[–]welcometothejlRed Pill Man20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Methuselah66 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

she owes 35% of the child support which she keeps, and I owe 65% which she also keeps.

That's weird. It shouldn't work that way. It should be that a percentage amount of support you would otherwise have to pay, would be reduced by the percentage ratio between your income and hers, and then reduced again due to 50/50 physical custody.

So if you make 1000 a month and she makes 500 a month, you might have to pay 275 a month in support if you had only visitation, because of your relative incomes. But then that gets reduced again because the kids live with you half the time. So it should be like maybe 150 a month. Both parents are required by law to support their kids. So ex wife has to use her income to support the kids, supplemented with some income transfer from you, because she makes less than you do.

When the kids live with you, you're supporting them. It's still money out of your pocket even if you're not paying it to your ex wife. When the kids live with you, they're using your house, your electricity, your water, and eating food you bought. Those things cost money - money that you spend to pay for those things. That's child support - paying for what they need, every day.

So it should work out to be a net payment from you to her, but not this "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario you're describing. Weird.

[–]welcometothejlRed Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ManifestationOfSelf 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MirrorMirror_OTWfuck your optics4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]resolutions316Red Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Msmit712 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaybePaige-be0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]welcometothejlRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

So here's the thing, the estimates for what a child costs have a TON of fat built in. Nobody talks about this because it starts to get technical and boring and people who aren't vested in the system lose interest quickly. The USDA does a study every 3 years on child costs which child support calculations are based on.

1 It's not a needs based system, it's based on what married couples in your income range tend to spend on their kids needs AND wants.

FlyingResearcher · 2019-04-18T11:39:36+00:00

There's at least one well known and widely protested gender "gap" concerning income, but I think we're ignoring quite a few...

2 married couples who have two incomes and one roof will obviously have more disposable income than parents with two incomes and two roofs. My ex and I both make good money, so our child support is based on what two kids living with married parents making let's say $200k a year would spend on their kids. A married couple making $200k is going to have more money leftover and therefore spend more frivolously, but I'm still held to that standard of spending.

3 If you drive a car as a single person and the car costs $20k, once you have a baby, that car now costs you $10k, and the other $10k is a child care expense. As long as I've known my ex, she's been able to afford a car. Now that we have kids, I pay for half.

To directly answer your question, yes, I still pay for half of the cost of the things my kids do. But as you can see, child support calculations build in so much extra fat they pay for those extras and then some. But since half of people are divorced, less than half of those people have kids, and only half of those people (usually men) actually have to pay, most people don't care about this issue. Do people even care if it mostly affects men? Talk about in on r/feminism and you are banned. Talk about it on r/menslib and your post will be deleted. The media doesn't talk about it, unless they're pushing the stereotype of the deadbeat dad, but if the tables were turned, maybe you wouldn't think it was fair either.

[–]MaybePaige-be0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I don't know much about the child support system, true, but I just googled "child support bloated?" And you seem to be right a really interesting article into the history of how in the 70s (when they were written) discrimination against divorced women and single mothers was HUGE, and the alimony and child support laws were built to include and assume a MASSIVE amount of trouble in finding work or a new husband; because in the 70s, divorce was the the #1 cause of women falling into poverty. Studies actually showed that men actually GAINED income after a divorce, because they had no child costs, and the mothers were already paying less than half of housing and food, so the added cost of living alone was actually very small.

1 minor problem with your theory, the article I read is from NPR, the SJW feminists you red pillers claim don't care about men's issues... It's not the libertarians talking about child support reform, it's the feminists...

So... you're right there's a problem, but you're blaming potential allies and making progress harder for yourself and people like you... Why?

[–]welcometothejlRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

"1 minor problem with your theory, the article I read is from NPR, the SJW feminists you red pillers claim don't care about men's issues... It's not the libertarians talking about child support reform, it's the feminists..."

And yet on Reddit, I lay out the facts and it's always the women and allies of women who have an issue? Where are these feminists on PPD defending this? Where are the red pillers telling me I'm full of it? Do you think feminists actively guve a crap about men's issues or just pay it lip service once in a while to seem like they're about equality? It does look like NPR has some good stories on dads, so good find. I don't have an issue with NPR, I have donated to them. It seems when you dig into child support issues you see now that it's the men who struggle. Unfortunately you seem to be focused on women's struggles from the 70's. I laid out who is gaining money in my scenario, happening now. That neither helps the women from the 70's, nor men today.

One more thing, my phone randomly makes words big sometimes and I don't know how it happens, so if the above comment of mine looks big, that wasn't me being extra angry, it's just an anomaly of new tech.

[–]MaybePaige-be0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

right, so feminist leaders and speakers are all erased because a 12 year old was mean to you online? :P

And yea, I have issues like when swapping between phone and computer.

Do you think feminists actively guve a crap about men's issues or just pay it lip service once in a while to seem like they're about equality?

Honestly? I think the Red pillers are the ones paying lip service. The only people I've seen writing about it are "gender rights activists", because that kind of law is part of the Patriarchy and needs to be dismantled.

You should pay attention to the context in which it's brought up by the "men's rights" people. Do they ever actually do any work to fix it? Are they organizing protests? Do the have a functional fairer alternative being shopped around?

The answer to all those questions is no.

Redpillers only ever bring up Alimony and Child support in arguments with feminists (like this), as part of an attempt to shut down feminist progress. 99% of the time the convo goes:

Feminist: "We need to fix X"

Men's right's ~~activist~~: "If you really cared about equality you'd fix Child support, why should I help with X"

Feminist: "...Yea, it's on our list of shit already, <insert link>"

Men's right's ~~activist~~: "w/e"

See, that's what lip service looks like, why would those sexists ever want to fix child support? It's their go to excuse to reject all forward momentum for gender equality!

Feminists/scholars actually seem to be talking about it quite a bit:

https://www.fastcompany.com/3069285/are-custody-laws-standing-in-the-way-of-gender-equity-2

https://thefederalist.com/2017/03/06/feminist-divorce-law-whats-keeping-women-primary-caregivers/

http://nomas.org/fatherhood-feminism-writing-web/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/04/180403085049.htm

https://www.npr.org/2015/11/19/456632896/how-u-s-parents-racked-up-113-billion-in-child-support-debt

[–]welcometothejlRed Pill Man0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I appreciate anyone who speaks out against the biased family court systems. But the overwhelming majority of people ignoring the issue are women. Even the articles you shared admit this.

Copied from the first article.

"many feminist and domestic violence groups, including the National Organization of Women, oppose joint custody as the starting point in divorce proceedings, saying that it could force a couple that may want nothing to do with each other into a cooperative arrangement not of their choosing."

So they oppose equality as a starting point, essentially.

Copied from the second article. Some words capitalized for effect.

"In U.S. courts, the overwhelming majority of physical custody awards is to mothers, with fathers getting “visitation” and “secondary parent” designations. These are just the sort of cultural habits that lend themselves to entrenched assumptions which then lead an editor and freelance writer to a complete humor miss about doofus dads. It is FEMINIST ORGANIZATIONS, not patriarchy, that preserves them."

I think it's great that there are outliers in feminist groups that have found a fair approach to tackling problems of inequality. But the fact still remains you'll get banned on r/feminism and deleted off of r/menslib. For all of men's rights faults, they don't censor.

[–]hustlemuscleracing 14 points15 points16 points 7 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaybePaige-be0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]oneprettycoolcat0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaybePaige-be0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Chad doesn't exist, the small number of guys who act that way are in need of therapy, And the men you see with girlfriends or fuckbuddies that you ASSUME are acting that way aren't.

You don't need to "lead" women towards sex, in fact for most of them that kind of shit is an immediate disqualification. That's exactly why women do shit like claim they want to be friends and then start dating the guy a month later, because it helps weed out the ones who leave once sex is off the table. It's the woman who decides when sex will happen, most of the time she just lets the guy think he's done something smooth to "get there". (Remember the Louis CK joke about young couples?).

Women care WAY less about looks than men, all this hypergamy shit is projection and deflection. Women want someone fun; end of list. Fun is relative, of course; sometimes it means a gym/hiking partner, sometimes a fellow creator they can bounce ideas off of. 2 shared interests and 1 joke are worth more than abs and a 6ft frame. The 3 biggest "mansluts" I ever knew were all under 5'8" actually, lol, and the 4th was tall but fat. What they had in common was that they genuinely LIKED women as people, and enjoyed a life filled with feminine energy, or whatever the hippies would say.

The problem is that the incels are sexists who don't care about relationships or value a woman's interests, and they notice that shit.

Social men go out to be social. Sure, checking out the bar for "potential" is part of it, but half that group have girlfriends, and they're there with their FRIENDS to drink and have fun. Even the supposed "pussy hunters" will say shit like, "place was a sausage fest, but had a good time"; because even for "gigachad", pussy isn't the goal like it is with redpillers. THAT is why women want to be around them, because they don't feel like their being used or hunted.

There was actually a pick up artist video I saw somewhere that actually got it RIGHT, mostly. I think it was called "daygame"? Anyway, dude talked about "creating an energy people want to be around" and "don't try to part of her world, let her know your world is fun but would be better WITH her". It was pretty great as far as those things go.

Sex is like dessert, it's the part that tastes the best, but it's also the least important part of the meal... Which is actually a pretty apt analogy when you consider that the neckbeards who want sex at the exclusion off all else are the same guys who eat junk food all day with no regard for their health... Almost like their diet and social problems have a causal link somewhere in their psychology?

[–]oneprettycoolcat0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MaybePaige-be0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaybePaige-be0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yes, men go out because they like where they're going. They're socializing with friends, picking up girls is a small part of the whole night's purpose.

What? 27% of men under 30 are NOT virgins! That is NOT what that study says, it says 24% of men REPORT not having sex in the last YEAR! Not virginity, a dry spell. You fucking nutter.

That 24% includes all the guys focusing on school or work by choice.

That 24% includes all the guys who hit 27 y/o and have a mid-youth crisis, "holy shit I'm almost 30 and I haven't done anything!!!"

That 24% includes soldiers and fisherman who's job takes them away from dating for extended periods.

That 24% includes guys post breakup who are heartbroken and can't move on.

Also that 24% include all the Christians who's religion mandates waiting for marriage. Our society is pushing marriage age back a few years, which causes more Chaste biblethumpers in their early-mid 20s.

1/4 of men are NOT being denied sex like some fucking conspiracy!

I've worked in film, IT, and animation, 2 are biggest nerd industries on Earth, and I've never met a single sexless virgin. Guys who don't have time because they're working 80 hrs a week, guys who don't want to date in the industry and have trouble finding people outside of it, sure. But every Dnd group I've been in from ages 15-30 had girls there, and all the guys were either in relationships or actively dating... With the exception of 5 or 6 guys who were either autistic and didn't want to, sexists who pushed away the women around them, or sociopaths who you could tell were better off alone.

Only thing that's changed is that Now those 6 guys all have a forum where they pretend it's everyone else's fault.

The irony of it all is that the red pill IS the answer as to why these guys are alone, just not in the way they think. Because the red pill IS the reason.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaybePaige-be0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]bigdaveyl2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]bigdaveyl3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaybePaige-be0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

k, that's not an accurate "measurement" of sex, it's self-reporting. it says right on the chart, "number of men and women reporting no sex".

The fact is, a decade ago a 20 year old man who wasn't having sex would lie and say he was, but now all the neckbeards have turned it into a funhouse mirror of identity politics, so those same dweebs are proud of their inability to interact with women instead of quietly trying to improve their social skills.

Also, The kind of women who have lots of sex are the same kind who are honest about it, meanwhile the kind of women who don't have sex are the same kind to abstain from answering sex questions, skewing results.

It doesn't say "trying and failing", just "not having", so basement dwellers are likely inflating the number further by refusing to interact with women "because they're all whores" and then blaming women for not screwing them.

These are the same kind of statistics that show, average # of sex partners: men 7, women 5. As if there were any mathematical way for that to be true. (Hint: it's because women are taught not to talk about sex). Every woman who has sex requires a partner who also has sex, ergo these numbers are nonsense.

if you look at the actual article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/03/29/share-americans-not-having-sex-has-reached-record-high/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.7213135cfd1d

You'll see that the actual % of total "no sex" reports has only gone up 4% since 1989, meanwhile those reporting "monthly sex" has gone UP, and those reporting "weekly or more has gone down". The simple answer to this is that lower marriage rates and higher divorce are lowering the number of constantly boning couples, which isn't really a big deal.

TL:DR; This study isn't a report of men not having sex, it's a report measuring how loud redpillers are whining.

[–]bigdaveyl-2 points-1 points0 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]hustlemuscleracing 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]bigdaveyl-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]hustlemuscleracing 1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]bigdaveyl4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]hustlemuscleracing 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatDamnedRedneck-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]hustlemuscleracing 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulmysold 12 points13 points14 points 7 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulmysold -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulmysold 4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]bigdaveyl5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulmysold 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulmysold 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]CatchPhrazeRed is For Rudolph4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]soulmysold2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]soulmysold2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]soulmysold2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon3 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]soulmysold1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DaphneDK42King of LBFMs4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sparksjoy 1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Don't children have some say in which parent they go with in many cases? If so, are there studies showing which parent children tend to prefer living with?

