>
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.
>Bee said… John Dias: You seem not to understand palimony, in California or anywhere else. Basically, palimony is a contract enforcement action.Whatever you call that, it's money from a man to a woman without any justification, it's a strange form of a 'separation pay', it's a rip-off.The only way to reject such claims is about being very careful with the time-limit. It is possible to claim palimony after living together for only 6 months, but in most cases the deadline is 2 or 3 years. Best solution is to kick your girlfriend out of your rooms, BEFORE the dead line expires, even if she is a nice person. If you are living in a country with such bad laws biased against men, you cannot trust any woman anymore. No co-habitation as it is basically the same as marriage, the only exception I see is the time-limit.
>Joe … Not all marriages are like mine Yes, and you fail to explain, what these men should do in such a case…You expect, because your girl is acting like that, all other girls will also act similar as your girl, but this is totally wrong.There are plenty of malicious women and unfortunately they are protected by biased laws even in case of very serious wrongdoings.As for child support, well, I have no children You not, but there are not so few men, who pay child support but they are not the biological father – what is your advice to them?
>@Bee:"John Dias: You seem not to understand palimony, in California or anywhere else. Basically, palimony is a contract enforcement action. Meaning that if A never expressly or impliedly manifested intent to be bound to an agreement, or if B never expressly or impliedly manifested acceptance of the agreement, then the court would not find a contract to enforce."I've lived it. In California, my state, "spousal support" is the actual term that is used even for unmarried formerly cohabiting parents of a child, even when there was "no contract to enforce" as you put it. Don't just make things up if you don't know. I have experienced it, and I do know.
>I see what Yohan considers important-and it is not his wife and kids.
>@Elizabeth:"I see what Yohan considers important-and it is not his wife and kids."If you have to pay child support for a child that is not biologically yours, then that is money that could have been spent providing for your own family, but instead went to someone who took it by fraud at your real children's expense.
>Because if you spend ten years raising a kid-that kid is yours even if the DNA does not match."Best solution is to kick your girlfriend out of your rooms, BEFORE the dead line expires, even if she is a nice person."Apparently the terror he has of having to some day make some kind of restitution to female is so great that he even advises treating one's loved ones like crap.
>@Elizabeth:"Because if you spend ten years raising a kid-that kid is yours even if the DNA does not match."If you feminists would simply support the notion of mandatory DNA testing at birth for the purpose of determining biological parentage, then this mess would never occur in the first place. But you don't; feminists are opposed to mandatory testing. And so the injustice continues, despite a readily-available scientific remedy.
>Pt. 1@ JoeJoe said: "Reality check here.I am married. To a feminist.Nobody has forced me to share any of my money or possessions with my wife, that I would not willingly share with her, without begrudging it or expecting anything in return. Because I love her."Yeah, what if you were divorced? What if you came home one day and everything in your house was gone and you weren't allowed to see your children (assuming you have any) would you be so quick to willing share the little you had left? Well many men are forced to do so, feminists love this, and it's fucking unfair.Joe continues: "For example, even though I make 10x more than her, we don't have a joint bank account and I don't give her an allowance. She never demands money and rarely asks for it, and I can always say no."You can say no now because you are married, if you get divorced and the judge imputes 90% of your earnings to her, even if you can't live on the remaining 10% well, you can not say no. And that's what you support when you support feminism.Joe said: "I pay most of the bills and the mortgage. This is *my choice*, no one is making me do it."And in case of the divorce you will continue to do this while she stays in the home and you live in a shitty studio apartment.Joe said: "She does lots of housework and all the cooking. This is a feminist we're talking about. You know, those scary, man-hating, lazy, gold-digging feminists you guys are always ranting about."Let Amused or Elizabeth or one of the other feminists bend her ear and she'll be telling you how you should stop oppressing her and start doing all the housework.Joe: "If we got divorced, under the law she would be entitled to 50% of my stuff, or something like that. My solution to that problem is that I lived with her out of wedlock for like 10 years until I was really sure that we loved each other and were going to stay together."1. You really should check the laws in your state. I doubt you will, but you should. 2. If you think that you are only going to be giving up 50% of your stuff you know NOTHING of the divorce industry and should not speak on this topic until you educate yourself. 3. No one can guarantee that he or she will stay together. No one. You could walk into your house tomorrow and she could be riding the mailman like a pony. Or she could decide she's a lesbian and wants out. Random Brother
