~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
Coluphid
[–]Zombocom191187 points88 points89 points 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link
I see absolutely no reason that child support should NOT be voluntary. Modern science has given women effective birth control, the morning after pill, and if all else fails, abortions. Its her choice to bear a financial liability of a quarter million dollars or more to full term, not the man's. Therefore the financial responsibility should be 100% hers. But they don't want to grow up and accept responsibility for their own nonsense.
[–]T000000950 points51 points52 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
the financial responsibility should be 100% hers
Females did make it quite clear it is HER CHILD so she should pay for HER CHILD and not some man she don't need
[–]erydan29 points30 points31 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Her body, her choice, her responsibility.
[–]JohnQPubliq6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
One of the feminist European countries actually attempted to pass a gender equality law that would allow men to refuse ownership and financial obligations to children that they did not consent into creating. Needless to say the equality preaching feminists lost their collective shit when actual gender equality was on the table.
[–]TedCruzEatsBoogers243 points44 points45 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
I have been everything short of physically attacked for proposing this concept to women.
[–]Zombocom191136 points37 points38 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
because they don't want real equality. they want to be victims so they can always blame someone. its pathetic. There is absolutely NO excuse for it with modern birth control methods. zero.
[–]MaunaLoona11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Even if a woman chooses not to abort, there are safe havens in most states where she can drop her infant off with no questions asked. Often she can do this against the father's wishes...
[–]StoicRN3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Gender wage gap myth helps propetuate the idea men should be more financially responsible for reproduction.
[–]MuscleCarz2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
Modern science has given women effective birth control, the morning after pill, and if all else fails, abortions.
Also, we men, have had "No means No," then "yes means yes," pounded into our psyches. We've been told even if she's naked, if her pussy's dripping fucking wet, if she says "No," that's it.
Fine, we get it. SHE HAS THE FINAL SAY.
No matter what's said about "it takes two to tango," WOMEN MAKE THE FINAL DECISION IN COPULATING, PERIOD.
SHE decides whether he ENTERS HER BODY OR NOT. Therefore, even a person with a child's sense of logic should understand and agree, if a woman CHOOSES to maake that FINAL "OK" DECISION, to let a man enter her, by default, she has made the FINAL DECISION to become pregnant.
If she does become pregnant, he, therefore, should have the right to deny financial support as SHE MADE THE FINAL DECISION leading to the outcome (pregnancy).
This aside, however, a safe and effective "men's pill" would be a great help to the fucking travesty that exists in this matter.
On the other hand, I gotta admit, I love it when I read of women telling their man "I'm pregnant" and he tells her, "I've had a vasectomy."
Ooops! Classic!
[–]Zombocom19110 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Also, we men, have had "No means No," then "yes means yes," pounded into our psyches. We've been told even if she's naked, if her pussy's dripping fucking wet, if she says "No," that's it. Fine, we get it. SHE HAS THE FINAL SAY.
yeah, they have actually extended this now to DURING sex, if she says the word NO at any time you must pull out immediately and you continue to fuck , its rape.
[–]DocHolliday22639 points40 points41 points 9 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link
I see a problem with this.
The poster assumes that women will change their nature to suit circumstances, although we know that women are slaves to their baser instincts. Women who are naturally inclined to be hypergamous baby factories aren't going to stop if social circumstances change. So, assuming that women's nature remains consistent, they would continue to pump out offspring without the state enforced safety net provided by the unfortunate fathers. If you think this country has a poverty problem now, just wait until the above idea becomes reality. Now you have fathers who aren't on the hook to support these "families" (I use family in the loosest sense of the word), but a state which would presumably continue to provide welfare services for the poor, which these women with their gaggle of children would rely upon all the more. The system would collapse very quickly and very unpleasantly.
It's a nice notion, but presuming that the one constant is women's nature, this idea really becomes unfeasible very quickly.
[–]T000000920 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link
I dunno, females are selfish above all other things. She will sell out anyone or anything if it will save her own hyde, so knowing she can no longer send the bill to some random guy because he has no obligation to pay it may be a motivating factor because her as is on the line now and she can't pawn it off on someone else which is her default position.