There are a lot of issues related to this.

One issue is that the system allows mothers to take the kids away from the father for years at a time, during which the father is forced to hire lawyer and pay legal fees in order to get his children back. In the time it takes a father to go through the legal system to get his kids back, the mother has already polluted her children's minds, convincing them that their father is no good, and by then, the kids naturally end up preferring the mother.

A small anecdote related to this: when I was a child, I knew of a kid at school who had lied about his father physically abusing him. The mother convinced him to make the story up so that he could live with her full time. This idea of calling cps on you parents because you were mad at them was something we joked about at the time, but I think he was the only one who ever did something like that.

[–]sparksjoy 1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

In the time it takes a father to go through the legal system to get his kids back, the mother has already pouted her children's minds, convincing them that their father is no good, and by then, the kids naturally end up preferring the mother.

But how can we actually prove that this is what happened as opposed to children just naturally preferring their mother in most cases? I think it's a bit much to assume that every time a child opts for their mother it's because of brainwashing. I'm not saying that you are doing that, but I see that assertion a lot in the manosphere. The sheer notion that children can organically develop a greater affinity for their mother seems to be deeply troubling for many.

I just can't see a way to justify taking the child's choice in the matter away completely because they could be influenced.

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

But how can we actually prove that this is what happened as opposed to children just naturally preferring their mother in most cases?

That's not a question that I think has ever been answered. Also relevant though is the assumption that children prefer their mothers. I'm not sure what the stats say, but I think, at least for older children, there might actually be a preference for the father, so I wouldn't go too far with that assumption.

I think it's a bit much to assume that every time a child opts for their mother it's because of brainwashing.

There are examples of it happening. And it's not like the father cares about which parent their children like the most, the problem is that they wanted to be in their children's lives, and their mothers have turned them against them. Then we wonder why there are more single mothers than single fathers. Could it be that women benefit financially and socially from being a mother, and that these benefits drive them to act dirty in order to gain custody? I'm sure this isn't the case 100% of the time, but it does happen, and fathers are usually on the losing end of it.

[–]sparksjoy 1 points 7 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

That's not a question that I think has ever been answered. Also relevant though is the assumption that children prefer their mothers. I'm not sure what the stats say, but I think, at least for older children, there might actually be a preference for the father, so I wouldn't go too far with that assumption.

I didn't assume anything. That's why I used my anecdote: while my sister and I preferred our mother to the point where our father's absence didn't phase us at all, my brother did. And even if older children are closer with the father should we just stick young children with him whether they like it or not hoping that they'll grow fonder of him over time?

There are examples of it happening.

And there are examples of it not.

And it's not like the father cares about which parent their children like the most, the problem is that they wanted to be in their children's lives, and their mothers have turned them against them.

Again, we don't know how much this is happening. What if my father decided that he wanted so badly to be a part of our lives he wanted to to take us from our mom whether we wanted him to or not? This is what I'm concerned about.

Then we wonder why there are more single mothers than single fathers. Could it be that women benefit financially and socially from being a mother, and that these benefits drive them to act dirty in order to gain custody? I'm sure this isn't the case 100% of the time, but it does happen, and fathers are usually on the losing end of it.

Even if this is the case, I don't think forcing an arrangement onto a child that they don't want is the answer.

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I didn't assume anything. That's why I used my anecdote: while my sister and I preferred our mother to the point where our father's absence didn't phase us at all, my brother did. And even if older children are closer with the father should we just stick young children with him whether they like it or not hoping that they'll grow fonder of him over time?

Fun fact: At one point in history (during the 1700s or so), if there was a divorce, it was customary for the mother to raise the kids until they were 5, at which point they were given to the father. The idea was that the father had to teach them important adult skills, like trades and things of that nature, so his role came into play once they were mature enough to start being educated. This happened in married families as well, but custody was never an issues in those cases.

And there are examples of it not.

Yes and I applaud those people for doing the right thing. Now were you trying to make a point with that statement?

Even if this is the case, I don't think forcing an arrangement onto a child that they don't want is the answer.

Maybe not. I'm not here to make that argument, but if we did follow that standard, the only fair thing to do would be to get rid of child support and let the parent who received the kids take care of them.

[–]sparksjoy 1 points 7 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

I didn't assume anything. That's why I used my anecdote: while my sister and I preferred our mother to the point where our father's absence didn't phase us at all, my brother did. And even if older children are closer with the father should we just stick young children with him whether they like it or not hoping that they'll grow fonder of him over time?

Fun fact: At one point in history (during the 1700s or so), if there was a divorce, it was customary for the mother to raise the kids until they were 5, at which point they were given to the father. The idea was that the father had to teach them important adult skills, like trades and things of that nature, so his role came into play once they were mature enough to start being educated. This happened in married families as well, but custody was never an issues in those cases.

Huh, that's good to know.

Yes and I applaud those people for doing the right thing. Now were you trying to make a point with that statement?

To qualify your statement. We are having a discussion, yes?

Maybe not. I'm not here to make that argument, but if we did follow that standard, the only fair thing to do would be to get rid of child support and let the parent who received the kids take care of them.

Him, the taxpayers. Whichever works. In my case my mom left their house, rented a cheap apartment, and borrowed money from her parents since she didn't want to touch my dad's money or anything in his name while they were apart. That would require speaking to him.

I know that's not a realistic option for all mothers, but I think it would be the ideal if she wants full or greater custody and her children feel the same.

[–]MGTOWKapow0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

To start out:

Women

Income gap: Women earn 88 cents to the dollar compared to men.
Sexual harassment gap: Not sure what the best metric is, but one (albeit widely criticized statistic) says 1 / 4 women experience it vs 1 / 6 men.
House work gap, child rearing gap: Women spend more time cooking and cleaning compared to men.

Men

Wealth gap: There are more female millionaires than men. According to at least one major bank, women tend to have larger account balances than men. And according to the federal reserve and various investment / money management firms, women tend to control more total assets than men.
Economic influence gap: Women spend more money, and influence up to 80% of all spending decisions. Most companies tend to cater to women and what they want instead of men. Luxury goods, entertainment products, and leisure goods, among others, tend to be produced, marketed towards, and sold primarily to women. There are very few "male spaces" in society, since women are the primary drivers and decision makers.
Occupational hazards gap: The vast majority of occupational related illnesses, chronic health problems, and deaths, happen to men.
Quality of work gap: Men perform most of the "dirty" and "difficult" work in society, either on the job, or at home, in comparison to women.
Leisure gap, working hours gap: Men work significantly longer hours than women do. Even when you include child rearing and house work, women enjoy more leisure time than men and spend significantly more time at home than men.
Health gap: Men have poorer health outcomes than women. Spending and research on women's health issues greatly eclipses that of men. Men are exposed to health hazards and toxins at significantly higher rates than women, both on the job, and at home.
Life expectancy gap, retirement age gap: Women live significantly longer than men but retirement ages are the same.
Education gap: Men are underrepresented in higher education.
Homelessness gap, unemployment gap, incarceration gap: Many of these issues disproportionately affect men.
Police brutality gap, profiling gap, legal outcome gap: Men are disproportionately profiled, arrested, and incarcerated for the same crimes in comparison to women. Men get longer prison sentences for the same crimes in comparison to women.
Government benefits gap: Men pay more taxes and receive fewer government benefits than women do.
Divorce settlement gap: Men pay larger amounts of alimony, palimony, and child support than women do.
Child custody gap: More women have primary custody over their children than men.

Others

Domestic abuse gap: Women are more likely to be the victims of physical abuse, but in strictly heterosexual relationships, men are more likely to be the targets of both physical and verbal / emotional abuse, and are also more likely to be arrested even when they are the victims. Male victims of domestic abuse have fewer resources to turn to than female victims, and courts tend to believe women by default (with specific laws and legal loopholes available to women that are often used against men).
Romance gap: I would argue that men spend significantly more time, money, and energy on women than the other way around, although women often complain of "emotional labor" in relationships.
Political influence gap: I would argue that women have greater political influence compared to men.
Quality of life gap: When looking at health, life expectancy, leisure, etc, men appear to receive the short end of the stick here.

[–]Bntt891 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bntt890 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bntt890 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]OfSpock0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (148 children) | Copy Link

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

This comment doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, men with no children in the house to care for - should not be forced at gun point to subsidize poor life choices of single moms. Some of them are virgins, some of them are gay. What's your problem with this?

If you mean that women don't pay as much taxes because they're too busy with children, two factors are at play:

1) There are less children than ever currently;

2) The system is built so that men pay more taxes than women.

Inheritance (slightly) benefits women over and at the expense of men, since at the moment of the owner's death, they usually have slightly more daughters than sons. We don't tax inheritance as heavily as incomes.

High glycemic foods are probably on the same level or greater in terms of public health hazard as alcohol and tobacco. We don't tax high glycemic foods but do tax alcohol and tobacco. Because high glycemic foods is an anti-stress self medication of choice among women, and alcohol and tobacco are anti-stress self medication of choice among men.

A lot of female-specific goods and services are getting liberated from value-added tax.

You're thinking backwards here. Women are not paying less taxes because they earn less. We tax earnings instead of property/ assets/ inheritance/ things that benefit women because men are the primary earners.

[–]LillthOfBabylon0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

should not be forced at gun point to subsidize poor life choices of single moms.

So only men? Hate to tell you this, but children are more valuable than men. So yes, society will force EVERYONE to subsidize the well-being of children because they are an investment. Keep in mind, parents also get tax credits and Trump has doubled that tax credit. You do realize the young also subsidizes the old, right?

1) There are less children than ever currently;

AND? That magically makes children less expensive? Also, we still have 98.5 million kids in total. https://www.infoplease.com/mothers-numbers

By age 40, 86% of women have given birth. That's nearly 7 out of 8. They're have less quantity because they're still having kids, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/10/facts-about-u-s-mothers/

Inheritance (slightly) benefits women over and at the expense of men,

Then have less income and raise children.

A lot of female-specific goods and services are getting liberated from value-added tax.

Citation needed? If it true, then take it up with your MAJORITY MALE POLITICIANS.

Women are not paying less taxes because they earn less.

Citation needed.

because men are the primary earners.

Six or half a dozen.

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Hate to tell you this, but children are more valuable than men.

I agree. But, UNLIKE society and government, I also agree that children are more valuable than women.

In every country where tax/benefit analysis has been calculated, it turned out that an average woman never returns enough taxes to cover her school education expenses.

1) There are less children than ever currently;

AND? That magically makes children less expensive?

YES?!!!!

10 units usually cost less than 20 units!

society will force EVERYONE to subsidize the well-being of children because they are an investment

If best interests of children were truly primary focus, no-fault divorce of couples with children would not be allowed (since intact families is the best environment for children). It is. Because it benefits women.

Citation needed.

The moment percentage of female alimony payers started crawling out of zero, US states started abolishing alimony. The moment Britain implemented income taxation of women, it also introduced old-age retirement (right when women started outliving men).

EVERY redistributionist reform gets introduced just at the right moment for women to get the majority of the pie.

The system is designed to benefit women because this is what it does consistently. Occasionally at the expense of children.

The VAT thing.

If it true, then take it up with your MAJORITY MALE POLITICIANS.

They represent interests of MAJORITY FEMALE VOTERS.

[–]LillthOfBabylon-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I also agree that children are more valuable than women.

Are you raising children?

it turned out that an average woman never returns enough taxes to cover her school education expenses.

Then society should stop tell people in general to stop going to college for useless degrees so much.

10 units usually cost less than 20 units!

Then you should be happy. Less kids to burder your taxes.

Because it benefits women.

What makes you think men are never at fault? Men disproportionately cheat. And let's not forget about abusive husbands.

EVERY redistributionist reform gets introduced just at the right moment for women to get the majority of the pie.

Because women are working more and can make their own money. Again with you guys. Always want to talk about double standards when it benefits you.

They represent interests of MAJORITY FEMALE VOTERS.

Are you aware most white women voted of Trump? Also, men choosing not to vote and disproportionately commit crimes causes this. Again, always want to talk about double standards when it benefits you.

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer5 points6 points7 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Are you raising children?

Yes.

it turned out that an average woman never returns enough taxes to cover her school education expenses.

Then society should stop tell people in general to stop going to college for useless degrees so much.

I'm talking about school school, not college school.

Less kids to burder your taxes.

And more and more and more spinsters who don't have children and don't pay enough taxes to cover their own medical expenses and retirements.

What makes you think men are never at fault?

When men are at fault, you don't need a no-fault divorce to divorce them. I don't care about the fate of cheaters and abusers; I'm neither. And yet, 47% of my income goes to support women who hate me, instead of my kid.

