>
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.
>John Dias: "'Whoever told you about palimony laws in CA was dead wrong.'"It's called spousal support."So, we're talking about married people? My apologies. I thought you were talking about monetary awards given to one party of an unmarried couple. A Marvin action, if you will. This is, of course, very different from spousal support.
>> 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?Well, that's the thing. They're not forced to wear big buttons that read "I'm mean, stay away!"
>This is all just so sad. The situations that these guys come up with to be married, it's like a bad sci-fi/romantic comedy. UUGG. They obviously want to or they would not spend that much time and effort talking about it. How can they not see through their own crap? Wow. Just all kinds of fail and WTFness.
>Well, that's the thing. They're not forced to wear big buttons that read "I'm mean, stay away!"Guess that's just one more thing that the MRM will have to add to their To Do list.
> Joe…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.This is an interesting advice, don't marry. For MRAs however your general advice is not correct and not acceptable. Thank you.Marriage laws are not the same everywhere. There are countries where I recommend marriage, and there are countries with feminist laws where I recommend to reject even any private contact with any female.MRAs do not express prejudice towards ALL women as you are trying to suggest. This is a feminist lie. MRAs are often married, have children, but we are against laws, which are discriminating against men. MRAs advice men to be mistrusting against the legal system and women in feminist countries, as laws are against men, often misused and because how do you know who is who. Sorry, some good woman might suffer in Western countries because of mistrust and rejection of men, but she better should complain about feminists who are responsible for that legal mess and not about MRAs. MRAs do not talk about MARRIAGE laws, we talk about unfair DIVORCE laws. Unfair divorce – A subject you try to avoid even to mention in your comment.
>Joe…. 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.Interesting argument and more interesting to observe that it works perfectly this way in the other direction – all men are generally assholes, wife-beaters, rapists, dead-beat fathers, pedophiles, old fat losers with foreign wives and this list continues and continues…Any thought, Mr. Joe?
> richard said… @ Joe…..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.Typically for feminist arguments, Joe is only mentioning 'the law', but fails to do a deeper research into how very much single-sided these laws are executed against men. Western family laws are widely open for misuse by malicious females, supported by feminist organizations and greedy lawyers and offer plenty of legal loopholes to rip off men over decades.
>@YohanEver done any work on legislative reform?I have, on the issue of ballot access laws that are unfair to independents and third parties. I've knocked on hundreds of doors, raised thousands of dollars, held press conferences, appeared on talk radio, run bus and television ads, appeared in court to testify against partisan attempts to unfairly remove third-party-initiated referenda from the ballot, spoken at numerous public meetings of legislative bodies, and ran for county-wide office on a platform that included reform of election laws (I got ~30% of the vote as a third-party candidate, which means I got >1000 votes in my district). All this effort has had some results. Among other things, we got court decisions and legislation passed that reduced the unfairly high signature requirements placed on independent candidates in our state.I know about legislative reform *from having done it*. Now what are you bringing to this discussion? Got any specific laws and suggested reforms you want to mention, or some specific actions you want people to take to bring about this reform? Can you link to a petition, or some other campaign that might actually impact legislation? Are there any specific legislators or candidates you're targeting who might be amenable to enacting this kind of reform? If not, do you plan on running a candidate on platform that includes reforming divorce laws?And if you're not doing this kind of stuff, or volunteering for people who are doing this stuff, then how do you expect any of this legislative reform to happen?
>Why do you give an evasive answer, Mr. Joe?You said: Joe…. 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.And I was asking you why it works exactly like that against men…Yohan….. it works perfectly this way in the other direction – all men are generally assholes, wife-beaters, rapists, dead-beat fathers, pedophiles, old fat losers with foreign wives and this list continues and continues…Any thought, Mr. Joe? You are claiming you are working as a politician, right? May I ask you what will you ever do for men should voters elect you? About your questions, I expect US-MRAs to reply. I am an MRA since decades, but not from the USA. Men's rights are an international issue, it's not limited to men living in the USA.I am also astonished that US-politicians are presenting their opinion 'anonymously'. If you have any clear program and not only empty talk for gender politics, why do you not present them and introduce yourself with your real name?
>so david, as far as I can tell richard aka random brother continues to lobby personal attacks at each and every feminist who posts on this site. When exactly are you going to ban him since he deliberately says things that go against your comment policy?
>joe, don't try talking to them about the actual legislation that you support getting passed. Apparently no matter what law it is that we are fighting for, even if it is SHOCKING one which the MGTOW and MRM folks want we are wrong. I posted on here about the domestic violence law that I helped get passed, a law which made it possible for male victims of domestic violence to obtain shelter and legal justice and was informed that I did not indeed do that but passed a law to hurt men because somehow a domestic violence law whose only purpose was to balance the law to help male victims was somehow harming men overall. I'm sure they are going to lobby attacks at you saying that all you did was make it easier for feminists to get elected blah blah blah bitch moan whine. It's not even worth trying to argue with them anymore, especially richard. Do know however that those of us who are also feminists and heavily involved in political activism appreciate what you have done to help
>When exactly are you going to ban him…I think David's just showing how he's equal opportunity, giving Random Bro a peenie pass and all.Besides, with his clever [chortle!] and cliché personal attacks, he presents himself as a perfect example of man-boobery and misogny.