It wont stop here from fucking biff badboy, or tyrone the dope dealer and claiming the thugspawn belongs to her billy beta hubby, but it may put an end to the St single Mommy horde we are dealing with now.
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points 9 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link
The flaw in your argument is that you're assuming that 100% of men are redpillers who are willing to let single women and their children suffer. In reality, 99% of men are bluepill. As soon as they see single women and their children genuinely struggling, they'll accept any measures to help out "the children." No one will be able to successfully argue the "let children go hungry" position and thus we'll have either massive deficits or massive bachelor taxes.
[–]lipidsly5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The latter.
[–]T00000092 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
I didn't say anything about some brat suffering, only that the bill for that suffering is placed right where it belongs, and any putz willing to step up is free to do so.
Why in the hell do you think they always trot out a bunch of kids, because no normal human can stand there and watch them starve, but I aint normal and have no problem killing women and children if it comes to it.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]T00000090 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
That wasn't my read on it.
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
I think you simply inferred things that aren't there -- because you already understand that eliminating the "welfare" thing is absolutely necessary and you somewhat blindly assumed/presumed that the OP/Anon post also understood that -- initially I thought that too... but I checked & rechecked (read and reread) the text to see if it was there.
And it wasn't. So, I am forced to conclude that they didn't & apparently don't understand that critical part of the equation -- there certainly ISN'T anything about welfare/benefits that is stated in any explicit fashion in the linked snapshot, and in reading it through several times, I can't find anything that would even qualify as any implicit statement to that effect either.
It's just NOT there.
[–]T00000090 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Gotcha, I see where you're coming from and see no error in that assessment.
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
And it's not just that I disagree with is idea -- I think it probably COULD/WOULD have merit...
...but that merit (his predicted outcomes) would exist if, and only if, the welfare state weren't already there to "fill the gap" and essentially "socialize" the costs across ALL men.
The fact that it is there -- and bar some other MAJOR change that ends/eliminates it -- then I cannot see how ANY of his predicted outcomes would actually occur.
[–]T00000090 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That really is the core problem though, the welfare state, it's the largest driver of federal and state spending and surpasses everything else. THAT has to stop, and everyone needs to give up the "special perks" no matter what kind of payout it is. Agriculture is a huge benefactor, and so is automotive and oil, alongside the insane money handed to St Single Mommy and her thug brood.
Which creates a whole new set of problems, the public outcry of losing their big check from daddy will be far worse than the riots from the current crop of cybaby liberals because it will impact a lot of other groups to.
I would suggest a gradual cut, like you would deal with any addiction, because in this case it's going to be to severe to just go cold turkey.
[–]frikabg1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Well technically you are not killing them are you? It was her decision to get pregnant keep the baby when she knew that she can't take care of it so how did you end up the bad guy here? Also if the guy is blue pill and wants to "take care of her" and her spawn than fine! You think i give a shit about that? Why do you? He shot himself in the foot and you are like "ohhh he is in pain!" Well good! He did it to himself so let him suffer the results of his actions that one is on him.
Bingo!
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
and thus we'll have either massive deficits or massive bachelor taxes.
More likely BOTH.
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
The poster assumes that women will change their nature to suit circumstances, although we know that women are slaves to their baser instincts.
I came here to post this. Women are the oldest teenager in the house.
[–]cashmoney_x-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Thanks Roosh
[–]DocHolliday2261 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
You know, just because Roosh said it doesn't make it untrue. Female nature is what it is and you can cover your eyes all you want, but it doesn't change the reality of the fact that women are little more than overgrown children.
[–]TedCruzEatsBoogers26 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
Easy solution, state doesn't pay for your second unless you get your tubes tied.
[–]fakenate11 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That doesn't really work in a liberal democracy.
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
Easy solution, state doesn't pay for your second you ANY benefits unless you get your tubes tied after the first.
FTFY.