>>> Joe … Not all marriages are like mine > Yes, and you fail to explain, what these men should do in such a case…Don't marry anyone, if you are not prepared to work through conflicts with your spouse in a responsible, respectful way. There, I just explained it.> You expect, because your girl is acting like that, all other girls will also act similar as your girl, but this is totally wrong.I expect nothing of the sort. But you just told us all that no woman could be trusted. You are not describing my wife, who I am quite sure is a woman. You are the one expecting my "girl" to be untrustworthy, simply because she's a woman. Which is called prejudice.> There are plenty of malicious women and unfortunately they are protected by biased laws even in case of very serious wrongdoings.Don't marry them. There are also plenty of malicious men. Women shouldn't marry them, either. Malicious people suck. Stay away from them.>> As for child support, well, I have no children > You not, but there are not so few men, who pay child support but they are not the biological father – what is your advice to them?Don't marry someone if you don't like marriage laws. This is the same advice the MGTOW give, except that instead of just giving that advice, they also express a lot of prejudice towards women.The idea that men are *forced* to marry women is fantasy, as the OP demonstrates.The idea that no woman is trustworthy is also pure fantasy, and amounts to prejudice.The example I'm giving from my life shows how far off these prejudiced descriptions of women are from the reality I experience every day. Virtually none of the attitudes manospheroids ascribe to feminists are held by me, or my wife. And my wife is not out to get me, as MGTOW constantly insist.I have no problem with a serious critique of marriage and divorce laws. I have a problem with prejudice.
>Pt. 2@ JoeJoe: "If we get divorced, it won't be because she has freaked out and wants my stuff. If she was after money she would have sought out someone much wealthier and more successful than I am. Of course, something awful could happen like she could suddenly turn into a different person, or cheat on me, but guess what? I'm the one who cheated on her, many years ago, and after that horrible experience we both decided not to do any of that crap anymore. Because we're adults, and we love each other."Don't be a martyr. Because you cheated on her and she hasn't (to your knowlege) cheated on you should not force you to live a life of poverty if she decides to leave you. Also why would you support laws that harm all men in just because you cheated on your wife? It sounds like some odd martyr complex to me.Joe said: "As for child support, well, I have no children. Again, my wife is a feminist. You know, the ones who force men to sire expensive children."If your wife wants to have children and is able to conceive and you guys are having sex, you're having children period. BTW another thing that feminists support is men being forced to pay child support for children that they are duped into believing are theirs. Do you support that?Joe said: "I just care much more about having reasonable, sane relationships with people than I do about my modest wealth. Anyone who values those things in the other order is going to have crappy relationships, full stop."Lose most of your stuff to divorce and you'll care far more about modest wealth.Joes said: "Not all marriages are like mine, and some divorces are awful. But if you think that those divorces are awful because of divorce laws, then you don't know anything about human relationships."Divorce is awful. But the potential to cause continued harm and resentment IS caused by the unfair divorce laws.Joe said: "I had two friends that got divorced recently. He had cheated on her. He and his wife amicably agreed on how to divide their stuff. There was no fighting about that, and no lawyers were involved in that discussion. And they're both happy with the outcome. Again, adults, trying to treat each other with as much respect as possible, given the circumstances."That's nice, but most divorces aren't like that. Random Brother
>@ JoeYou know I saw your last post and I had to respond. Your basic advice for men is if you don't like marriage laws don't get married? If tomorrow, somehow, men passed the rule of thumb law, giving men the right to beat their wives, would your attitude to women be, "Well just don't get married" or would you call for the removal of bad laws?Random BrotherSorry for the excessively long posting over my last two or three posts.