Are you aware most white women voted of Trump?

I'm not American. The US is basically the last industrialized nation where the head of the state is elected by electoral college rather than simple majority of voters. There are around 196 countries in the world.

Also, men choosing not to vote

Even if ALL men chose to vote, women could still outnumber them. Female suffrage happened JUST in time.

and disproportionately commit crimes

Criminals should not be banned from voting. Otherwise, all the state needs to do is declare disagreement with them to be a crime, and Voila, they become indefinitely reelectable.

Again, always want to talk about double standards when it benefits you.

The rest of the world, legacy media, and entire separate departments on national and international level talk about double standards when it benefits women.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes.

They're in your house and you're the primary caretaker?

I'm talking about school school, not college school.

......Are you fucking saying people spend more on women than they do men in their primary school life? Aren't most disabled kids male? They're quite expensive themselves.

don't pay enough taxes to cover their own medical expenses and retirements.

I mean... you can make more babies.

you don't need a no-fault divorce to divorce them.

What? No-fault divorce laws magically vanishes due to sexism?

47% of my income goes to support women who hate me,

Citation needed? Pretty sure taxes goes to other things too.

The US is basically the last industrialized nation where the head of the state is elected by electoral college

And?

Even if ALL men chose to vote, women could still outnumber them.

By 1%? You're telling me ALL WOMEN vote the same way. Even though they are heavily divided on one of the biggest Women's issues in America: Abortion.

Criminals should not be banned from voting.

Depends on the crime.

all the state needs to do is declare disagreement with them to be a crime

Except we don't really have a government giving people police records willy nilly like in the UK.

legacy media

Yeah, BECAUSE EVERYONE LIKES THE LEGACY MEDIA. IT'S NOT LIKE PEOPLE ARE BECOMING DISGUSTED WITH THEM. It's not like they're being sued for lying that a white kid was a racist who harassed a Native American vet!

[–]abaxeron✴️Indian Programmer3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They're in your house and you're the primary caretaker?

Go on, ask my social security number. Is it somehow relevant or are you just laying traps for ad hominem attack? It's cheap.

......Are you fucking saying people spend more on women than they do men in their primary school life?

No; roughly the same. But only men return these investments in the form of taxes.

Aren't most disabled kids male? They're quite expensive themselves.

Disability benefits for men and women are roughly equal in the US; I don't have a breakdown by age. But in general, the US has been spending more money on retirement benefits than on the military. The US has the biggest military budget in the world, bigger than (by different estimates) 4-7 next biggest military budgets combined.

I mean... you can make more babies.

No, I can't. I don't have a womb, I legally cannot force a woman to become mother of my children (even if we're 10 times married), and since my salary gets decimated by the state, I cannot afford surrogacy. I could adopt, and maybe will. Still have some time for this decision, not that old.

you don't need a no-fault divorce to divorce them.

What? No-fault divorce laws magically vanishes due to sexism?

If your spouse is at fault, you don't need a legal norm that allows to divorce them without them being at fault. What's so hard here? No-fault divorce was introduced to make it easier for women to benefit from divorcing their husbands who are NOT abusers and NOT cheaters.

Citation needed? Pretty sure taxes goes to other things too.

Yeah, like the military I got conscripted into because of my sex. Welfare is the biggest part of government's spending. Women are the primary beneficiaries of welfare. Single women are the primary net beneficiaries. Some breakdown can be seen here, but the situation is roughly the same in general. Yes, single women who hate me are not the only beneficiaries. But they're the main net beneficiaries.

The US is basically the last industrialized nation where the head of the state is elected by electoral college

And?

Women are still primarily responsible for results of elections AT LEAST everywhere else in the world. Actually in the US as well, but I'm being super-generous.

By 1%? You're telling me ALL WOMEN vote the same way.

I am not in the mood to explain the principles of positive feedback loop. I'll just limit myself to saying that even 1% is enough to kickstart it.

they are heavily divided on one of the biggest Women's issues in America: Abortion

I'm ready to claim that women are less divided than men.

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (83 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (74 children) | Copy Link

women tend to use children as weapons

Citation needed.

ust look at Dee Dee Blanchard and the life she lived off the back of her child,

Anecdotal evidence? Well, let me contract a list of male violent criminals and deadbeat dads that would abuse their children.

Single mother are notorious for being under / unemployed,

Because they young and have to raise a child. Usually they also come from poor broken families.

while single father overwhelmingly work full time jobs while also raising a family

Because CPS is more careful about letting men have kids. Look at the crime statistics. They typically are given custody because the mom is a danger to the child and the dad cares enough about the kid to keep him. Keep in mind, women who don't care for kids typically abort. While men who don't care for kids are shit out of luck if the baby mama wants them. This has very little to with fathers being naturally better than mothers. We just hold men to a higher standard because we're cautious about leaving them alone with children.

[–]Bntt892 points3 points4 points 7 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

I’m going to be honest I don’t like the idea that we automatically assume that because women have wombs they are good mothers. Tbh being a good mother transcends, being a women. Because we still attribute certain personality traits with being a women we assume this. And no offence but that has destroyed some communities. For example African American communities, single motherhood is a pretty big problem. those women work fucking hard for their kids, but tbh it would be much better to not let them be mother then let them. Because a large majority of the time the kids end up in bad situations. I would much rather spend taxes, on birth control and making sure they don’t become parents and repeating the cycle than let them be moms. Rather then end up subsidizing these kids and their moms off of their dumb decisions.

[–]LillthOfBabylon0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bntt890 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Yes because it isn’t true that all dads are good dads. I don’t see how this really discusses the point I’m making.

And it is a race thing the problem impacts ppl of colour more then others. Just like African americans are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongfully convicted of murder. This is a race thing. People of colour have their family structures destroyed by the systems.

However what is common is that fact that single parent households have higher chances of having kids who engage in criminal activities. Never have I stated it is unique to black ppl. I’m using it as an example to show that mothers are not inherently good mothers.

And you asserted that it is eugenics, which literally has nothing to do with the discussion or what I’m saying. You are stating this because you think I’m attacking them. This isn’t eugenics, it’s a temporary band-aid to fix relationships, and make sure problems don’t spread. It’s a lie that conservatives spread to make the problems continue while also locking black men up.

It has been studied that their are problems with single parents and crime. Of course poverty accelerates it, but if we allow kids to grow up in impoverished situations how the fuck can we expect them to grow up as good kids. Stop saying it’s property and realize that it is a multi-faceted approach. Also how is birth control eugenics? It’s to stop unplanned pregnancies dumbass not kill off poorer ppl. They just stop taking them when they want kids.

[–]LillthOfBabylon0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

it is a race thing

Just loving the racism.

impacts ppl of colour more then others.

Asians?

Just like African americans are 7 times more likely than white people to be wrongfully convicted of murder.

You mean cant afford a good lawyer because blacks are disproportionately poor?

what is common is that fact that single parent households have higher chances of having kids who engage in criminal activities.

YEP! Let's ignore: AGE MENTAL HEALTH SOCIO-ECONOMICS Let's just solely blame it on whether or not a deadbeat sperm donor stayed.

This isn’t eugenics

Then let them have kids if they want them.

while also locking black men up.

Jussie Smollet dindu nuffin! OJ Simpson dindu nuffin.

Stop saying it’s poverty

It starts with poverty.

but if we allow kids to grow up in impoverished situations

Adopt some.

[–]Bntt890 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Lol are you trolling you take one sentences and role with it because you have the idea that you are somehow the morally right one. This is why ppl hate left-leaning ppl because they automatically assume that they are the righteous ones.

It is a race thing because it affects black ppl mostly. That doesn’t mean that black ppl have more fucking babies and are more likely to be single mothers dumbass. Systematic racism is something that is done on to them regardless of what they want. Single parenthood affects black ppl more because, systematically there men are locked up more when wrongfully convicted, convicted nor when the do the same crimes, and are often victims of police brutality.

“ You mean cant afford a good lawyer because blacks are disproportionately poor?” Are you saying his to prove a point? Do you think I don’t know this? By do you ask why? Or do you leave it at that? Do you think maybe generational wealth has to do with it? Or like Jim Crow laws literally only being 5 decades ago? Or so you just say oh hey it’s poverty sucks for them.

Again what the fuck are you taking about? Are you a troll? You take one sentence and try to pin me as a racist you can’t even see that I’m pretty sure that we are one the same page that black ppl have a history of systematic oppression. This impacts the socioeconomic status they live in. But is having more kids really solving anything?

“Then let them have kids if they want them.” But this is the fucking problem because one, they aren’t having them one purpose, nor are they having them when they want to as well. And two single parent households make the community worse. Why not stop the possible problem before it occurs.

What does one off examples of black men have to do with anything. Their is a standard in America we’re black men are seen as criminals, wrongfully, the fact that they are 7x more likely to be wrongfully convicted proves that ppl view them in this light for no reason.

And cool it starts with poverty I think we can agree so what is your current solution? Just throw money at them and hope for the best? Or look at all the issues that may affect them and try to go at them. For example not only taking steps to make sure the household has both parents but so single parent households produce more disadvantaged kids who have a high chance of being criminals.

Get off your high horse and actually read what’s being said dumbass.

[–]LillthOfBabylon0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

This is why ppl hate left-leaning ppl Systematic racism is something that is done on to them regardless of what they want.

I smell hypocrisy.

Do you think I don’t know this?

YES. Since you're so quick to race-bait!

and are often victims of police brutality.

Fucking white people. Claiming they also go through police brutality. Don't they know BLACK LIVES MATTER?!

Or like Jim Crow laws literally only being 5 decades ago?

Okay? That doesnt mean 2019 is racist.

But is having more kids really solving anything?

But eugenics will randomly give them an education, good food, and a safe environment?

they aren’t having them one purpose, nor are they having them when they want to as well.

Me neither, but shit worked in the end.

But this is the fucking problem because

You like eugenics. I know.

America we’re black men are seen as criminals

So projecting your racism onto others? TSK TSK TSK TSK.

Just throw money at them and hope for the best?

You adopting any kids from the hood?

Get off your high horse and actually read what’s being said dumbass.

I am. I'm also reading between the lines.

[–]Bntt890 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

Here we go this is good I like this, you are actually one of those people that think ppl don’t see skin right? You also seem to think I’m race baiting, well then tell me this, why are black people disproportionately poorer? Is it genetics? Is that what you’re saying what is it that makes them poorer? You know what’s funny about ppl who say their is no racist I’m 2019, it’s like really do you truly know this? How would you? The Charlottesville protests where literally organized by fucking white nationalist and KKK members lol? Wtf are you talking about their is not racist you don’t even know what you’re talking about at this point.

Even if Jim Crow isn’t around doesn’t mean the affects of it are gone lol. The fact that you brush it off makes me think you don’t understand this issue. Again you don’t know how to argue you take two sentences and try to either frame it in the narrative you want. Literally a few replies ago you thought I was racist now I’m a race baiter? Do you read lines or are you just reading what you want to.

And again how the fuck is birth control eugenics? Explain it to me. How both control to prevent unplanned parent hood is eugenics?

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

you are actually one of those people that think ppl don’t see skin right?

I dont care for your skin or your gender. WHAT'S YOUR PERSONALITY?!

why are black people disproportionately poorer?

Jim Crow. Still doesn't mean Jim Crow is in 2019. Yep! Jim Crow totally prevented Obama from becoming President and getting re-elected.....WAIT A MINUTE!

The Charlottesville protests

That was mainly whites vs whites? And was NOT a common occurrence? I mean, we could talk about Candace Owens being stalked by white Antifa members, BUT she's a conservative, so she was "asking for it".

Even if Jim Crow isn’t around doesn’t mean the affects of it are gone

Two words: SOCIAL. MOBILITY.

The fact that you brush it off

SOCIAL. MOBILITY.

I was racist now I’m a race baiter?

You can be both. Look at the SJWs.

And again how the fuck is birth control eugenics?

You're trying to convince a group of people that they're better off if there were less of them. Eugenics didnt always kill the "undesirables". They made them infertile as well, telling them they're doing a service by not breeding.

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

Citation needed.

Ever hear of the silver bullet?

Anecdotal evidence? Well, let me contract a list of male violent criminals and deadbeat dads that would abuse their children.

Dee Dee Blanchard used her child as an excuse to live a lazy, carefree life subsidized by friends, family, non-profits, and taxes. She lied about the age of her child and she lied about her child having mental and physical disabilities to garner extra sympathy from people ("poor me, I have to be a full time caregiver of a disabled child").

Women, in general, do this sort of thing all the time. Dee Dee Blanchard was a little extreme, but she exhibited the same behaviors that you commonly see out of other mothers. It's not always altruistic; when you structure society in such a way that women receive benefits on behalf of their children, of course you're going to see this kind of behavior.

We just hold men to a higher standard because we're cautious about leaving them alone with children.

It's because society is sexist and discriminates against men. You are doing it yourself in your own post by pretending that men are violent and shouldn't be allowed to be around children. These are the kinds of problems that men face in life because of a society that treats men like criminals.