Because otherwise you're still engaging in enabling/facilitating the USE/ABUSE of children & the welfare system as a means of adult female sustenance -- and if you allow more than ONE such child per woman -- you're STILL going to end up with a dysgenic [welfare/entitlement dependent demographic] expansion effect, (i.e. if you allow TWO children per female,* the "rabbits" will still multiply exponentially -- granted more slowly and at a lower exponent than if they have double-digit litters, but still -- the only way to hold it steady much less decrease it is to limit them to ONE).
* That -- the reason it HAS to be limited to ONE child -- probably needs a further explanation:
The mistake with the "two/second" child is to continue to think in terms of monogamous pair couples -- i.e. that 2 children is a "replacement/stable" and non-expansionary rate of reproduction. But that simply isn't true, because it presupposes a 1:1 male & female relationship.
What can (and likely WILL) happen instead is that ONE "deadbeat" (dysgenic, low-life, or "bad boy") male can easily mate with dozens if not hundreds of "dependent" (dysgenic) females.
If those females then only have ONE child -- even assuming the children are ALL females, then you have a "stable/declining" dependent/dysgenic situation -- that is the number of dependent offspring will NOT increase. If the "bad boy" impregnates a dozen such females, they will each only have ONE (replacement for themselves) offspring... and likewise in succeeding generations.
But and if you allow MORE than one, even just that SECOND child -- especially in the cases where both of the children are themselves female (as they are LIKELY to be, see within ** below) -- then the dependent/dysgenic population expands. To wit that ONE (or even two) "bad boy" male(s) can impregnate dozens or hundreds of females, and then do it AGAIN. Thus you end up with essentially TWO** children per prior previous "dependent/dysgenic" female. And ~15..20 years later (if those two are both female) they also can (and likely WILL, see within *** below) EACH have TWO in turn, which becomes FOUR... FF another generation (~15..20 years avg) and that FOUR can become EIGHT, and so on with the virtual doublings.**
** Obviously the rate of increase WILL be somewhat shy of a full doubling (1:1+ up to some 1:1.9+ ratio), given that it is unlikely ALL of the offspring will be female. (Although I wouldn't count on it being anything like the natural ~50/~50 mix, because women DO engage in sex-selective foeticide/infanticide -- and they do so relative to whatever "incentives" are in place in terms of sex-gender allocated resources of the society -- TRADITIONALLY that has meant killing the female children in favor or male offspring -- but that is in a PATRIARCHAL system; in any system that FUNDS {incentivizes} sustenance via MORE children in what becomes an essentially, almost entirely "MATRIARCHAL" system, then the incentives will SKEW for the women {mothers AND grandmothers, great-grandmothers***} to kill the male offspring -- meaning a significantly HIGHER female to male child ratio will likely result).
*** Keep in mind that "grandma's" publicly funded "gravy train" potentially ENDS when her children reach adulthood -- unless that is they TOO start popping out kids to sustain the flow of resources (can you say "incentivized"?) Add in that a "grandma" during her first gen "mommy" days would get TWO allocations (for 3 people, 2:3), but and if/when she can in turn have them each have TWO children then (@ approximately the 15 to 20 year mark, i.e. when the now "grandma" is 30 to 40 years old) if they ALL remain in a household, that household would obtain FOUR allocations (for 7 people, and while 4/7 is less than 2/3 the base housing expenses do NOT necessarily increase in a linear fashion); expand that for a THIRD generation (@ the 30 to 40 year mark, when "Great-Grandma" is aged a mere 45 to 60 years old -- in other words STILL living) and the household can now have EIGHT allocations for (15 people -- again the base household expenses increase, but in a LESS than linear fashion). End result is that "mommy" gets a reward, the reward gets bigger & better when she becomes "grandma" multiple times over; and it gets even BIGGER & BETTER with each succeeding generation & doubling of offspring... in short the "matriarch" still gets "richer" as her family's dependency on the system grows exponentially).
