>
 |
| Note to MGTOW: Not actually how it works. |
Oh Men Going Their Own Way, why must you be so confusing? MRAs and MGTOWers complain all the time about how unfair it is for women who somehow magically get preggers after having sex with them to decide to actually keep the kids and saddle them with — gasp! — some of the cost of raising said kids. So you’d think manosphere dudes would all be fervently in favor of easy access to abortion or, at the very least, birth control.
Not so much. Because apparently for quite a few of these dudes, the desire to gloat over the misfortunes of women actually outweighs their desire to protect themselves from the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.
Or so I am forced to conclude after reading this thread on MGTOWforums.com dealing with the recent passage in the House of a bill blocking funding of Planned Parenthood — an event that strikes many of the commenters as hi-larious.
Apeiron offers this nugget:
Yes i saw the femms frothing at the mouth on their boards.
Well you know what bitch, we have to make cuts, lots of cuts …
Good news is if the sluts see the cuts they might keep their legs shut and act accordingly.
The appropriately named womanhater presents his own analysis of the sexual politics of abortion:
Well – the twats replaced the husband and father with the state. Now they’ve bled that hubby and father dry. Of course, there’s no replacement cock/sucker for the state. Have fun girls!
Rock adds:
[F]eminism cannot be defeated without cutting out funding. … The neverending supply of manginas and white knights will keep it going unless these same people run out of money. And that is what’s happening. Who would’ve thought the bad economy could have a good side effect. 🙂
Forum moderator hasmat concurs:
Want an abortion cuz you couldn’t keep your legs shut? Fine, kill your baby, whore. But, I ain’t paying for it. Not a penny.
But it is intp who offers the most, er, original take on the issue:
Question. What percentage of women would give their daughters up for sacrifice if they could remain young-looking/beautiful in return? I’m guessing a considerable percentage would take the Devil up on that deal. The rationalization hamster in women is strong. They would probably tell themselves I’ll just have another baby later. Or “What about my needs? I have a right to be beautiful!” I ask this because per statistics most abortions occur due to non-health threatening reasons. The woman simply does not want to have a kid yet. She wants to keep screwing like a man (riding the carousel) until the last possible minute.
Ignoring the rest of intp’s, ah, speculation, I have to wonder: what exactly is wrong with “screwing like a man?”
—
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.
>But there are three significant differences.1. I understand that you aren’t arguing for a retroactive abolition of child support; neither am I. I brought up the point about 1834 as a past example of how the abolition of child support in general has failed before.2. True, but half of all pregnancies are still unplanned, as are 25% of births, which is a rather large portion of the population. [1]3. Less capable, certainly. I already posted a link to stats on single mothers and welfare- considering them, I think its safe to say that single mothers are less capable of financially providing for their children than mothers who are partnered, and have sufficient resources through child support. On a personal note, I don’t actually believe feminism has been wholly effective in justice for women, especially in regards to children. I believe there is much more breaking down of old and patriarchal processes before feminism’s work is complete. Are you suggesting women don’t know babies cost money?I left out a word, I think: childbirth is not wholly an economic decision. Women know babies cost money, its that women (and men) who have children accept that consequence, because they are rewarded (socially, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, etc) for it. Or, in comparison to my other example, MRAs know that staying single costs money; some just accept that consequence of not being married. Those negative financial consequences are often enough handed off to the men.Honest question: did you read the article? Do you have stats for men vs. women in regards to income and children?I’m guessing that study never comes up during discussions of the gender pay gapAbsolutely it does. It’s even a part of the Wikipedia article on the pay gap. It’s a feminist issue because discrimination against mothers is discrimination against women, full stop. I actually just got off welfare[…]Then I’m sorry I made a wrong assumption- I assumed that someone with experience in the system would know how basic assistance was calculated, including income and dependants. I definitely phrased the last part wrong- SA has it’s downfalls, but you can’t deny that a single mother is required, by the rules, to work. I know you’re Canadian; so am I, which is why I gave Canadian stats in our discussion.And again, none of that is relevant[…]Then why did you ask me the question? I answered to my knowledge. Men are perfectly capable of determining if they are financially capable of raising a child at a given point in their lives, are you suggesting women don’t have this capacity?I’m suggesting that largely for both men and women, having a child is not a decision made based purely upon finances, and that it would be ignorant to assume so, and further, change child support laws based off that assumption.[…]you simply make it unreasonable due to your straw man exaggerations of the suggestions made[…]What would those be? I’m honestly curious- I’ve provided citations for the facts I have, and if there is one, its slipped by me. [1] http://www.ehow.com/about_4611925_unplanned-pregnancy-statistics.html
>Kratch, Essentially your view boils down to this: feminists should be in favor of letting men skip out on their responsibilities whenever men want to since men do not get to determine when a woman has a baby. Since feminists do not, they are being unequal to men and hence are wrong.