[–]LillthOfBabylon2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

Ever hear of the silver bullet?

Citation still needed.

Dee Dee Blanchard used her child as an excuse to live a lazy,

Awful. And men marry/fuck little girls.They do it ALL THE TIME. Look at R.Kelly.

It's because society is sexist

You only like double standards when it benefits you.

You are doing it yourself in your own post by pretending that men are violent and shouldn't be allowed to be around children.

Unlike you, I have statistics. While women abuse kids the most, it's because they're around them the most. However, in general men are more of a threat to society than women.

These are the kinds of problems that men face in life because of a society that treats men like criminals.

And there are people who are fighting that, including women. And they do it without being sexist towards women.

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

Citation still needed.

https://ncfm.org/2018/11/news/discrimination-news/discrimination-against-men-news/ncfm-president-harry-crouch-silver-bullet-false-allegations-assassinate-innocenc/

While women abuse kids the most, it's because they're around them the most.

I'm not talking about child abuse. Dee Dee Blanchard is an extreme example of a mother who used her child for financial and social gain, something that is very common, but usually doesn't go that far.

However, in general men are more of a threat to society than women.

What you're talking about are statistically rare events.

Women engage in this kind of behavior all the time though. How many women live their lives off child support and welfare? How many women take their children away from their fathers over grudges? It is a huge issue that effects millions of people across the country every single day.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

So all women lie and exploit children? I mean, R.Kelly exploited children that must men all men are pedophiles.

All I'm saying is don't pretend that this is a case of altruism.

The second that raising a child starts benefiting men, and starts being a disadvantage for women, you will see a lot more men with primary custody, and a lot more deadbeat mothers than you do today.

Look at the top rated comment as an example of what this issue looks like. How many men in his position do to think give up? How many women who may have not really wanted to be a parent, decided to do it once they realized they could receive child support and other benefits as a result?

As it is now, men have to pay in order to have the privilege of raising a child, while woman end up receiving enormous benefits to do the same thing.

Just look at Dee Dee Blanchard; she would have never done what she did if she couldn't benefit financially, emotionally, socially, etc, from raising a child. The fact that she lied about the age of her child so she could continue being a mother after her child turned 18 should be proof enough. She activity sought to continue being a mother after her daughter was already grown! You can't tell me the amount of financial aid, all the attention, the non profits working on her house, etc, wasn't the primary motivator of this behavior. It was never about her child, it was about her, plain and simple.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because men are naturally violent and a danger to society? We already know this! That's why they cant be around children!

Not all men are violent, but those who are the most violent tend to be men, it is therefore QUITE reasonable to keep an eye out. Calling the police because a father is pushing his little girl on a playground swing on the other hand goes way too far.

You have no idea what women are or aren't.

We do. We know this from direct observation, as opposed to these "theories" which things like "evidence" destroys. Feminism for example says domestic abuse happens because of THE PAY-TREE-YARK-EE, but ignores the inconvenient truth that lesbians are the ones most likely to knock the shit out of each other, even though neither of them have any discernible penis.

Just intel theories about women,

Theories based on intel are things that are RESEARCHED, as opposed to feminist theory which is based on bullshit ideas like "men fart louder to oppress women, therefore fart rape".

[–]LillthOfBabylon2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

YES THEY ARE! Just like all women evil gold diggering cunts!

Oh, I see the core problem here, you literally have NO idea what you're talking about. MGTOW doesn't stem from the notion that ALL women are evil gold digging cunts. It stems from the notion that all women CAN be an evil gold digging cunt, and act accordingly. Just like women who carry mace when going out after dark aren't presuming all men are rapists, but don't know who the rapist actually is, so she's assuming a natural, reasonable defensive posture.

In fact, men say women are asking to be raped and that all women lie about rape!

Women do lie about rape when it will benefit them. That's why they want the presumption of innocence (an important legal protection) to go away because it's a nuisance.

Listen! We all know men are violent monsters! We've observed this! Look at mass shooters! Most of them are males!

I've totally conceded that point. Our solution is to separate men from the society and give them no more reason to go around shooting it, not to pretend it doesn't exist.

That would, of course, mean that women wouldn't get to use boys as paychecks and drug them and deny them paternal guidance anymore. Too bad, so sad.

Stop pretending men aren't violent! Stop the NAMALT! THIS HAS BEEN RESEARCHED.

If you're done bleating about shit you don't know about, recent research has shown that women ARE JUST AS VIOLENT AS MEN https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2968709/ at least in terms of intimate partner violence. Given that women commit violence by proxy it's a lot harder to pin down guilt in this regard, but new ways of looking at the problem show that women are just as aggressive as men in this regard.

Oh! There's proof all women and little girls are whores who are asking for it and secretly want Chad to assault them?

Don't know where the fuck you're getting this from. No sane human being thinks anyone wants to be assaulted.

[–]LillthOfBabylon2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

MGTOW:

MGTOW doesn't stem from the notion that ALL women are evil gold digging cunts.

Also MGTOW: All Women Are Like That. AWALT.

Women do lie about rape when it will benefit them.

Exactly. AWALT. Real rapes never happen!

Our solution is to separate men from the society and give them no more reason to go around shooting it, not to pretend it doesn't exist.

Exactly. Women were asking to be shot. They should have felt obligated to sleep with those shooters.

mean that women wouldn't get to use boys as paychecks

If only women weren't such cunts, they wouldn't have to be shot in their face! Fucking AWALTs! Am I right or am I right?!

MGTOW:

deny them paternal guidance anymore

Also MGTOW: ALL WOMEN MAKE AWFUL PARENTS! AWALT!

at least in terms of intimate partner violence.

So women only commit more violence when double standards are in place?...All men do that all else equal?

Given that women commit violence by proxy

And who directly commits the violence?

No sane human being thinks anyone wants to be assaulted.

Exactly. Everyone knows MGTOW and incels aren't sane. Otherwise, they would stop obsessing over women and move on with their lives.

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Also MGTOW: All Women Are Like That. AWALT.

T doesn't stand for "Gold Digging Cunts". Nice try though.

Exactly. AWALT. Real rapes never happen!

No, real rapes DO happen. You do realize that by suggesting men stay away from women except with witnesses, never being alone with them, and never having sex with them not only can they not be falsely accused of rape: but (with the exception of weirdly being in a culture where everyone'd swear a rape they witnessed didn't happen - which we aren't in) it'd be VERY difficult to actually RAPE someone under those circumstances. Believe it or not there's a lot in MGTOW that actually HELPS women, so stop shitting on it.

Exactly. Women were asking to be shot. They should have felt obligated to sleep with those shooters.

Not at all what I said. Not at all what MGTOW says. You're literally confusing us with incels again.

If only women weren't such cunts, they wouldn't have to be shot in their face! Fucking AWALTs! Am I right or am I right?!

No, you're wrong. And trolling.

Also MGTOW: ALL WOMEN MAKE AWFUL PARENTS! AWALT!

Wrong. Saying boys need fathers and mothers.

And who directly commits the violence?

TIL people who order hits on other people aren't murderers. Guess all those people we execute for murder who did that were unjustly killed.

Exactly. Everyone knows MGTOW and incels aren't sane. Otherwise, they would stop obsessing over women and move on with their lives.

MGTOWs shouldn't obsess over women. I think they should stop. As for incels, they're literally the polar opposite of MGTOW.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

T doesn't stand for "Gold Digging Cunts". Nice try though.

Except that's all you guys talk about. Hypergamy, Monkey Branching, Roastie, Chad, Stacy, "Alpha Fucks Beta Bucks". Stop pretending.

You do realize that by suggesting men stay away from women except with witnesses, never being alone with them,

Do you understand that feminists belittle men TO AVOID RAPES! Don't you think groups of losers treating the opposite gender like garbage is a GOOD THING?!

Believe it or not there's a lot in MGTOW that actually HELPS women

Nothing says "helping women" like wanting their rights taken away, calling women "sex objects", saying they're asking for it, and even claiming 12 year old girls are hypergamous sluts who manipulate older men to sleep with them.

YEP! Just like boys being in the loving arms of feminism!

Not at all what MGTOW says. You're literally confusing us with incels again.

Except I've seen a couple of MGTOW claim this.

Wrong. Saying boys need fathers and mothers.

But if the father is abusive and/or deadbeat. That's 100% women's fault, apparently!

MGTOWs shouldn't obsess over women.

Except that's the norm.

I think they should stop.

Then stop basing your damn group on blaming women for everything.

As for incels, they're literally the polar opposite of MGTOW.

Except people have been saying that MGTOW got worse once r/Incels got banned. Just admit it, you're going through the same thing feminism is. Starting off good, and then immediately going to hell in a hand basket.

TIL people who order hits on other people aren't murderers.

Nope! They can be accessory to murder.

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Except that's all you guys talk about. Hypergamy, Monkey Branching, Roastie, Chad, Stacy, "Alpha Fucks Beta Bucks". Stop pretending.

That's nothing to do with gold digging. If you really hate that men take issue with women discarding men like playing cards when a better option with more money comes along, stop doing it. You'll note that the MGTOW position is less about the concept of whether women do these things or not and more about the fact that it is considered a perfectly reasonable strategy and acceptable in the society for women to do so. A man who walks out on his wife and kids is an absolute bastard and jerk who just wanted a younger piece of ass. When she walks out on her husband stealing his kids for a man with more money she's "taking the brave step of finding her happiness." If he cheats on her because she became a frigid starfish the moment she got the ring, he's an ASSHOLE and needs to lose his worldly possessions and kids. If she's out fucking the pool boy, clearly it's because he's inadequate and needs to apologize to her for having a small cock and accept this whole "poly" thing she unilaterally decided they were going to have just after she got caught. The double standards are absolutely and literally unbelievable.

Do you understand that feminists belittle men TO AVOID RAPES! Don't you think groups of losers treating the opposite gender like garbage is a GOOD THING?!

I'm saying if we're all rapists, then fine, we'll go away from you and you can work it out for yourselves. Which you don't like either. You can't have it both ways, which is our core problem with women.

Nothing says "helping women" like wanting their rights taken away,

Name ONE right that "going your own way" takes away from a woman. ONE. I'll wait. Meanwhile I can name TONS of rights that women want taken away from men.

calling women "sex objects", saying they're asking for it, and even claiming 12 year old girls are hypergamous sluts

You are confusing us with incels and redpillers again.

who manipulate older men to sleep with them.

You're trying to tell me women don't manipulate men for financial gain? LOL. That's what our entire society is built around.

Except I've seen a couple of MGTOW claim this.

You've seen a few people in a MGTOW subreddit claim this. Guess what, not everyone who shows up there is MGTOW, any more than anyone who posts in feminism is a feminist. MGTOW itself got a ton of people bleeding into it from the incels subreddit after that got banned. There's a lot of people who go into the MGTOW subreddit asking how they can have a wife and kids without all the risks. That's not going their own way is it?

It also gets brigaded by feminists who post as men about how all 12 year olds need to be raped etc. in order to paint us all as jerks for their usual purposes. Sort of like how you're doing now by misrepresenting our position. You must really hate standing on your own two feet.

But if the father is abusive and/or deadbeat. That's 100% women's fault, apparently!

MGTOW doesn't make that claim. It merely challenges the narrative that men are abusive and women are wonderful. Look at the recent wave of women sexually abusing the boys they teach. Maybe we should stop allowing women to teach boys.

Except that's the norm.

We agree there.

I think they should stop.

I think you should ignore the chatter from the incel brigade (and it's a brigade) and look at what MGTOW actually says.

Then stop basing your damn group on blaming women for everything.

I think you should ignore the chatter from the incel brigade (and it's a brigade) and look at what MGTOW actually says.

Except people have been saying that MGTOW got worse once r/Incels got banned.

Your beef is with the incel chatter in that subreddit, not MGTOW itself. But you're conflating what the incellers bleat about as if it's actually MGTOW philosophy. I'm telling you: especially for a woman that is demanding I ignore Big Red and read Ti-Grace Atkinson, you should practice what you preach. And once you realize what MGTOW is and why it is, you'll realize it's necessary and why it isn't about "why LilithOfBabylon is a bitch and has every right to be mad."

Just admit it, you're going through the same thing feminism is. Starting off good, and then immediately going to hell in a hand basket.

Dude, absolutely. As soon as any new movement comes along, the crazies come along and try to co-opt it. I've seen people post "Bell Curve" and anti-Semitic shit on that subreddit, thinking they can shape the narrative. Look what happened to the Tea Party in the US for Christ's sake. Started out with perfectly reasonable fucking people asking the government to stop spending like a drunken sailor, and got co-opted by the "Jesus, Guns and Whiskey" never seen a defense bill they didn't want paying crowd.