>John Dias: I don't know how else to say it. Whoever told you about palimony laws in CA was dead wrong. Every law review article, ALR article, and case I've read on palimony (in CA and other states) sets out the elements of the claim–one of which is an agreement to support. When courts find no enforceable promise, they don't order remedy. Don't want to support your live-in girlfriend after you break up? Easy: Don't promise to support her.Yohan, that goes for you too.
>@Bee:"Whoever told you about palimony laws in CA was dead wrong."It's called spousal support.
>@RandomYou respond to my posts without reading them.Some tells: "… your children (assuming you have any) …" in response to a post where I explain that I don't have children.You write "If tomorrow, somehow, men passed the rule of thumb law, giving men the right to beat their wives, would your attitude to women be, 'Well just don't get married' or would you call for the removal of bad laws?"in response to a post where I wrote "I have no problem with a serious critique of marriage and divorce laws. I have a problem with prejudice."> Sorry for the excessively long posting over my last two or three posts.Oh, you're sorry for that? But you're not sorry for writing the following about my wife, who is a real person:"You could walk into your house tomorrow and she could be riding the mailman like a pony. Or she could decide she's a lesbian and wants out."Really.You're doing more than wasting my time. You're insulting my family. You think my wife, simply because she's a woman, is a mean, spiteful, lying, gold-digger. That is just straight up prejudice and displays a shocking ignorance of the potential of human relationships for empathy and respect.You have no respect for me and my family. Since you seem to think that everything in every human relationship is quid pro quo, on what basis do I owe you any respect? You got any facts to share with me, or do you just want to spin out persecution fantasies forever? Because I can do that, too:What if all your friends in the manospherical movement were actually ax murderers???! Then our evil conspiracy laws could have you locked up as an accomplice, even though you didn't ax murder anyone!!1!1!!It's easy. And a complete waste of time.
>tl; dr: Random Brother is sure that my marriage could easily end in divorce, which would be my wife's fault for sure, because she could easily force me to have kids and then cheat on me, after taking instruction from radical feminists on how much housework to do, and then she would steal all of my possessions and take 90% of my income forever.
>@ JoeI had hoped you'd respond with something well thought out instead you decided to go the hysterical route.1. I did NOT insult you nor your family. I was talking about a hypothetical situation. To compare a hypothetical situation about the possiblity of one person cheating, (which unfortunately happens) to every single MRA being an axe murderer is fucking ridiculous. I don't know you and I don't know your wife. I simply said that cheating is within the realm of possibility and it is. I didn't say she is or does cheat. Got it?2. If you have no problem with a critique of divorce laws, answer the questions I asked. Is that so fucking hard?In fact, don't fucking bother. It's clear that you've swallowed the feminist jock so fucking badly that you can't count up.I'm going to skip all the whining about respect and empathy and summarize your fucked up manginaesque post.Here's your belief in a nutshell.Joe: I married a feminist and it worked out great for me so fuck all you other men. This make you and *AHEM* "male" feminsts like you massive tools and dim witted morons. I was hoping that you'd find some self respect and talk like a man, but I was wrong. Pound sand kid.Random Brother
>Let me just say one more thing about my post.Mean people can use laws to fuck with each other. People can sue each other, call the cops on each other, all kinds of crap like that. That sucks, and there are really two things that need to be done to address this:- Try to make the laws as fair as possible by reforming them. I'm all for that. That means fair to everyone, regardless of race, creed, disability, sexual orientation, etc. Whatever is truly fair, I'm for.- Don't be a mean person, and stay away from mean people.My post about my marriage talks about the latter. I picked the right person. You can argue that I didn't, to make a point, but at that point you've pretty much lost me.As for the former, in my case I'm confident that I can resolve conflicts with my wife, even ones that would end our marriage. I'm confident of this because we've put lots of work into resolving conflicts, including getting counseling and lots of advice from people who are good at it. We've worked through really hard conflicts. That means we would reach an agreement, and no law would force us to do anything else.The laws come in when mean people are involved, and they're trying to screw each other over. That's why the laws need to be fair. If you can explain to me how they're unfair, then I'll support reforming them.But if you tell me all women are lying sluts, then I'm going to tell you to get your head out of your ass. Because that's prejudice and that has nothing to do with reforming laws.How many of you manospheroids actually work on reforming laws? Show of hands. I work on that kind of stuff. I go to meetings of legislative bodies. I've run petitioning and political campaigns. I've even been a candidate for public office. If you're trying to get support for reforming laws, you can't do it if you lead with the idea that women are evil whores. Because guess what? That alienates a very large portion of the electorate. Civics 101: reforming laws means convincing people to vote for reform. Want votes? Learn politics.