>“If this issue with PP was about making sure that babies in utero are safe and secure from conception to adulthood”I’ve never even suggested that’s what this is about. If anything, your claims of “trying to control women’s sexuality” comes far closer then anything I’ve said. I merely acknowledge that the government does not want to fund something so controversial, or whatever the reason is for the “no federal funding for abortion” law, and that PP violated that Law. It is a punishment for violating an agreement, as far as I’m concerned. The rest of this seems to be an attempt to justify your opinion that a woman who ***CHOOSES*** to have a child should be provided for by others. “But they are not talking about expanding funding for those things. “But as you yourself said, these cuts aren’t about making sure babies are cared for in every way needed (again, not that I ever suggested otherwise). That shouldn’t be government’s responsibility, and I can’t fathom what level of privilege and entitlement one needs in order to believe it is.“It is about the sex the mother had and now they want to punish her for having that sex. By forcing her to have a child that may be neglected or harmed by a resentful …”Does that mean that women are trying to punish men who have sex? If you are suggesting that being forced to have a child that one does not want is some kind of punishment, then it applies equally to what men endure from feminists. The situation is no different then the reproductive rights men are calling for. Reproductive rights you feminists deny. The one significant difference is that women still have options, several options, while men still have none. Do you not see the hypocrisy in your argument?“ Letting her have birth control or an abortion means that she is not punished.”Nether of these have been denied women. Abortion and birth control are still accessible to women. You’re exaggerating the impact of these cuts to be a complete denial of any kind of reproductive rights for women, when it was simply a single source that had their funding reduced (it wasn’t solely government funded, otherwise their abortion clinics were undeniably funded by federal funds). “you either can see that if there is no assistance (such as the things I described) for the unwanted child then it is not about saving a life but about punishing a woman for stepping out of line.”Again with the strawmen. Your entire post was riddled with them. I’ve never claimed this to be about saving children’s lives. I’ve never suggested it. I’ve never believed it. And I’m getting tired of repeating myself. If you’re not willing to read my posts and debate what I actually say, rather then simply debating an argument you feel you can win, regardless of whether I’ve said it or not, then please let me know, so I can stop wasting my time.I don’t deny there are those against abortion who are likely revelling in this cut, but I don’t stand by those people’s opinion, for the same reason you described (plus I would like to see men’s reproductive rights, and that will be easier if abortion is reasonably available). But I also don’t think for a second that “punishing women” is not only the most reasonable explanation, but the only one. I’ve said it before, PP violated an agreement, and they are suffering the consequences of that violation. And that is a far more reasonable and rational explanation then some persecution complex about government run control, by men like David and Trip, to control women's sexuality. This has nothing to do with punishing women.
>“Essentially your view boils down to this: feminists should be in favor of letting men skip out on their responsibilities whenever men want to since men do not get to determine when a woman has a baby.”For the forth time, it is not whenever men want to. It is only during a short period upon finding out he is going to be a father. This is no different then women’s choice to skip out on their responsibility when they abort, abandon or adopt. The later two of which ALSO leaves a child in the world without a parent, and can be done without the fathers consent (IE, denying the father the opportunity to be a primary caregiver in order to avoid child support payments.).“Since feminists do not, they are being unequal to men and hence are wrong.”This is correct.
>For some reason the spam filter keeps grabbing comments in this topic; I'll unfilter them as soon as I see them.