But the difference between MGTOW and feminism is - Feminism went to hell in a handbasket after it won everything it fought for. Women didn't have the vote, the right to own property and so forth. Now they have all those rights. The only problem was, with all those rights came responsibilities and with life choices come consequences, which is why feminism's new demand is whatever outcome a woman wants regardless of the life choices she makes. A cultural and literal Marxism. In 1950 a woman complained of a pay gap because a woman damn well WAS paid less for the same work as a man. Now they've having to do things like count women who've chosen not to work in the same pool as men who are working and make a fake "pay gap" out of that to justify women getting equal pay for unequal work and unequal position.

Men, on the other hand, have made almost ZERO progress since they were technically part of the whole feminist thing in the 1960s. What eventually became the MRA group was the men's wing of feminism who agreed with the feminist position that gender roles were harmful and agreed with equal rights and responsibilities. They worked side by side with feminists in the goal of people having equal rights and equal responsibilities and not to be constrained by gender roles. Women gladly accepted this, but when it came time to actually following through on that "equality" promise said "oh no, we just want the goodies, we're treating this like a buffet, to have our cake and eat it - no,we only want the good stuff, not equality" and that's when things splintered. And as we know, feminists got everything they wanted. They got the good stuff, but no obligations or responsibilities - and still get benevolent sexism and damsel in distress whenever they want it.

Which is why the third wave of men wanting rights is to realize after forty years plus of explicitly trying - society will never treat them decently, and to drop out of society, going their own way.

It's also why men laugh when women state, with a straight face, that feminism is for men too and that eliminiating patriarchy and gender roles is what feminism wants and that's good for men too. You can't fool us twice, you had the chance and didn't take it then.

If you ask me if I disagree with the original premise of feminism, I will say, always have and always will - "no, I don't". I've met VERY few people who were MGTOW who wanted women's rights curtailed or anything remotely like that. Their beef with feminism is against the cancerous man-hating bullshit it turned into. Here's an interesting litmus test - anyone who says they don't agree with feminism, go and ask them if they think women shouldn't have the same rights as men. They will very probably look at you as if you're nuts and say "of course women should have the same rights as men."

Nope! They can be accessory to murder.

Not true. There was a woman in Georgia executed for murder who never pulled the trigger, she just hired someone to do it. Legally, ordering a hit is murder.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's nothing to do with gold digging.

Hypergamy: Misusing the word and saying it's women wanting men for resource. Monkey Branching: Going from one man to a man of higher status. Alpha Fucks Beta Bucks: Fucking the hot chads while lets the soy boys pay for her post-wall roastie flaps.

Sounds like gold digging to me!

When she walks out on her husband stealing his kids for a man with more money she's "taking the brave step of finding her happiness."

What makes you think the guy isnt lying about being the victim? If you go to r/NiceGuys, the guys do it all the time. Claiming to be the victim until floods of women call out his disgusting behavior.

If she's out fucking the pool boy, clearly it's because he's inadequate

No one thinks this except for the crazy whores your group kept chasing because they called the saner women land whales for being slightly overweight. Also, thinking all women are sex objects MIGHT lower her your chances of finding good women because good women think you're creepy neckbeards. That's what happens when you based your standards around your erection.

I'm saying if we're all rapists, then fine, we'll go away from you and you can work it out for yourselves.

I mean, if women are so evil, we can always leave MGTOW alone.... which MGTOW dont want because their groups are FILLED with people obsessing over women.

Name ONE right that "going your own way" takes away from a woman.

They want women to no longer vote. Even TFM, a popular MGTOW, believes this.

You're trying to tell me women don't manipulate men for financial gain?

THAT'S WHY YOU FUCKING 12 YEARS OLD! You're the women that manipulated those grown men to fuck you! Whores. No wonder Roman Polanski drugged and fucked that 12 year old girl. She shouldnt have seduced him!

That's what our entire society is built around.

Exactly, you fucking child brides and sex slaves. WE GAVE YOU PRIVILEGES!

It merely challenges the narrative that men are abusive and women are wonderful.

By believing men are wonderful and women are abusive. And if a man ever rapes/murders, it's his mom's fault. Because women are asking for it.

Guess what, not everyone who shows up there is MGTOW, any more than anyone who posts in feminism is a feminist

As if that stopped you from conflating the two.

It also gets brigaded by feminists who post as men about how all 12 year olds need to be raped

In Reddit, Youtube, Facebook, and Tumblr? Feminists have successfully invaded ALL those sites to the point it made MGTOW sound like creepy ass neckbeards?

And once you realize what MGTOW is and why it is

Incels in denial about why they're unlucky with women. Which is typically their creepy thoughts on women and thinking all women are whores.

Women gladly accepted this, but when it came time to actually following through on that "equality" promise said "oh no, we just want the goodies, we're treating this like a buffet, to have our cake and eat it - no,we only want the good stuff, not equality" and that's when things splintered. And as we know, feminists got everything they wanted. They got the good stuff, but no obligations or responsibilities - and still get benevolent sexism and damsel in distress whenever they want it.

So like MGTOW and then MGTOW becoming SHOCKED we think they're losers too.

It's also why men laugh when women state, with a straight face, that feminism is for men too

Exactly how I laugh when you claim MGTOW want to help women too.

You can't fool us twice, you had the chance and didn't take it then.

So like MGTOW proving they're not incels, and keep proving that they're incels?

If you ask me if I disagree with the original premise of feminism, I will say, always have and always will - "no, I don't". I've met VERY few people who were MGTOW who wanted women's rights curtailed.

Do I think MGTOW was a bad idea? No. And I've met VERY FEW feminists that outright hate men. The rad-fems you see in the media are a small percentage.

go and ask them if they think women shouldn't have the same rights as men.

I have and most of them say "Women are too irresponsible, they shouldn't have those rights".

There was a woman in Georgia executed for murder who never pulled the trigger, she just hired someone to do it. Legally, ordering a hit is murder.

Yeah, because she participated in the murder. She didnt ACTUALLY murder.

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Hypergamy: Misusing the word and saying it's women wanting men for resource. Monkey Branching: Going from one man to a man of higher status. Alpha Fucks Beta Bucks: Fucking the hot chads while lets the soy boys pay for her post-wall roastie flaps.

Which is totally different from just going up to a guy and saying "Venmo me $100 and I'll show you my tits." The definition is, from the dictionary: "a person who dates others purely to extract money from them".

Sounds like gold digging to me!

Well, seeing as how you don't understand shades of grey, and can't tell the difference between a monk and a frustrated incel, yeah - that figures.

What makes you think the guy isnt lying about being the victim?

I doubt, REALLY doubt Amy Schumer's dad is lying about having Multiple Sclerosis for fuck's sake.

If you go to r/NiceGuys, the guys do it all the time. Claiming to be the victim until floods of women call out his disgusting behavior.

Yeah, well, pin your ears back. MGTOW isn't incels. It isn't niceguys. It isn't any of the ridiculous bullshit you're conflating together because you're thinking with your fee-fees and not the tinier cerebral organ you have in place of a brain.

No one thinks this except for the crazy whores

And women in general. Hell, your first go-to was "what makes you think the guy isn't lying?"

Also, thinking all women are sex objects MIGHT lower her your chances of finding good women

I don't think women are sex objects. In fact, I don't want to have sex with any of them, under any circumstances. I'm a straight male but have heard enough about what women really think of sex to realize that, yeah, okay, fair enough - I'll just keep to myself. I want other men to be the same.

because good women think you're creepy neckbeards.

I don't give a fuck what you think. Also, a "good woman" can turn into a "bad woman" the moment someone better comes along. She's not your girlfriend, she's your girlfriend until some other better option opens up.

That's what happens when you based your standards around your erection.

Funny, if only there was a movement that told men to disregard women sexually and go their own way OH WAIT YES THERE IS.

I mean, if women are so evil, we can always leave MGTOW alone....

PLEASE DO.

which MGTOW dont want because their groups are FILLED with people obsessing over women.

Right. And we're patiently discussing that with them and trying to convert them over.

They want women to no longer vote. Even TFM, a popular MGTOW, believes this.

That's got nothing to do with the MGTOW philosophy. Just because some blogger posted that nonsense doesn't mean he speaks for MGTOW. There's a pastor not far from here who goes on about his concealed carry and how men should pack heat to protect their women. Totally ignoring Jesus' clear injunction to NEVER live by the sword. Is this starting to bore through your skull yet to get your attention, or do I have to make it look like a pair of cute shoes?

Meanwhile, I can tell you what feminists are actually advocating for. Not some random asshole on a blog saying stupid shit, but organized feminist groups working to remove men's rights.

THAT'S WHY YOU FUCKING 12 YEARS OLD! You're the women that manipulated those grown men to fuck you! Whores. No wonder Roman Polanski drugged and fucked that 12 year old girl. She shouldnt have seduced him!

What fucking planet are you on?

I asked you a question. Do women or don't women use men for financial gain? You don't like that answer so you go on about Roman Polanski. You know what about Roman Polanski? We didn't applaud him doing that - the moment he ever comes back on US soil, HE'S GOING TO PRISON. FOREVER. The only people defending Roman Polanski are WOMEN.

Exactly, you fucking child brides and sex slaves. WE GAVE YOU PRIVILEGES!

Sex slavery is illegal. Child brides are a corner case in some fucked up laws we're trying to change, and you'll find that most of us find that disgusting. If you're referring to the assholes that come to us suggesting better ways back on to the plantation (Marry an Asian woman, they know respect! Marry a child, you can slap her around!) please keep in mind they're not technically on our side, they're on YOURS, they're in the plantation business.

By believing men are wonderful and women are abusive. And if a man ever rapes/murders, it's his mom's fault. Because women are asking for it.

Can you show me some proof our legal system even remotely allows or accepts "women are asking for it?" Again, stay out of incel boards.

As if that stopped you from conflating the two.

I conflate people who act in the same way and have the same beliefs, whereas you seem to think it's possible to be at the same time against sex, against marriage, against dating and cohabitation, and also somehow for child marriage, rape and so forth.

In Reddit, Youtube, Facebook, and Tumblr? Feminists have successfully invaded ALL those sites to the point it made MGTOW sound like creepy ass neckbeards?

Yes, it's all part of a campaign. They then go repost their own swill back onto /r/inceltears or WeHuntedTheMammoth for tingles and attaboys.

Incels in denial about why they're unlucky with women. Which is typically their creepy thoughts on women and thinking all women are whores.

Wrong.

So like MGTOW and then MGTOW becoming SHOCKED we think they're losers too.

I could give a fuck what you think about our philosophy, just get it right.

Exactly how I laugh when you claim MGTOW want to help women too.

Except that by doing what we propose - for men to go their own way - they can't be in abusive marraiges with women, or marry child brides, or rape. That's in your favor. Duh!

So like MGTOW proving they're not incels, and keep proving that they're incels?

We're not incels, dumbass. Just saying "yes you are" doesn't prove a thing. It just makes you an uninformed, ill-educated troll.

Do I think MGTOW was a bad idea? No.

So you agree with MGTOW as it was originally designed. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, YOUR HONOR.

And I've met VERY FEW feminists that outright hate men.

Oh bullshit. Feminism started as a literal terrorist female supremacist male hate group.

The rad-fems you see in the media are a small percentage.

It's ALL rooted in the premise that men hate women and women have the obligation to "hurt men back. Even if that original hurt happened 400 years ago and everyone in question is dead. Or the hurt is caused by a completely different group of men.

I have and most of them say "Women are too irresponsible, they shouldn't have those rights".

Join me in to the next discussion you have. These men need to be educated.

Yeah, because she participated in the murder. She didnt ACTUALLY murder.

Which is still murder. Kelly Gissendaner was charged, tried and convicted and EXECUTED for the charge of Malice murder.

Look it up. It's funny that she didn't take the plea deal. She laughed saying basically "muh pussy pass. See this vergina? They won't kill no woman." Stopped laughing when they strapped her fat ass to the gurney even as she was hoping that her breasts and giney would stop them from killing her because woman privilege. LOL.

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay. Let me start: You're angry because no one wants ugly ass, you land whale.

That's been what you've said to me from the start, so no change there.

Stop shitting on the opposite gender just because they dont like your nasty ass attitude.

That's not how we treat feminists and you know that, sweetheart. We let you get people fired blocked and banned for saying things that hurt your fee-fees. Try again.

You're not owed anything, you entitled princess.

That's what every boy is told from day one. Again, no change.

No one forced you to be alone, YOU CHOOSE THAT PATH!

Yup, no change there either.

Now, where's all my feminist privileges? Where's my cushy job as Ph.D. in masculinist studies where I get to complain that not enough men get money for nothing? Where's my lynch mobs of people I can use to get everything I don't like silenced?

Except you say the same thing.

No we don't. Maybe you should stop yammering about shit you know literally nothing about.

Exactly. Men are so evil, they'd love fucking children and murder innocent people in droves. Disgusting little creatures. Dont you agree?

Yes, men do these things. And those that do need to be hanged in the public square.

We already do this, but MGTOW didn't listen, then got bitter because they got burned.