And point of fact that very MUCH has already proven true -- the "households" created by the welfare system invariably become multi-generational "matriarchal" households -- each succeeding generation of daughters simply pops out kids that "grandma" (and then "great-grandma" + "grandma(s)" [plural]) then keep within their household and raise; often with very LITTLE of the "welfare benefits" actually being expended directly on the children (minimal crappy food, hand-me-down clothing, multiple kids packed into a bed... meanwhile grandma gets a brand new big screen Plasma TV, etc.) And all of that occurs often WITHOUT a single DIME of child-support coming from the "baby daddies" -- who indeed, often move into and live parasitically OFF of the welfare benefits themselves.
[–]FeelThatBern2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Simple: serious charges (fines/jail) for women who conceive a child with no real support system (money/wealth) to raise them.
Were going to have a few empty prisons when we legalize weed / decrim drugs; what better use of the real-estate but to fill it up with dumb cunts that want to cosplay 'Orange Is The New Black'
[–]DWShimoda2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link
There are other problems as well. The statement of "no longer a state or federal matter" is made ONLY in regard to ordering/enforcing "child support payments" from the father.
Well, as you noted:
but a state which would presumably continue to provide welfare services
It doesn't remove the "welfare" state -- meaning the statement that "no more frivolous women breeding with everything unless they want to pay [for it] themselves" is a fundamentally WRONG assumption.
And so long as the government is available as a "welfare-sugar-daddy"... NONE of the rest of his assumed consequences (or changes in female behavior) will occur. One needs only look at what has happened in many "ethnic minority" ghettos to see that already in action -- the women don't pursue (and often don't CARE to even try to pursue) "child support" from the bio/baby-daddy, in part because they know (in advance) that the men don't have anything to pursue -- and instead they are ENTIRELY reliant upon the "government" as "daddy-provider" for virtually ALL of their needs.
Ergo, in fact instead of what OP's picture posits -- what is much MORE LIKELY to occur is women voting (as a block) for politicians that will provide them HIGHER welfare, and probably imposing a special "surtax" on unmarried males to cover it.
BTW that is -- in effect -- what is already/presently going on with Obamacare, and any/all other "nationalized" health-care systems. Note the demands of the Bitter Bitch March: they want "free" tampons and "free" birth control, along with "free" abortions; and of course the perennial demand of feminists "free" daycare/childcare, etc, etc.
[–]MuscleCarz0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
One needs only look at what has happened in many "ethnic minority" ghettos to see that already in action -- the women don't pursue (and often don't CARE to even try to pursue) "child support" from the bio/baby-daddy, in part because they know (in advance) that the men don't have anything to pursue -- and instead they are ENTIRELY reliant upon the "government" as "daddy-provider" for virtually ALL of their needs.
True. Agreed. However, County welfare will make her give them NAME(s) of the likely/possible father(s). Then the County DA serves papers to the supposed "father" and go after his assets for welfare money she's spent. Even if he's not employed or doesn't have assets, you can bet your ass they go after them when they do eventually go to work. I got served while going to college for the tune of $59k in welfare from an ex-girlfriend that pointed me out as the father. I knew I wasn't and demanded a blood test. walked into a fucking room with blood test sample boxes staked to the ceiling. It took almost a year to hear what I already new...I was disallowed as the father. If I hadn't contested, and demanded the blood test, I would've been royally fucked, well beyond the $59k.
What sucks, IMO, isn't just that MEN shouldn't have to foot the bill at all--as she made the final decision to let him stick his penis in her in the first place--it's the fact that they don't at least HOLD HER RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING HALF!!
USA is so ass backwards when it comes to sex ed and pregnancy prevention in schools due to the religious, tradcon, "sex is bad/nasty" a-holes. Bible belt areas of USA with less sex ed have more unwanted pregnancies. Countries with the higher levels of pregnancy prevention and sex ed in schools have much lower unwanted pregnancies. Fucking stupid.
Even if he's not employed or doesn't have assets, you can bet your ass they go after them when they do eventually go to work.
True. Which is why so many of them end up getting involved in things that are NOT "on the record" kinds of jobs/businesses (i.e. drugs, etc).
That's just another -- entirely predictable by the way -- knock on consequence of the way the system is presently constructed.
