Whatever it took. If I decide to end things with the current or vice versa; I have the exact same Game Plan ready to go.

It's no longer a matter of marriage; it's dead. It's how responsible you are for the future of your progeny. The cost is greater; but so potentially is the reward.

Godspeed and good luck!

[–]5Imperator_Red7 points8 points  (5 children) | Copy

If you're man enough to stick your dick in; you're man enough to bear the consequences.

Not sure if you’re being sarcastic or not, but in case you’re serious,

  1. This type of “man up” language is against sub rules.

  2. Absurd. No man should have to provide for any woman’s child if they are not married, which was of course the standard from the beginning of time until dna testing.

[–]TheRedPillRipper1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy

No man should have to provide for any woman’s child

I probably should've been clearer; if the child IS yours. The crux of the article was an opt out of fatherhood clause. But why opt out? Western culture is predicated on the premise that someone has to pay. That children cost money. Why don't people see children as an investment?

I didn't stop till I secured 50-50 custody. Yes I could've just paid child support; and it DEFINITELY in the long run would've been cheaper. There was however no way I'd let a child carry my name, my genes and my legacy into the world without MY INFLUENCE.

“man up” language

You don't have to man up; even if it's your own child. That was the premise of the article. My point is that despite society; the system; and everything else stacked against you; IMO it's still worth it. You just have to make the system work for you. Everyone's different though; so if you're in it for a good time; and not a long time; rubber up; or get The Snip and you're golden.

Godspeed and good luck!

[–]HAMMURABl1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy

Doesn't matter if the child is created with your sperm or not. If you don't want the child, you shouldn't pay. Anything else is (financial) slavery, no matter how you put it. And we should long have abolished any kind of slavery.

[–]TheRedPillRipper1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy

Anything else is (financial) slavery, no matter how you put it

Why; if you split custody 50-50; or heaven's forbid make a relationship work for you; would you not see rearing a child as an investment as opposed to financial slavery? Is it financial slavery because I actively want my children to be successful(cause they certainly won't inherit my qualities from their mom) because not only is it of benefit to them; but to me?

If you don't want the child, you shouldn't pay

I agree. The article raises the same point and I agree with it too. My point however is why you wouldn't want to influence the life and future of your progeny when there's so much potential? I personally think it's an outdated frame of mind if you don't aim to turn any situation to your advantage.

[–]HAMMURABl1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

Why; if you split custody 50-50; or heaven's forbid make a relationship work for you; would you not see rearing a child as an investment as opposed to financial slavery?

Let me formulate this like this: "Why, if your earned cotton and food you picked up is split 50-50 with your slave owner and you, or heaven forbid you are happy picking cotton, would you not see this as an investment as opposed to slavery?"

If you voluntarily want to pick cotton for your master its not slavery. But if you dont have a choice of whether you want to pick cotton or not for your master, its slavery. And thats where we are with child support.

Its important that you detach the concept of "child support" emotionally from your support for children. "Someone needs to think of the children" used to be a meme in the Simpsons, but you are using it to justify slavery in the 21st century.

[–]TheRedPillRipper0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

if your earned cotton and food you picked up is split 50-50

This implies that the fruits of your labour have an equal return; 50% to you; 50% to the master. That may or may not be the case. What nets you an almost GUARANTEED 0% of return? Opting out of fatherhood.

I totally understand and accept the attractiveness of it. Whats not to like about fucking around and if you leave a little fuck trophy afterwards; but it costs you nothing; what's not to like? I get; YOU GET TO CHOOSE. Currently the system is skewed and our choices are limited. I've got no issue with that argument and agree with; and support the article's proposal of an opt-out clause. My point however is still valid; we STILL have a choice. It may be limited; but my aim is ALWAYS focused to turning any situation into an advantage.

Someone needs to think of the children

I do. My way of thinking is just different from most. We all get old. I plan on having several insurance policies walking around that know The Importance of Filial Obligation.

Godspeed and good luck!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy

I'm fortunate because in our culture there's tremendous value placed in children

Yeah our cultutre places so much value in children that it allows women to terminate a pregnancy for no reason or any reason

And it does so while simultanrously entertaining shaming muh deadbeat dad language from people like you

If you're man enough to stick your dick in; you're man enough to bear the consequences.

If you're woman enough to have your rancid, smelly, putrid fucking whore vagina penetrated raw, you're woman enough to carry the kid to term or die bleeding in the fucking streets from a FUCKING COATHANGER

SO FUCKING SICK OF HYPOCRISY

[–]TheRedPillRipper1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yeah our cultutre

I should've been more specific. Different cultures.

muh deadbeat dad language from people like you

People like me accept the system as it is; and work hard to use it to our advantage. If you're sick of hypocrisy; find ways to use the fact it exists for your own gain.

Godspeed and good luck!



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter