>
The denizens of the Happy Bachelors forum, always alert for possible threats to their Happy Bachelorhood, seem to have discovered a new one: Evil feminists “enslav[ing] men through forced marriage.”
That might sound a bit like the plot of an old episode of Futurama, but apparently the threat is all too real. Artbunker sounded the alarm in a recent posting:
What if women and manginias in power pass a law to make men marry with women?
Hear him out, guys:
[M]ore and more guys are truly waking up to the no marriage to Western Women concept. It’s a small but growing fact. We already know feminist have made it harder fro Eastern European women to come over here and probably in other countries as well.
If they can get laws passed for that how much longer till they start going after single men? How much longer till they want to make sure single women with kids are paired with single men for “the betterment of the children?” because the single man makes a good wage to support her and her family.
Why would this be necessary, you may ask. Aren’t there a lot of simps and manginias doing this already, of their own volition?
Sure there still a lot of simps and manginias that dont mind doing this already without a law sure. But we know these women really want guys who have the economic power to provide them the lifestyle they want. A lot of simps and manginias today cannot provide that for them .They want the guys with the big checks whom they know wont chose them.
Yes, all the fantastically wealthy movers and shakers who spend all their time trading stories about how evil women are on the MGTOW message boards of America.
Longshot39 suggested one (somewhat familiar) way to resist the jackbooted feminazi marriage thugs:
A man with any sense could still refuse to marry, at least in the traditional sense. Just get another MGTOW friend and marry them, like was said in another thread. Even if a person were required by law to live in the same house, having your friend as a roommate would still be a HUGE improvement over being forced to marry some womb turd with little thuglits.
To be sure, not everyone on the Happy Bachelors forum is convinced such a danger is imminent. The always logical spocksdisciple responded:
There won’t be forced marriage, as women want the earning power of the beta but ‘gina tingle factor of the thug/bad boy. Instead what the gov’t will do is simply start to garnish the wages of single men with selective taxation and “fees.”
And if any men resist the New Girl Order by not earning enough, well, naturally they’ll just be forced into labor camps:
These labor camps would come into existence under some economic pretext set up by gov’t. One such pretext is that unemployed or underemployed people(ie men) of a certain age range say 18-40, would be very useful to the government as labor for various federal projects. …
Of course women would be exempt because they’ll have some beta or stooge on standby for marriage and they would claim “gender oppression” should women be inducted into such camps. …
These camps would be run under the auspices of FEMA and would be painted to be “emergency support facilities”, note that some form of this type of forced and indentured labor already as come back in the form in prison chain gangs which were all but abolished by the 1950s-60s but made a comeback in the late 90s.
But hey, still beats being married — amirite, fellas?
All joking aside, I feel that one thing we can all agree upon here at Man Boobz is that the fine gentlemen at Happy Bachelors should not be marrying anyone any time soon, either voluntarily or as a result of evil feminist legislation. So I ask the women reading this post now to pledge publicly, in a comment below, that they personally will not marry anyone on the Happy Bachelors forum, even if they are required by law to do so.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>…. gawdDAMMIT!They figured it out! Alright, my fuzzy-legged, man-hating sisters – time to come up with another plan to oppress the men. They done caught us on this one.
>And here I thought the stereotype of a feminist involved being a single minded career obsessed childless person who hated marriage. I need to update my stereotypes file.
>So that is why FDR came up with the CCC-it was the prelude to forced marriages!I always knew FDR was fiendishly clever and now we haz proof!
>As I am already "own" a slave-boy (husband), I promise not to commit bigamy by marrying one of the Happy Bachelors.Unless the USA legalizes polyandry. Then it's on. Come to mama, bitches!The queen bee needs her drones.(sarcasm)I, too, immediately thought of FDR's CCC camps.
>….buh? Wow, that's some SERIOUS persecution complex they have going on there. You can almost hear them fapping furiously. They spend an awful lot of time on thinking about women forcing them to marry them. The MRA doth protest too much, methinks. They are aware that no one in their right mind would want to marry them in the first place, so they pull the old "Well, you can't fire me! I quit!" card. Also: this woman of Eastern European descent would like these guys to go fuck themselves and buy real dolls or something.We don't want you, either, sry2say.
>They are aware that no one in their right mind would want to marry them in the first place, so they pull the old "Well, you can't fire me! I quit!" card.Actually, they very much remind me of how children try to browbeat their oppressive parents into submission…with little red wagon in tow, peering back only to warn, "I'm LEAVING! I'm GOING! And I'm NOT coming BACK!! You WON'T SEE ME EVER AGAIN!"
>I hearby pledge not to marry anyone on the Happy Bachelors forum, even in some bizarro oppression of the menz paradise wherein there is a legal requirement. I would happily twart that law, going to whatever equivalent of prison is indicated (I guess, being female, some kind of day spa?) rather than have any association, mandated or otherwise. Elizabeth – obvs it was Eleanor who controlled the whole thing!