And yeah this:
County welfare will make her give them NAME(s) of the likely/possible father(s). Then the County DA serves papers to the supposed "father" and go after his assets for welfare money she's spent. [...] I got served while going to college for the tune of $59k in welfare from an ex-girlfriend that pointed me out as the father.
Sometimes it even gets delayed/hung up in the system and they let it pile up so that -- as in your case -- a "rude awakening" happens years later.
I've known a couple of guys who THOUGHT they weren't "on the hook" because they didn't get/see any negative consequences (i.e. no papers served, no garnishment) during the first year or two of the kid's life... only to suddenly get WHACKED in year 3 or year 4.
Actually what sucks is that -- depending on how they "play" or "game" the system -- many women (and even though rather stupid, many of them are VERY savvy at that, plus of course various "social workers" are even SAVVIER) not only don't pay "half," the not only don't really PAY anything at all... and in many cases, they basically LIVE OFF OF the system themselves (IOW they get rewarded for getting preggers).
I think you're significantly wrong in your cause-attribution (you're buying into/uncritically accepting the feminism & other "ism" narratives -- i.e. it's that mean old "Patriarchal GOD stuff").
Other nations have fewer problems because their entire "incentive" system around welfare is structured COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY -- having kids is NOT the only (and therefore NOT the "best") way to obtain "welfare" -- ergo the incentive to do so is removed & dramatically reduced. Or in cruder terms "Popping out crotch-fruit" is not a method of winning the jackpot like it is in the USA.
EDIT: And by the way, that's not just "speculation" on my part about the whole "incentive" thing -- I have some, well I guess you'd call them "white trailer trash" relatives -- and they quite OPENLY talk about how "popping out kids" (including advising the next generation on the hows & whys, the ins & outs of MAXIMIZING benefits) is a useful way of "gaming" the system -- the rewards keep in mind are NOT just things like "food stamps" and energy/housing assistance, it's also commonly an entirely "free ride" to a bullshit college degree (and personal sustenance/extra benefits while doing so), most commonly some "social worker" degree (via which they learn even MORE how to "game" the system, including shit like FOSTERING/ADOPTING other people's kids, and making certain kids get "diagnosed" with learning disorders/disabilities, etc -- because THOSE all bring them even MORE money, special services, etc. etc).
That's a BIG part of what is behind the whole "epidemic/explosion" of crap like ADD/ADHD and more recently "Autism" etc -- it's called a "bonus" on the welfare "payday" system. (Seriously, we're talking like an EXTRA $6k to $10k per kid in CASH benefits alone -- and all you need to do is get them diagnosed with ADHD -- which BTW is a piece of cake {virtually a "default" state} when you are a shitty parent, feed your kid crap food, never discipline them, etc -- they become landmine-tantrum "problem" children which means "EZ-ADHD diagnosis" = and that is a LOTTERY WINNER!!! Then multiply it by 3 or 4 kids, and you're talking a COOL $20k to $30k per year of extra set of benefits... plus if you REALLY do it right, you can get the kid "disability" payments for life... which is like almost a "create your own UBI benefit" or "trust fund" thing.)
[–]MaunaLoona1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Now you have fathers who aren't on the hook to support these "families" (I use family in the loosest sense of the word), but a state which would presumably continue to provide welfare services for the poor, which these women with their gaggle of children would rely upon all the more. The system would collapse very quickly and very unpleasantly.
This is why the state has to go.
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Good point but back in the day they would stone adultress women, and as society progressed further they would shame her incessantly for cheating. Though it felt unmerited it reminds me of the book "The Scarlet Letter". If she wants to get with Chad sure but if she is already with a guy then she should be shamed as long as there's evidence with the precedence of innocent until proven guilty.
[–]bannerlord22 points23 points24 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link
3rd worlder here,
we don't have divorce laws(annulment lengthy process, most just lead separate lives),
no obligation to pay child support
No welfare(unless you're extremely poor and have some qualifications)
Doesn't really stop them,
What I do have are single mom's throwing themselves at me because they're aware of my status. I entertain them for fun, but it's all pump and dump anyway
Single mother epidemic really won't stop even if there are no social safety nets
[–]FeelThatBern5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Easy: make the safet net a prison; no dudes to knock them up.