>there was a typo in that. I am so thrilled to have physical violence threatened against me to allow the misogynist to be mocked
>rebekah, my inclination is to have as hands-off a moderation policy as possible, and not to delete posts or ban people unless they get *really* obnoxious and disruptive. If someone wants to make dumb blanket statements about feminists in general, I let them do it. When they get really personal and obnoxious, I do delete comments, and I've deleted a handful of richard's comments for that. But generally I try to stay hands-off. There are advantages and disadvantages to that kind of comments policy, but that's what it is, at least for now.
>rebekah, I wrote my last comment before seeing your last comment. If someone is threatening violence that is obviously not ok. But I don't remember seeing any comments from richard that did threaten violence. I may have missed them. Could you point me to the specific comments?
>rebekah,I'm sorry if you truly believe that Richard is a physical threat to you, but silencing him would not make him any less of a threat. Indeed, that would render him and the possibility of his carrying out his physical threats "invisible", which, in my opinion, would be a far more dangerous thing to do. Merely banning him or deleting those specific comments would not be an appropriate course of action.
>Yohan, why should he?
>@Yohan>> Joe…. 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.> And I was asking you why it works exactly like that against men..Where did you read that? Because you didn't learn that from actually doing any political work.> May I ask you what will you ever do for men should voters elect you? I've already done political work that benefits men. In particular, I've done a lot of work on the rights of prisoners, which mostly benefited male prisoners in our state and county.- I have spoken out repeatedly against the death penalty and have signed numerous petitions and donated money to anti-death-penalty groups;- I participated in a campaign to cancel a predatory contract that was charging prisoners exorbitant telephone fees in our county jail; and- I spoke out in strong terms against the use of tasers in our prison system; a police sergeant in our sherriff's department was later convicted of using tasers to torture male prisoners in the county jail.> If you have any clear program and not only empty talk for gender politics, why do you not present them and introduce yourself with your real name?I am with the Green Party. Our US national platform is here:http://www.gp.org/platform.shtmlThe platform includes feminism. Note that what we mean by "feminism" is equal rights, regardless of sex. If you have a problem with that (you shouldn't), then support some other party, or start your own like we did.Or you can just keep trolling feminist blogs. You decide which one is going to be more effective.
>@ david it was one on the page that made me so angry to start mocking him. It was directed at both booboonation and I where he basically said that what happened to rep giffords should happen to us. He then went on to say that it should happen to all women. Earlier in that same comment he had called us c*nts so you may have deleted it on that without seeing the threatened violence.
>@ RebekahThat's a lie. I've never called anyone on this board the "c" word that I can recall.Random Brother
>Rebekah wrote:"I am so thrilled to have physical violence threatened against me to allow the misogynist to be mocked…""it [the alleged threat] was one on the page that made me so angry to start mocking him. It was directed at both booboonation and I where he basically said that what happened to rep giffords should happen to us. He then went on to say that it should happen to all women. Earlier in that same comment he had called us c*nts so you may have deleted it on that without seeing the threatened violence."I believe that this is the comment in question, the allegedly threatening one made by Richard:"This is just a lame excuse to try and give feminuts more power. You'll claim the killing was based on misogyny. Then you'll advocate for more laws against 'hate speech' all the while retaining your right to insult and degrade anyone who disagrees with you. You claim that hatred of women drove him to kill. I hate the subset of women that are feminists. I haven't harmed any feminst or woman. Maybe feminists like Giffords should look in a mirror and see how awful their actions are instead of blaming others. Random Brother"http://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/is-jared-loughner-misogynist-does.html?showComment=1295513037821#c8540194424016555498The above comment is political advocacy against making more feminist-supported laws under the pretext that political beliefs are inciting violence against women. In other words Richard was speaking out against criminalizing what are known in authoritarian regimes as "thought crimes." It is a political statement, not a threat in itself nor a justification of violence.The above comment by Richard also seems to dispute the notion that hatred of women was the particular or primary motivation behind the killer's murders and attempted murders. Can you please explain how this amounts to Richard placing blame on the victims?
>Elizabeth said… Yohan, why should he? Why should he not? As a politician he should not be ignorant and arrogant to refuse to January 22, 2011 3:48 PM answer questions, even if these questions are disturbing him so much and he considers such questions as 'trolling'.He could even find some additional feminist voters with replying in internet blogs and forums and it costs him nothing.Joe…..I am with the Green Party. Our US national platform is here:http://www.gp.org/platform.shtmlThe platform includes feminism. Note that what we mean by 'feminism' is equal rights, regardless of sex. http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtmlNo. 7, feminism and gender equityThis text is rather lukewarm and might be used either for or against any agenda.I wonder if it is solely about gender equity, why to mention 'feminism' in the same sentence? This means, that feminism and gender-equity are 2 different things. What might be the difference between feminism and gender-equity? Anybody who can explain?Does this mean the Green Party is a feminist party? Please be aware, that in Sweden the feminist party (FI) was totally voted out by the huge majority of Swedish voters, regardless their gender.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_Initiative_(Sweden)Good luck to you, Mr Joe.
> rebekah said… joe, ….. I'm sure they are going to lobby attacks at you saying that all you did was make it easier for feminists to get elected …http://www.gp.org/tenkey.shtmlTen Key Values of the Green PartySupport of feminism is mentioned as one of the 10 key values of the GreenParty, Joe is presenting.Indeed, this US-GreenParty gives preference to feminists and will make it easier for them to be elected.
>Richard,Ah. Sticking with whiny victimhood, then? Well, at least you're consistent.
>Not really Yohan, most offices are so small in nature of votes that it is not worth it.For instance, I know one person here locally who reads this blog and *I* told her about it.