No we don't.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That's not how we treat feminists and you know that,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMBb4StJ4BY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT-Ob_eYEd8

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=+fat+acceptance

Yeah, because everyone loves feminism and NO ONE has made a living or a career out of mocking them. Though, I'm sure you think Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Gavin Mccinnes, and many other anti-SJWs are just "soy boy cucks" because they don't go around hating women.

That's what every boy is told from day one. Again, no change. Now, where's all my feminist privileges?

WELL! You already got the victim mentality down to a T, you NPC snowflake. SJWs: Orange man bad. You: All women bad.

No we don't.

Really? You are aware your imaginary 80-20 rule is why Elliot Rodgers massacred people, right? Or did you want to forget that little fact? And then there's the other murderous Incel in Canada talking about "Chads and Stacies" needing to be punished.

No we don't.

Then why is every woman you idiots know is a whore? I know very little "Stacies" in my life and yet you guys are surrounded by them? That's very fishy.

Yes, men do these things. And those that do need to be hanged in the public square.

And women condemn feminists too. But since you hate women so much, you'll just ignore that to keep up the victim mentality. Kind of like another special snowflake group people ALSO find obnoxious and abhorrent.

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, because everyone loves feminism and NO ONE has made a living or a career out of mocking them.

Everyone gets mocked by someone. If you're suggesting we give any kind of real credence to a guy who shoves dildos up his ass on live broadcast and has his friends skipping around singing Disney show tunes and beating each other up while yelling out names of breakfast cereal you have another think coming. Gavin McInnes didn't show up to the United Nations to massive applause to start a new initiative saying women should lay down their lives for men. Nor has Gavin McInnes ever damaged anyone's career or has Ben Shapiro ever influenced public policy. They had armed police keeping Shapiro off campuses, not giving him full tenure and asking how he can change math curricula because facts are racist and sexist.

Again, I in no way want Gavin McInnes or Ben Shapiro or Eliot Rodgers to be treated like feminism. I want MGTOW, the core idea that our societal bullshit exploits men - to be treated like feminism, e.g. respected and adopted.

Though, I'm sure you think Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Gavin Mccinnes, and many other anti-SJWs are just "soy boy cucks" because they don't go around hating women.

No, I don't agree with them because their solution is trying to get women to do XYZ, as you complain. Gavin McInnes is a Canadian street thug ex-skinhead Nazi punk. There's a different between non-violently walking away from a contract you don't agree with, and openly engaging in violence and manipulation. Wish you could see that.

WELL! You already got the victim mentality down to a T, you NPC snowflake.

Sorry, I asked for privileges. Not insults. We've got insults already, you're just exchanging one for the other. You said you wanted to treat me like a feminist, where's my six figure job as "Executive Vice President of Men's Issues" for a well funded nonprofit? Where's my spigot of free money for writing a bunch of woman-hating nonsense? Where's my standing ovation speech at the UN?

You: All women bad.

Again, never said that, don't think it. I've asked you repeatedly to actually understand what MGTOW says. Instead, you come up with this hyperbolic nonsense out of your own head. MGTOW doesn't say "all women bad". Jesus.

Really? You are aware your imaginary 80-20 rule is why Elliot Rodgers massacred people, right?

No, Eliot Rodgers massacred people because he was a sociopathic, violent lunatic who went around believing women owed him sex and that women should be his property and if not, they should be made to fuck him by the government and in absence of that he should be allowed to kill them. The literal polar opposite of demanding women interact with you is to walk away from them. Do you not understand that? Are you in absolute cognitive surrender?

Or did you want to forget that little fact? And then there's the other murderous Incel in Canada talking about "Chads and Stacies" needing to be punished.

Yes, he was an INCEL. Again, NOT MGTOW. You're saying "well, what about those Jews in the mosque planning 9/11" "Jews aren't Muslims" "Yeah, well, they don't eat pork, same thing."

Then why is every woman you idiots know is a whore? I know very little "Stacies" in my life and yet you guys are surrounded by them? That's very fishy.

I've never called any woman a whore. Not one. Don't know any. Met a lot of women who thought men were put on this earth to finance them and skipped out on men when they found a better option though.

And women condemn feminists too. But since you hate women so much,

Would you please stop putting words in my mouth? It's actually pretty obnoxious of you to tell me what I do and don't. And before you say "but you claim women bla bla bla" No I don't. I quote studies that SHOW that women do bla bla bla. Huge difference.

I don't hate women. I just look at facts, like women only really want the top 20%, which I agree I'm not in. I'm not in the bottom 20%, I'm perfectly average, which means "not good enough". I do nor want to risk even the potential appearance of having raped you because RAPE IS WRONG and I don't want any part of it, even the perception of it. And lastly, I don't agree with how our society treats men in relationships, namely as disposable wallets. So I'm not engaging in relationships. It's a bad deal for me, and not one that women want me to be in, so fair enough, I'm finding my own meaning in life. Still wondering how you can possibly take issue with that, but you know. That's feminism for you.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Everyone gets mocked by someone.

OH! I get it! You hate women, but you should actually be hating the elites. You, like feminists, are being useful idiots. How about you stop dividing the country and come together to fight against corruption in our system?

Because I'm seeing this pattern where MGTOW have no problem letting rich men exploit everyone else "just as long as women get punished too".

to be treated like feminism, e.g. respected and adopted.

Except more people hate feminism. If you stopped listening to the elites (like a useful idiot) you'd know that. There's even statistics showing that woman shy away from the feminist label.

I don't agree with them because their solution is trying to get women to do XYZ, as you complain.

No. They tell PEOPLE, not just women, to have a different perspective of things.....WITHOUT HATING WOMEN. It is possible for women to care about men's issues when said men DON'T HATE THEM.

Gavin McInnes is a Canadian street thug ex-skinhead Nazi punk.

Doubt it.
Since when has the Manisphere not blamed (((them))) for feminism? I have a meme of them doing just that!

openly engaging in violence and manipulation

YEAH GAVIN! DONT FIGHT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CAUSE YOU HARM!

Sorry, I asked for privileges.

And you, feminazis, and BLM can kiss my ass.

MGTOW doesn't say "all women bad".

EW! YOU BELIEVE IN THE NAWALT?! How soy boy of you!

No, Eliot Rodgers massacred people because he was a sociopathic,

So like MGTOW?

who went around believing women owed him sex and that women should be his property

So like MGTOW?

You're saying "well, what about those Jews in the mosque planning 9/11" "Jews aren't Muslims" "Yeah, well, they don't eat pork, same thing."

Not eat parking isnt the same thing as adopting very similar toxic ideologies.

I quote studies that SHOW that women do bla bla bla. Huge difference.

I also quote misrepresented statistics and pseudo-science to justify my sexism. We're like TWINS!

I just look at facts, like women only really want the top 20%

Women wanting the best men: EVIL Men wanting the best women: COMMON SENSE!

I don't agree with how our society

YEP! Elites = Society.

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

OH! I get it! You hate women, but you should actually be hating the elites. You, like feminists, are being useful idiots. How about you stop dividing the country and come together to fight against corruption in our system?

Not quite. It's "don't hate women, just refuse to play in a rigged casino. It's not that there's corruption in the system, the system itself is corrupt."

Because I'm seeing this pattern where MGTOW have no problem letting rich men exploit everyone else "just as long as women get punished too".

Once again, try to separate what MGTOW actually believes from incel assholes who troll the place, k? MGTOW isn't about exploiting women but GOING THEIR OWN WAY.

Except more people hate feminism.

Yeah, how about no. If "hating feminism" is putting it in charge of the schools, the courts, governments, most public discourse and the UN then sure, feel free to hate me in exactly the same way. I'll send you the address where to send the checks.

If you stopped listening to the elites (like a useful idiot) you'd know that. There's even statistics showing that woman shy away from the feminist label.

Well yeah: nobody wants to play their hand so obviously.

No. They tell PEOPLE, not just women, to have a different perspective of things.....WITHOUT HATING WOMEN. It is possible for women to care about men's issues

In theory. Never seen it in practice, except for a couple of chameleons.

when said men DON'T HATE THEM.

So you think men should only have rights when they treat you a certain way? Got it. Here's where we differ, I think even the most man-hating lesbian boot-stompy shaven headed misandrist feminist should have full and total civil rights.

Doubt it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3irJpnnkiuA <--- video proof.

Since when has the Manisphere not blamed (((them))) for feminism? I have a meme of them doing just that!

Restate this in clearer English.

YEAH GAVIN! DONT FIGHT PEOPLE WHO WANT TO CAUSE YOU HARM!

Yeah Gavin, don't go out with your little wannabe skinhead gang in polos attacking people in public.

And you, feminazis, and BLM can kiss my ass.

But you said you wanted to treat me like feminism. So yes please. Send checks and put me in charge.

EW! YOU BELIEVE IN THE NAWALT?! How soy boy of you!

That's not what AWALT means, you moron. Either learn something or stop talking.

So like MGTOW?

Wrong.

So like MGTOW?

Wrong.

Not eat parking isnt the same thing as adopting very similar toxic ideologies.

"Not eat parking". Ah, I see why you're refusing to understand the difference between incels and MGTOW. I thought you were trolling. You're just illiterate.

I also quote misrepresented statistics and pseudo-science to justify my sexism. We're like TWINS!

Statistics are what they are. Too bad, so sad.

Women wanting the best men: EVIL Men wanting the best women: COMMON SENSE!

No, more like since we're so far apart in what we want, forget the whole mess and go our own way. We go ours, you go yours.

YEP! Elites = Society.

No, SOCIETY. EVERYONE IN IT.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

don't hate women, just refuse to play in a rigged casino.

Because women are gold digging whores. Yes, I understand the finger-pointing. You dont have to keep repeating it.

try to separate what MGTOW actually believes from incel assholes who troll the place, k?

You could always separate elite rad-fems from regular women, you refuse to do that.

If "hating feminism" is putting it in charge of the schools,

So you can conflate feminism and women with the elites, but I cant conflate you and incels?

Well yeah: nobody wants to play their hand so obviously.

Exactly. MGTOW dont want to admit they're actually incels. That would admit they say crazy things because they're lonely and want attention.

Never seen it in practice,

Yeah, because you think men dindu nuffin and all women are guilty whores who want to ruin men. When people see men and women as equals, they see exactly what I see.

I see why you're refusing to understand the difference between incels and MGTOW.

Like you're refusing to differentiate women and feminist with elite SJWs?

Statistics are what they are. Too bad, so sad.

Exactly. Most violent criminals are men. Therefore, all men are violent. Thank you for agreeing with my misuse of my statistics.

more like since we're so far apart in what we want,

Exactly. Men want hot girls. And women want men who see them as human beings. I understand you think the latter is too much to ask for.

No, SOCIETY. EVERYONE IN IT.

And MGTOW welcomes incels into their group with open arms.

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because women are gold digging whores. Yes, I understand the finger-pointing. You dont have to keep repeating it.

NO, lady. LISTEN. Because when a woman WANTS TO BECOME A GOLD DIGGING WHORE, a judge will ignore any and all laws to help her make that happen. And because enough of them are gold digging whores, and you have no way of finding out until it's too late that they're gold digging whores.

You could always separate elite rad-fems from regular women, you refuse to do that.

Except that most women agree with rad-fems.

So you can conflate feminism and women with the elites, but I cant conflate you and incels?

No, because, for the last time, MGTOWs and INCELs are POLAR OPPOSITES. I can conflate women and feminism when women go along with feminism and espouse the same things. You get to conflate MGTOW with INCEL once you can explain to me how you can simultaneously suck and blow at the same time. And "they're the same because my fee-fees say I think they're stinky neckbeard losers" doesn't count.

Exactly. MGTOW dont want to admit they're actually incels. That would admit they say crazy things because they're lonely and want attention.

Except MGTOW and incels want exactly the opposite things. What part of that are you non-intelligent enough to understand? Maybe these guys saying you shouldn't have the vote etc. aren't talking about all women but just you and your inability to grasp the very basics.

Yeah, because you think men dindu nuffin and all women are guilty whores who want to ruin men.

No, because I've never seen any woman lift a finger to help men. Seen a lot of them organize to hurt them, though. Even revel in them killing themselves.

Like you're refusing to differentiate women and feminist with elite SJWs?

If it believes and says "quack", it's a duck.

Exactly. Most violent criminals are men. Therefore, all men are violent. Thank you for agreeing with my misuse of my statistics.

You actually posted a deliberate logical fallacy and thanked me for agreeing with it. My sides.

Exactly. Men want hot girls. And women want men who see them as human beings.

Men want sex with women, yes. And women want money and resources and chores from men. The idea of them being together in any relationship fashion is toxic and to be avoided.

And if I'm not fucking you, interested in fucking you, or planning on fucking you, lady - guess what the only thing I can see you as is. A human being. In your case a narcissistic, ad-hominem spewing, disinformation-belching head case.

And MGTOW welcomes incels into their group with open arms.