[–]gods_bones1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link
What country do you live in? I can't believe there's a place where divorce doesn't exist!
[–]bannerlord-1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_law_by_country#Philippines
In a sense muslims are more "progressive" than the rest of the country since they have proper divorce and doesn't need to spend a fortune to do so
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
No Muslims are still regressive because Islam is a system designed to control, not a system designed to awaken. Contrast with religions that encourage Asceticism like Buddhism, and you'll notice those are designed to awaken, not control.
[–]Prometheus4441 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Truth bomb.
Yup. This was also true in western (first world) nations in the era BEFORE the "welfare" state -- women STILL had illegitimate (bastard) children, who often simply ran around the streets as "urchins" engaging variously in begging and/or thievery of a dozen different kinds (just go read any of Dickens' works).
[–]MuscleCarz0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
No, but I wonder if single-mother birth-rates are significantly statistically lower there than roll-out-the-red-welfare carpet countries like USA and UK that actually reward, incentivize and subsidize single motherhood?
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Look, women are going to keep being knocked up and men are going to continue paying for their children. With 99% of men being bluepill, that's just the way the world works. As soon as a few single moms start crying that their children are hungry, society will bend over backwards to accommodate them one way or the other.
So if you actually got this law passed, then what would happen is that the safety net for women would be vastly expanded, with a huge bachelor tax paying for it. No thank you. At least in the current situation I can simply not associate with women and live my live relatively undisturbed.
[–]Booshank254 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Even if, I'd still be going my own way. I don't care to fix anything.
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
Sigh...
Change all the laws you want... I wont forget and forgive.
Oops sowwy we have been screwing you men over for generations, we cool?
No fuck you...
[–]Morb3573 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yup, I never forgive those who wronged me and never will.
[–]geocitiesuser3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
THIS IS SEXIST!!1!!11eleven!!!1!!
Just kidding. This is pretty rational. Currently women suffer the opposite of repercussions for sleeping around or divorcing. The system is completely and entirely one sided. It's no wonder that a broken system results in a broken society.
[–]lolz_693 points4 points5 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link
What you propose is a logical, common sense, personal responsibility fix. So, naturally, there is a very little chance of it becoming implemented when so many have become used to relying on a wannabe socialist oligarchy to fix their problems/tell them what to think.
It always comes back to womens' horrific civilization-destroying choices. Good luck establishing any sort of change in the current society when the majority of people still believe single mothers are all heroes who are poor victims.
Women historically cannot be trusted with the same rights as men. It is only the kindness/short-sightedness of men in a prosperous/peaceful society that leads to the equality bullshit. Legislation alone does not do enough to counteract the actions of women. Just look at domestic violence. A man is still considered the suspect when HE makes the call to the cops to report abuse from a woman. All the laws in the world don't make a difference when it is still blue pilled politicians, cops, and judges making the final decision.
We will only start seeing changes when billionaire women who inherited their daddy's wealth marry male thugs and eventually have to pay HIM child support and alimony. My cynicism on this issue is because as long as women can vote, they will just whine for more and more free shit or start rioting when their checks stop coming.
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
i have the better part of a century to live; i want to watch it burn
[–]Amnesia25082 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
I think the Red Pill is already the answer here without needing this specifically. It would be better for men but unless attitudes change wholesale in society to the way women support themselves then men may just end up paying a different way altogether. The Red Pill may very well change attitudes in the West as the years go by though.
[–]ustael2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Or cannot be held responsible for any of her actions while drunk.
[–]CountCuntila1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
So much nonsense
[–]Regulusx13371 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link
I don't think that fathers should be exempt from paying child support, but I do think that all money given for the child is closely monitored and flagged by some kind of system to ensure that the money's being used properly. Maybe funds can be deposited onto some "child support" card, and limited to buying specific items [i.e.: baby formula, pampers, baby food, kid's food, kid's clothing, etc.]. I think that this would be a step in the right direction when it comes to couples who're in opposition. Just a thought. Also, pregnancy and testing should be mandatory, and free of charge for men if they're not the father of the child. The tab should go to the woman if she lies, and she should even incur a fine, or some kind of mark on her record for having attempted to deceive a man concerning this topic.