>> Joe: I married a feminist and it worked out great for me so fuck all you other men.Did I say that? No. Do I think that? No.My point is not "fuck all you other men". My point is, resolving conflicts in relationships is a learnable skill. Learn it, and the resolutions of those conflicts will be better. Even if you're dealing with someone who's trying to screw you over.> If you have no problem with a critique of divorce laws, answer the questions I asked.I said "serious" critique. Come back when you know the first thing about criticism, or law.
>Wow, just wow. I have never seen a bigger bunch of whiny-ass babies on the internet as these MRA guys. It's truly remarkable. No capacity for insight at all. It's all everyone else's fault. Here's a test, using Occam's Razor: either you all are the most unlucky oppressed people in all of history, or maybe, just maybe, you bear some responsibility for your own misfortunes. Which is more likely?Wait, I already know the answer: it's all the fault of feminists. I guess it's easier than taking responsibility for your own lives.
>richard, you could walk into your mother's house tomorrow and find your mom riding the mailman like a pony!Oh, when I said "your mother" I didn't mean "your mother." I meant a hypothetical mother.
>@ DavidYes, she could. It is within the realm of possiblity. Now see, I didn't get all hysterical about it now did I?Random Brother
>@ Captain BathrobeYeah it's all the MRA's fault. The MRA's wrote anti male laws so that they could have something to bitch about on the internet. MRA are at fault for shit laws passes by non MRA's, good fucking logic there genius. God you feminists are tools. Who's done more whining in the last 40 years or so than feminsts? Keep kissing their asses "male" feminists. Maybe you'll get a nice pat on the head. Random Brother
>@ JoeYou didn't say it but that's your attitude clear as day.And as for your avoid mean people tripe, when mean people are forced to wear big buttons saying "I am mean, stay away!" come back and talk to me. Lastly, just because you and your wife can work things out doesn't mean that other people can do the same. As for you genius in knowing the law, if it's anything like you genius on the board I'd say you're the one who needs to learn something.Random Brother
>Mr. Futrelle,I've been lurking on your blog for close to a month now, and I finally found a reason to delurk with this particular post. Which surprised me. As much as I enjoy your blog, I enjoy the comments that get posted even more.So on to my own comment: In reading Joe's comments I wanted to put out a supposition.Some commenters on this blog seem to have had at least one bad, perhaps horrific, experience with a woman or with multiple women. This indicates they keep repeating the selection of a certain type of woman guaranteed to hurt them. Since I know women who have done this as well, the parallel should be considered. Which begs the following question:If every woman you are attracted to treats you like something on the bottom of their shoe, have you ever thought that maybe the problem is at least partly yours? To rephrase: if there are women out there who would rather be mistreated by men, surely the inverse could be true, and there are men who like to be mistreated by skanks?Just food for thought.
>> You didn't say it but that's your attitude clear as day.No, it's not my attitude. It just isn't. Since you don't respect me enough to have noticed that, I'm done with you.