Incels aren't banned from contributing to MGTOW spaces because we believe in something called free speech. We're not so delicate we ban and block everyone who hurts our precious fee-fees. We just explain to them why they're wrong, and they usually fuck off somewhere else.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

a judge will ignore any and all laws to help her make that happen.

And a judge being an asshole is my fault because....... I have a vagina?

you have no way of finding out until it's too late

YEAH! It's hard to figure out that a hot girl constantly asking me for money is a gold digger! WOW! You mean prioritizing looks over personality AND seeing women as glorified hookers might get a guy hurt in the dating world? PERISH AT THE THOUGHT!

Except that most women agree with rad-fems.

Like most MGTOW agree with incels as seen by their most popular you tubers, reddit posts, twitter posts, and facebook posts? I can keep playing this game all day. I play it with rad-fems too.

I can conflate women and feminism when women go along with feminism

And I conflate MGTOW with incels when MGTOW go along with incels. Would you like to see the copious amount of evidence, my good sir? I have dozens.

MGTOW and incels want exactly the opposite things.

So do feminists and most women, but you'll only want to use generalizations when it benefits you but then use a million excuses when it backfires on you.

because I've never seen any woman lift a finger to help men

Because you surround yourselves with whores. Probably because they give you erections. It's not my fault you cant find good women. Just like it's not men's fault when bad boy chasers are constantly used and abused. I'm sorry that my consistence bothers you.

If it believes and says "quack", it's a duck. Exactly. If it hates women like an incel, obsess over women like an incel, want women to be sex slaves like an incel. It's an incel.

narcissistic, ad-hominem spewing, disinformation-belching head case.

Points a mirror to you

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] -1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Are you really impoverished if you're given a house to live in, food that you don't have to pay for, and everything else?

On paper maybe you'll pulling $1,000 a month working part time, plus $500 in child support / welfare, but if you don't have to pay a mortgage, or a cellphone bill, or for the food that you and your children eat, you might actually be on better footing than the father who earns $2000 per month, but pays $500 in child support, $750 on rent, has to buy all his own food, pay his own cellphone bill, etc, etc. He might look better off than the mother in government statistics, just comparing their two salaries, but I would argue that, in practice, the mother is on much better financial footing.

Fwiw I support welfare and things like that, I'm just looking at incentives. If I can play housewife and stay at home all day, using my children as an excuse to do so, I might take that deal, even if it meant living in abject poverty (at least I don't have to work as many hours, and can spend time with my kids instead). A man who has to pay legal fees and hire lawyers though, only to still have to pay child support, might have less of an incentive to do so, even if he wanted to be a father.

[–]sublimemongrel2 points 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'm not talking about child abuse. Dee Dee Blanchard is an extreme example of a mother who used her child for financial and social gain, something that is very common, but usually doesn't go that far.

The reverse of this is maybe the men who are able to escape their responsibilities of child care, parenting, etc, with relatively little consequence. Those guys can basically move on with their lives unencumbered whereas women are more likely to be expected to prioritize their children. Even if for example you have joint custody you can’t force a father to enforce his custody rights if he doesn’t want to. And that’s setting aside the stats on unpaid child support. You’re more likely to see this type of avoiding responsibility among men.

Edit: also wrt child support and welfare - if you’re getting welfare the a part (or maybe all even?) of the child support goes back to the state to repay the state. You don’t get to have the full extent of both.

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I agree fathers should take care of their children. But there are a lot of factors here. It's easy to say something like that, as a mother, when you receive all these benefits that fathers don't get. And I'm not even talking about welfare or the legal system, but just how society perceives you and everything else.

Like if I was a woman, I would want to be a mother, not just for the kids, but because of the status and everything else that comes with it. A lot of women grow up dreaming about that stay at home life, it's what they want, and it's not all about the kids. As a man though, I know that my role is that of a wage slave, to make extra money for other people to spend, while not having the time to be around my kids. This is an area where women are overwhelmingly privileged so it's easy for them to talk smack about men.

A good analogy here would be all these people who like to criticize poor people, especially people of color, and tell them to just go get a job, as if it were that easy. Like maybe for you it was, because maybe you were raised in a middle class family, or something like that, but it is not always that easy for everyone else. The issues effecting the poor, and poc, are not laziness; yes, some of them give up, but I would argue that many of the people who criticize them for this, would do the same thing if they were put in the same circumstances.

So when you criticize "deadbeat fathers", you have to consider how privileged you are, in this arena, as a woman / mother, in comparison to the people who you are criticizing.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sublimemongrel1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

As a former practitioner of family law, I can assure you the manospherian claims about men being discriminated against in family court are vastly overblown. Setting that aside, I’m in favor of shared parenting plans which aim to achieve a 50/50 residential time split by default or close to it. That being said:

Anything short of default 50/50 custody with zero child support is simply unfair.

This would be an ideal situation if both parents are good parents actively engaged in parenting and if they make about the same.

But why don’t you tell me more about the child support standards you think are so unfair, because CS on average isn’t even very much. That’s setting aside the fact that I don’t even think if 50/50 residential time was the default in most states that many men would opt for it. More would, sure, but probably nowhere close to 100%

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So act like feminists, but be shocked when treated like feminists. Well, you have the entitlement and hypocrisy down.

Oh my God, I would love to be treated like a feminist. Yes, please, give me full control of academia, give me tenure to bleat on about my own personal delusions as if they were facts - put me in charge of assigning people of my gender into jobs not based on their merit but because industries "have a woman problem" and excuse anything I say or do? Yes please. Can we get started on this as soon as possible?

You mean like every woman is a gold digger that exploit children for money? That's MGTOW/incels for you!

MGTOW/incels are two completely different things. Again, if you don't know what you're talking about, stop talking.

Now if you excuse me, I'll go back to using anecdotal evidence to paint 50% of the population as evil.

Nah, not that they're evil, just pointing out HOW they're evil. We've done a good job of "keep an eye on that guy in the raincoat who is hovering near the playground", now let's work on "keep an eye on that girl who drove her last boyfriend to suicide after taking his ancestral home."

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I would love to be treated like a feminist.

Okay. Let me start: You're angry because no one wants ugly ass, you land whale. Stop shitting on the opposite gender just because they dont like your nasty ass attitude. You're not owed anything, you entitled princess. No one forced you to be alone, YOU CHOOSE THAT PATH!

MGTOW/incels are two completely different things.

Except you say the same thing.

not that they're evil, just pointing out HOW they're evil.

Exactly. Men are so evil, they'd love fucking children and murder innocent people in droves. Disgusting little creatures. Dont you agree?

now let's work on "keep an eye on that girl who drove her last boyfriend to suicide after taking his ancestral home."

We already do this, but MGTOW didn't listen, then got bitter because they got burned.

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]MGTOWKapow4 points5 points6 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Eastuss༼ つ ▀̿_▀̿ ༽つ1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IHeartDay90 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Whiteliesmatter10 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]catemlBlue Pill Woman0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

while single father overwhelmingly work full time jobs while also raising a family

I've known 3 straight up 'single dads' (ie. with all or the vast vast majority of residence) in my time. None of them worked full time, or really at all, though I'm not sure about one of them as I do not know the typical hours for drug dealers.

Honest truth. As far as I can see, single dads are notorious for being feckless criminals who are violent enough to drive the broken mothers away in terror and then ignore their kids while they use them for support payments - because that is my experience.

Obviously this is entirely a personal anecdote of my life, a bullshit cross section of single fathers, and probably circumstances under which I met them will influence it, etc. But its only equally as bullshit as what apparently single mothers are 'notorious' for (if you spend a lot of your time reading sexist claptrap) and citing a single famous case of Munchausen-By-Proxy (a rare psychiatric disorder) as apparently typical of 'how single mothers callously use the children they don't really love'.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (54 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I keep saying "20 -24" because that what your damn graph showed. I'm sorry you didnt carefully look at the graph YOU PRESENTED. This is why I cant you guys in this sub-reddit seriously half the time.

It starts at 19 or 20

No it doesnt. The graph said 20 to 24. There is no difference between 15 to 19. For a group of guys who claim they're scientific, rational, and logical, you sure don't act like it. Scientific, rational, and logical are very precise.

At which point they become a massive net gain which makes up for the rest of their lives, women do not.

Because Women the main ones raising children at their own expense. Remember fathers earn more than childless males.

How do you know that?

Because I actually examined the graph, unlike you. Also, I found other graphs related to that one. Women 40 to 60 are actually a net gain. Not as much as men because they sacrificed promotions and raises for child rearing.

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

See how you caught yourself in this pointless cycle

Well, you should been more mindful about what you were saying.

where you have to find new ways of not saying "20"?

Well, you're the one who kept saying 19. It's embarrassing more about facts than you and YOU were the one who present the graph.

Prior to the average woman having a child,

So you're confusing the word average for "all". Okay then.

You have provided 0 evidence for this assumption.

Yes I did. I gave you that site that talked about fathers making above childless men, and mothers making less than childless women.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/02/dont-be-a-bachelor-why-married-men-work-harder-and-smarter-and-make-more-money/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6597a82d1bda https://www.businessinsider.com/having-a-child-increases-your-pay-but-only-if-youre-a-man

Talking about the wage gap: https://iwpr.org/publications/gender-wage-gap-occupation-2018/ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/upshot/even-in-family-friendly-scandinavia-mothers-are-paid-less.html

And 26 (the average child-bearing year) + 18 = 43. Two years before women are in the range of paying the government more than taking government programs.

The difference between you and me is that I know better than to take statistics at face value because anyone can misconstrue numbers for their advantage. Instead of looking at one statistic, I'm looking at a bunch of statistic to try to paint a broader picture.

What you're doing is no better than BLM crying about blacks being in jail more than whites but then ignoring how much crime blacks use. Neither you nor SJWs can fool me with your omissions.

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Who's gonna pick up Timmy from school when he's sick and has to spend the entire day in bed? Who's gonna stay with Timmy when he's too young to be left alone?

One of the links you posted showed that childless women still work way fewer hours than childless men.

Oh wow, biology. You gonna start complaining how biology is gynocentric?

No, I'm saying hard labor usually doesn't require a lot of education and pays much better than the female alternative of being a waitress or etc. So low educated men will make more money since they still have better career paths.

And I don't think women are incapable of hard labor, they just choose not to do it.

Bullshit. You kept denying it and kept lying that 19 year old females were more costly than their male counterpart when you can clearly see that the split doesnt happen until the 20 - 24 range.

The split starts either at 19 or 20, when the average woman is not pregnant. Again, the STATS YOU POSTED, still shows a great difference between childless women and childless men. The trend still exists for non-parents.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

1). Which one? 2). Was it for the same occupation?

This one https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/05/upshot/even-in-family-friendly-scandinavia-mothers-are-paid-less.html and I didn't check. I assume it talks about in general.

That doesnt mean women aren't getting pregnant before then.

It means the average woman is not, yes.

The other difference is the typical gender wage gap factors: - Different jobs - Different hours - Different levels of assertiveness/confidence

The other link you posted https://iwpr.org/publications/gender-wage-gap-occupation-2018/ says this:

Women’s median earnings are lower than men’s in nearly all occupations, whether they work in occupations predominantly done by women, occupations predominantly done by men, or occupations with a more even mix of men and women.

And:

Women Earn Less than Men in 18 of the 20 Most Common Occupations for Women

So men make more money than women in the majority of jobs out there, regardless of gender distribution.

And then the giant government expenses most likely are from child-care.

I don't know what this sentence means.

So women make 77% less than men

Because they work less hours and safer jobs on average.

They're too busy raising the future generation

Not very well, apparently. The birthrate is 1.75 and still falling, so apparently women do neither of these things.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That first link you showed me, I saw nothing about comparing child-less men and women.

Here:

A series of recent studies shows that in both the United States and Europe, the gender pay gap is much smaller until the first child arrives. Then women’s earnings plummet and their career trajectories slow. Women who do not have children, by and large, continue to grow their earnings at a similar rate to men. There are still differences because of discrimination and other factors, but researchers say that motherhood explains a large amount of the gap.

One new study, which used a data set including everyone in Denmark from 1980 to 2013, along with details about their jobs and families, found that while there was a pay gap before people had children, it was relatively small and earnings were increasing at similar rates.

I don't know what they mean by "relatively small". According to the source that the first paper references, roughly 20% of the pay gap is not due to children, but to other factors. This math seems iffy at best.

According to their own claims, the gender pay gap between all women and all men is roughly 8-9%(according to the second paper), but the difference between childless women and childless men is 5%, so children cannot account by most of the pay gap as it barely doubles the gap prior to children.

However, if you trust the commonly stated claim that the pay gap is 20%, then children would make about 3/4 of that difference, and 1/4 being present no matter what.

7 out of 8 women are still mothers.

The rate of childless women is actually 20% now. That's 1 in 5 never giving birth.

Also, what does having less kids have to do with parenting?

I'm saying that women should pick one or the other. Either be a financial benefit or produce enough children for the country to be stable. It seems women picked a middle of the road option, where they neither produce enough children and they're a net negative economically as well.