I agree with that child support card idea IF the breadwinner of the family was unstable and the other parent was more suitable(Mental health issues, addict to something, routinely beats the child to a point that it leaves cuts and bruises) however I believe the child should automatically go to the parent who earnes the most if the child is <12 years old otherwise the child can pick for themselves
[–]SnapshillBot0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Archived for your convenience
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
[–]a17c81a30 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Yup pretty much. Don't forget welfare and job quotas etc..
That said I don't see this happening. Prepare for the worst.
[–]gods_bones0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
HA! Good luck with that. I can solve any problem if I live in a delusional reality as well. They haven't addressed the issue of white Knight ingredients and gynocentrism, so how is any legislation going to change at all in this scenario?
[–]MaunaLoona0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
civilization stops being on fire because she can't control herself
I would have said because she can't keep her legs closed.
[–]verynormalsimple0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
That anon wins the internet.
Second place is the guy that likes sushi and minigolf.
[–]587Boat0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Sadly though, there is I think a significant if not huge percentage of MEN who wouldn't be able to get their heads around the concept. I wish it weren't so, but at my stage of life, my brand of MGTOW rejects these men...I can nicely do without them as well.
[–]Helikzhan0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
It's all plum correct. Especially the bit about the welfare state.
This social policy alone has had so many toxic consequences that it may be the end of us. Consequences yet exist that haven't been fulfilled. Pulling the plug now only ensures a quicker civil war.
[–]Scandinavianredpill0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
this is 100% true. its really sad how 1 change could move us into an entirely different direction. Issue is you can never take this stance without being called a child molester and misgynist
[–]stawek0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
Did he say "abolish all welfare"? No? then child support has to stay.
Great thinking by Anon. Goddamn slut-support-system has to fail.
[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]AutismoCircus1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link
The point is that they can go and pay for it themself retard.
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–]Zombocom191187 points88 points89 points (9 children) | Copy Link
[–]T000000950 points51 points52 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]erydan29 points30 points31 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]JohnQPubliq6 points7 points8 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TedCruzEatsBoogers243 points44 points45 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Zombocom191136 points37 points38 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MaunaLoona11 points12 points13 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]StoicRN3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MuscleCarz2 points3 points4 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Zombocom19110 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DocHolliday22639 points40 points41 points (25 children) | Copy Link
[–]T000000920 points21 points22 points (12 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 18 points19 points20 points (11 children) | Copy Link
[–]lipidsly5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]T00000092 points3 points4 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (5 children) | Copy Link
[removed]
[–]T00000090 points1 point2 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (3 children) | Copy Link
[–]T00000090 points1 point2 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]T00000090 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]frikabg1 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]T00000090 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]cashmoney_x-1 points0 points1 point (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DocHolliday2261 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]TedCruzEatsBoogers26 points7 points8 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]fakenate11 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]FeelThatBern2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda2 points3 points4 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[–]MuscleCarz0 points1 point2 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MaunaLoona1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]bannerlord22 points23 points24 points (8 children) | Copy Link
[–]FeelThatBern5 points6 points7 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]gods_bones1 point2 points3 points (4 children) | Copy Link
[–]bannerlord-1 points0 points1 point (3 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Prometheus4441 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DWShimoda0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MuscleCarz0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Booshank254 points5 points6 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–]Morb3573 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]geocitiesuser3 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]lolz_693 points4 points5 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Amnesia25082 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]ustael2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]CountCuntila1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Regulusx13371 point2 points3 points (1 child) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]SnapshillBot0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]a17c81a30 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]gods_bones0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]MaunaLoona0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]verynormalsimple0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]587Boat0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Helikzhan0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]Scandinavianredpill0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]stawek0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[+][deleted] (1 child) | Copy Link
[deleted]
[–]AutismoCircus1 point2 points3 points (0 children) | Copy Link