>Actually, they very much remind me of how children try to browbeat their oppressive parents into submission…with little red wagon in tow, peering back only to warn, "I'm LEAVING! I'm GOING! And I'm NOT coming BACK!! You WON'T SEE ME EVER AGAIN!"Hmm, okay, good point. I think I was giving them too much credit, comparing them to responsible adults ):Your example captures their childishness a lot better! Oh, I totally forgot!I never wanted to marry anyway but if it should become required by law for some reason I also pledge not to marry any of these guys, even at gunpoint. I'd much rather endure torture.
>"Your example captures their childishness a lot better! "Just like the childishness of thinking marriage is a evil plot that men want to make women their domestic slaves, bare foot, pregnant and at the sink.That feminist theory is older than me. heh
>Nick, that used to be the reality of marriage. Then we changed it.
>Changed what?
>Well, all joking aside – I think that taxes will go up.I know that you'll disagree, but marriage is now – nothing more than a redistribution of wealth system.Bankers count on it – cosigning on house loans, car loans etc…Lawyers count on it (despite the rumors of prenups – I called several lawyers here in Reno – nobody does prenups anymore – judges throw them out in divorce court – and the prenup lawyers started getting sued themselves…)Women do constitute the majority of consumerism in the U.S. economy.As marriage rates fall, there is less money being pumped into the economy (how much less? who knows for sure – but it is less – divorce lawyers are expensive, they get both sides emotionally riled on purpose, so they can really "milk" them – and often, both sides (man and woman – lose the house – it goes back to the banks – with little or no profit going to any money the couple put into it).And – as we all know – the government is short on money – and it keeps pumping "fake" money into the economy that it doesn't actually have (national debt).This means that sooner or later, taxes will have to increase.However – anybody with a job will suffer – not just men (or single men) – so his comment is lacking there – but – taxes will go up eventually – no matter who is president.
>What are you doing….Dave…
>I'll happily pledge to avoid marriage with any of them, even if the federal fines for not doing so are steep. Even if they throw my ass in jail.
>Why marry men when you could just marry yourself? Everybody wins.
>Well, that woman who married herself – she got caught in a very bitter domestic violence scandal.Terrible too – my heart goes out to that lady:http://men-factor.blogspot.com/2010/10/woman-scheduled-to-marry-self-now.html
>Just like the childishness of thinking marriage is a evil plot that men want to make women their domestic slaves, bare foot, pregnant and at the sink.…You do realize that women HAD to marry back then or they would end up on the street/would have to prostitute themselves to survive, right? An unmarried woman was basically worthless.But that aside, I don't see where anyone claimed marriage to be an "evil plot by teh menz!!!1" nowadays D: Please, do enlighten me!
>Kollege, someone mentioned it on another post comment thread.
>"You do realize that women HAD to marry back then or they would end up on the street/would have to prostitute themselves to survive, right?"Or they could have stayed with family and chose not to get married at all. Women had a choice who they could marry. In fact, a man had to get down on his knees and bare jewels to be worthy of marriage. If that's not royal treatment towards the poor oppressed women, what is?
>nicko81m – what?? "In fact, a man had to get down on his knees and bare jewels to be worthy of marriage" – that's hardly the case historically. Ever heard of dowry? (where the bride's parents paid money to marry their daughter off?) Not to mention arranged marriage (in which, to be fair, neither groom nor bride had much choice)…
>I, the smart, sexy, beautiful, funny, and all-around wonderful LexieDi hereby swear upon punishment of torture and death not to marry a man who belongs to this Happy Bachelor's forum, thereby freeing them all from the threat of my awesomeness.
>nick she could not just always stay with her family, but WOW, TWO CHOICES- HOLY COW! And no, most places and time periods, the woman did not have a choice, it was up to her father. nick your comment is worded strange you SEEM to contrast offering "jewels" with choice. Like, 'oh well you say they had no choice, but the man had to demonstrate she would not die in his care, so…. yeah…' Once again, not being able to simply steal and abuse a woman is counted as oppression of a male. They also did not "bare" jewels, there is the comedy of the day,as now the image of 'family jewels' has been invoked and I thank you. I mean good god (!) the man, or his family bought a ring and not the bride's family. WOW Nick, that's like…totally royal. Anyone owning a wedding ring, and trying to discuss"oppression" should just be mocked. A wedding ring is a JEWEL, for christ's sake.Poor men… being forced to demonstrate that a mere woman would not die in his care due to lack of provisions. And please, no woman that turned down townsmen, or men her family wanted her to marry to merge families would have any trouble after she rejected the offer and stayed home. I see no pressure there. So clearly, she had a FULL TWO CHOICES in front of her. And now we have, like…two and half, sometimes three. BUT AT WHAT COST?!
>I wonder how long those MGTOW/MRA marriages to each other would last. Would make for bizzare reality TV
>Booboonation – I also had a horrific vision of Nic (or the men he was talking about) on his knees with his balls hanging out. If that was the standard you can see why maybe a symbolic jewel was substituted
>booboonation: Well put (:There is also the whole issue of women having been considered property of men (of their father and of their husband, respectively).