Women make less money and that means they are paying less taxes.

Paying less taxes doesn't mean you consume more than you give. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you're just going to ignore that the 35 to 39 range is stagnant and the 40 to 44 range is decreasing? Again, how are you going to be dishonest about your own statistic.

Again, if childless women were as productive

According to Figure 16, they are. Though it's at a slower rate, women were being productive until they hit the 25 - 29 range which would be when women have babies.

https://motoristoppression.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/newz21.jpg

Childless women still make less than men(lifetime worth),

Working a lower paying job = A lower pay = less taxes. What's the issue? You're going to go to a homeless shelter and scream at the homeless because you pay more taxes than they are?

And why are you assuming this?

Because this is a common pattern.

I don't care that I pay more taxes than women

You placed way too much effort in this argument for me to believe that.

I just hate the typical feminist shit

So in your head: 100% of women are SJWs, women always use government subsidies, and men are never using subsidies?

Let's reference figure 16 again, where the average woman stops over-using subsidies by their 40's, when most women are empty nesters.

https://motoristoppression.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/newz21.jpg

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

So you're just going to ignore that the 35 to 39 range is stagnant and the 40 to 44 range is decreasing? Again, how are you going to be dishonest about your own statistic.

If you only include the 2012-2016 range then, I guess. Why would you do that though?

According to Figure 16, they are. Though it's at a slower rate, women were being productive until they hit the 25 - 29 range which would be when women have babies.

No, they weren't. A net benefit means above the black line, which women only get from 45 to 64.

Working a lower paying job = A lower pay = less taxes.

How many times do I have to explain this simple thing to you?

If you have two people, person A makes roughly $100 per day, while person B makes roughly $70 a day. Person A however takes $60 from the government, while person B takes $80. The problem is not that person A makes 30% more than person B, the problem is that person A takes less than he gives, while person B takes more than he gives.

If person A made $60 but also took $60 then he'd be a net neutral, and still be better than person B, even though person B makes $10 more, because person B consumes $10 more than he makes.

So in your head: 100% of women are SJWs, women always use government subsidies, and men are never using subsidies?

No, I mean that men as a demographic subsidize women as a demographic. There are obviously individual differences and outliers.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why would you do that though?

Because it's more recent.

No, they weren't. A net benefit means above the black line,

That's not what I said. Look at the 20 - 24 range. Both genders are heading towards the black line. Then, at the 25 to 29 range, women are taking more subsidies. Again, that's the age range when most women are having babies.

person A makes roughly $100 per day, while person B makes roughly $70 a day. Person A however takes $60 from the government, while person B takes $80. The problem is not that person A makes 30% more than person B, the problem is that person A takes less than he gives, while person B takes more than he gives.

Okay. Does person b have kids? Did you look at figures 16. Notice how kids consume more subsidies than women over 20 in general. Children are the biggest users of subsidies and because women are the main caretakers of kids, they indirectly benefit from the subsidies meant for children.

Therefore, it makes sense that Person B is taking more out of the government because they have an 18 year liability to deal with.

men as a demographic subsidize women as a demographic.

Because children need subsidies and women are the main care-takers of children.

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Because it's more recent.

Right, but you're only selecting that range to suggest it hasn't been going up and that it's "stable". That's like picking a portion of a mountain that's flat to suggest the mountain isn't real.

Both genders are heading towards the black line.

The graph you gave is not the "cumulative" affect, it's just the net affect by age. So while women consume relatively less at that age, they're still not being productive.

Okay. Does person b have kids?

Lmao! You're fucking impossible. How can you still not get basic math?

Children are the biggest users of subsidies and because women are the main caretakers of kids, they indirectly benefit from the subsidies meant for children.

No, that's not how that graph works. It's nothing to do with money meant for children going to the mothers since the children and the adult women are two separate categories. The graph is broken down by age.

Therefore, it makes sense that Person B is taking more out of the government because they have an 18 year liability to deal with.

Right, but as we've been over it for the trillionth time, childless women are still not as productive as childless men.

Because children need subsidies and women are the main care-takers of children.

Adult women get plenty of subsidization. In fact, any social benefit that women have is mostly paid for by other men.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Right, but you're only selecting that range to suggest it hasn't been going up and that it's "stable".

Are you seriously upset that I picked the most recent percentage in the statistic? Dude, really?

The graph you gave is not the "cumulative" affect,

And? So you only wanted to look at one graph because it fits your narrative so well?

it's just the net affect by age

And women stop cumulating more tax use when they're in their 40's. Men pay taxes more than they're using them by their 40's as well. The ages when people become empty nesters.

the children and the adult women are two separate categories.

And? Many government programs help both the parent (typically the mother) and the child. Not just solely the child. Let's not forget that FAMILIES get a tax credit for every child in the house. From what I've researched, that is considered government welfare as well.

childless women are still not as productive as childless men.

How can you say the problem isnt paying more taxes, when its obviously all you're complaining about? Everyone knows the average woman makes less than the average man. Therefore, women pay less taxes. Dude, move on. If you hate it so much, get a less paying job.

Look at figure 16. Both men and women 20 to 24 were about to cross that black line into positive net fiscal impact until 25 to 29. Men actually cross, but women take a dive for about 15 to 20 years.

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Are you seriously upset that I picked the most recent percentage in the statistic? Dude, really?

No, I said it's been increasing and you apparently denied that by picking just one section of the graph to imply it has not been increasing.

And? So you only wanted to look at one graph because it fits your narrative so well?

The graph you used does not support your argument.

The ages when people become empty nesters.

Alright, that's nice. I don't know why you keep repeating this.

And? Many government programs help both the parent (typically the mother) and the child.

I know, those government programs are paid for by men.

Let's not forget that FAMILIES get a tax credit for every child in the house.

How does that help your argument?

How can you say the problem isnt paying more taxes, when its obviously all you're complaining about?

It's not about paying less taxes, it's about being a net negative. If you pay less taxes but also consume much less, you can still be a net positive.

Look at figure 16.

The break between men and women happens at about 16-17 according to that graph. By the age of 21, the difference is in the thousands of dollars.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I said it's been increasing

Not from what I saw in the graph. Isn't one of the graph saying how many women are having kids by their 40's?

The graph you used does not support your argument.

How? Women aren't a net-negative one they're in their 40's.

I don't know why you keep repeating this.

Because it proves my theory that isn't about the kids. People contribute more taxes when they dont have kids dependent on them.

it's about being a net negative.

Kids are expensive.

How does that help your argument?

Kids are expensive and from what I read, the child tax credit is considered welfare too. Isnt welfare what the government gives people? Wouldnt that negatively impact your fiscal impact?

If you pay less taxes but also consume much less, you can still be a net positive.

Except that kids are expensive. And people need welfare to minimize the cost.

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not from what I saw in the graph. Isn't one of the graph saying how many women are having kids by their 40's?

Literally the first sentence in that article is "There has been a small but significant increase in the number of childless women in their early 30s over the past decade, according to recently released data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey’s fertility supplement." and you haven't seen an increase?

How? Women aren't a net-negative one they're in their 40's.

Your previous claim was: "According to Figure 16, they are. Though it's at a slower rate, women were being productive until they hit the 25 - 29 range which would be when women have babies." I then explained to you that they weren't productive since they were below the black line, and therefore still a net negative.

People contribute more taxes when they dont have kids dependent on them.

I thought you said this doesn't apply to men.

Kids are expensive.

So are women.

Kids are expensive and from what I read, the child tax credit is considered welfare too.

And? What point are you trying to make?

Except that kids are expensive.

Yes, I've heard you the first 2 times. The problem is that I don't want to pay for other women's kids.

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

and you haven't seen an increase?

Are you saying that even though women are becoming moms later, women still aren't productive? Unless you have a graph that shows changes tax disparity throughout the decades, there's no proof.

I then explained to you that they weren't productive since they were below the black line, and therefore still a net negative.

Then so are men in the 20 to 24 age range.

I thought you said this doesn't apply to men.

They still consume benefits if they live with kids (and maybe if they pay child support too). They just dont benefit as much as women.

So are women.

Because they raise children.

The problem is that I don't want to pay for other women's kids.

Too bad. Kids are more valuable in society. Why do you think the phrase "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" is so popular? Why do you think most people find abortion to be awful? Because society loves babies.

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I told you that women take way more money even before having children,

At the same level as the guys. Men and women were identical until women hit the average age range of motherhood. Men, in the 20 to 24 age range, are slightly above women because they're entering higher paying entry jobs.

I'm confused what you're not seeing.

From ages 0 to 19, men and women had identical slopes and points on the graph. Then, ages 20 to 24, when most adults are getting careers, the male's slope is slightly higher than the females. Keep in mind, men often go into higher paying fields. Then, ages 25 to 29, when women have children, their slope drops and it doesn't become positive until ages 45 to 49, when most women are now empty nesters.

women take more healthcare services

Just from your site, it said that women are more health conscious, so they visit more. Is making sure you're healthy a bad thing now? Also, women's bodies are more complex than men's. AND TINY PEOPLE COME OUT of women's bodies.

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LillthOfBabylon1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 7 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Ercole_ʇlɐʍɐ1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lucky_beast1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModeratorMarried to Littleknownfacts[M] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]shoup88Report me bitch2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]crackrocksteady7buying gf1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]crackrocksteady7buying gf1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FlyingResearcher[S] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]crackrocksteady7buying gf1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]douchebag_throwaway30 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]douchebag_throwaway30 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]sadomasochristnAWALT = Not red pilled0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]firewatchersdaughter0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]firewatchersdaughter0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SkookumTreeRomantic relationships aren't necessary for happiness!0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]firewatchersdaughter0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MaybePaige-be0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think the wage gap is politicized more than things like child custody and house work because those are internal relationship inequalities, where as pay is an external economic inequality; and one of the government's primary jobs is maintaining the economy.

Child custody is one of those funny ones where sexists point to it and say, "see, men are being discriminated against", and feminists look at it and say, "no sweetie, when society systemically dumps all the pressure of child raising on women because 'woman=biological daycare' that's actually just more discrimination against women."

the "punishment gap" is another great example of that. Women statistically receive lower sentences for comparable crimes, and are also statistically less likely to be fired from non-managerial positions for comparable infractions. sexists will point to this as evidence of "female privilege", but notice how it's only the non-managerial? That's a clue.

Feminists call this "Infantilization", when judges and managers treat men like men and women like girls. This isn't an advantage, it's actually a "canary in the coal mine" for sexism (just like Chivalry is); because the impulse that causes a manager to go easy on a female employee is the same impulse that causes him to offer her smaller raises and fewer promotions.

It's the sexist manager who forces an "easy mode" on the female employee without her permission, and then he turns around and uses the fact that she was on "easy mode" to justify less advancement.

It's the sexist judge who gives smaller punishments to women, but it's that same sexist judge who awards custody and alimony in favor of women, isn't it?

[–]87AudreyHorne-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For the pay gap, from everything ive read thats just innacurate. Women even tend to make more than men before having kids. I think that having kids and putting your career aside for them is a choice, so i think that wage gap is a result of women's choices and not something that needs to be fixed or that negatively affects women who make different choices.

I read that custody is usually agreed upon and that the reason women have majoroty of custody is because most men are ok with it. Personally, I dont really get what is so amazing about having full custody. If you divorce and your ex isnt someone you actually fear leaving your child with, wouldnt adults WANT to split this?

House work gap is statistically a thing however it is a result of a choice. I dont see why any woman would have to do more household chores presuming the partners spend around the same time working, so it is her responsibility to pick good partners and establish a system that works for her.

I think actually the big issue that is caused on a social/legal level and not individual choices is the "financial abortion" issue, inability for men to choose not to be fathers in a situation of unplanned pregnancy. I dont want children so I tend to sympathize a lot with this side, male and female (I feel horrible for a person who is forced to ruin their life over a mistake), and I dont think that the way child support works is fair. I think discussions about it are often not done in good faith and are hypocritical.

Most other issues i think can be dealt by individuals directly once they realize they can choose what they want their life to be like. You dont have to be a provider for your girlfriend, you dont have to be a housewife, you dont have to make any compromise you dont want to make, and you can alone create the life for yourself.

[–]Sprach_McGrachan-1 points0 points1 point 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Let's discuss "gender gaps"

Comments

1 It's not a needs based system, it's based on what married couples in your income range tend to spend on their kids needs AND wants.

3 If you drive a car as a single person and the car costs $20k, once you have a baby, that car now costs you $10k, and the other $10k is a child care expense. As long as I've known my ex, she's been able to afford a car. Now that we have kids, I pay for half.

Title	Let's discuss "gender gaps"
Author	FlyingResearcher
Upvotes	6
Comments	263
Date	April 18, 2019 11:39 AM UTC (7 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/bekidm/lets_discuss_gender_gaps/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/lets-discuss-gender-gaps.256182 https://theredarchive.com/post/256182