>“True, but half of all pregnancies are still unplanned, as are 25% of births, which is a rather large portion of the population. [1]”But not all of those are unwanted. Unplanned and unwanted are two completely different things. Only a portion (not sure how many) of those are born against the fathers wishes, and without the guarantee of a child support check, it is not unreasonable to think that this number would decrease, not increase.“ Less capable, certainly.”1: Having a child is still a choice. A woman is not forced to have a child. EVER.2: This does not mean that she is incapable. She is still capable of supporting herself and her child, if she chooses to have a child without the support of a man (women do this all the time already, when they choose not to inform the father (for whatever reason))3: This does not make it men’s responsibility to provide for them simply because they choose not to use birth control (properly) and choose not to have an abortion and choose not to give the child up for adoption. A man should be given a choice whether or not to be a father as he deems fit, and if he deems no, that does not change any of the women’s options (only the degree of one of the consequences)“ its that women (and men) who have children accept that consequence,”But the difference is, women have a choice to reject those consequences, if she so chooses. A man does not.“because they are rewarded (socially, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, etc) for it.”Men who do not want to be a father (for whatever reason), don’t get those rewards. Especially if the mother cuts the father out of the child’s life (or chooses not to tell him for years, then come after him for backpay).The rest of this sounds like trying to enforce marriage onto men. Get married or suffer the financial consequences (this of course ignores the women’s choice whether they want to marry or not. As well as ignoring the fact that a marriage forced upon a man will not be healthy for anyone. As well as the vast majority of divorces are by women, and there is a very high assurance that she will get the kids and child support, leaving him right where he was pre-marriage. It also enforces, rather then breaks down, the male provider gender role, which is contradictory to the supposed goal of feminism).“did you read the article? “No, I did not. I don’t think it’s relevant enough to the discussion to dispute. But are you denying that men are required to pay child support? Does not that child support offset the financial loss a woman faces (and then some)? So if any pay lost due to having a child is returned, and then some, by the father via child support, is that not handing off the negative financial consequences to the men? Why should men be required to pay the (financial) consequences of the woman’s choice, a choice he had no say in, a choice she was not required to make?“because discrimination against mothers is discrimination against women, full stop. “Lost financial earnings due to the choice of having a baby are not examples of discrimination. “I assumed that someone with experience”And your experience with the system is?“Then why did you ask me the question?”That didn’t answer any question I’m aware of making. Quote me please.“What would those be?”The Strawman is the assumption that Men’s reproductive rights would have any impact on the babies already born (and the parents supporting and raising them) by applying it’s impact on the current system. You can quote all you want the statistics of how things are now (all you prove is the current system doesn’t work), but they all made the choice to have a baby, knowing the man would have to pay child support. Going forward, women would not have that assurance, so there would be more reason to consider alternatives. More importantly, it would encourage women to have children with men who wanted to be a father, and that would only be a plus for the child.
>"For some reason the spam filter keeps grabbing comments in this topic; I'll unfilter them as soon as I see them."I'm pretty sure it's the links. I don't seem to have problems unless ether I have a link, or my "character (with spaces)" count (based on MSWord) is over 4000.
>Kratch- The very first sentence of my last comment was I understand that you aren’t arguing for a retroactive abolition of child support; neither am I.” I am not putting up a strawman. My actual argument is: given what we learned from the reform in 1834; given that currently, women have children despite the negative financial consequences; given that single mothers are the most likely people to be on welfare, even with the current child support laws, you have not made a convincing argument that the birth rate to single mothers would drop enough as to be economically sustainable for everyone. I’m taking about how things are now because it is a better predictor of how things would be in the future, than playing a game of lets-pretend. without the guarantee of a child support check, it is not unreasonable to think that this number would decrease, not increase.Do you have any facts to argue this point? References to theories as to why birth rates fall in countries with available birth control?Having a child is still a choice. A woman is not forced to have a child. EVERWhere did I ever say or imply that women should be forced to have children? This does not mean that she is incapable.Which is why I said “less capable […] than mothers who are partnered”.This does not make it men’s responsibility to provide for them simply because they choose not to use birth control (properly) and choose not to have an abortion and choose not to give the child up for adoption.It is at this moment because there is no other viable way. If you had an actual solution to the economics of this problem, I’d be happy to agree with you.Men who do not want to be a father (for whatever reason), don’t get those rewards.That’s a rather simplistic view of human nature. And do you have any statistics of how many women cut their children’s fathers out of their lives?The rest of this sounds like trying to enforce marriage onto men.Now there’s a strawman. My point is that there are certain life events that we do despite the financial hit. Some women have children. Some men don’t get married. I don’t want anyone forced into anything- it is entirely their choice to accept the consequences of that.No, I did not. I don’t think it’s relevant enough to the discussion to dispute.It’s my second “given”, actually. But are you denying that men are required to pay child support?Where did I ever say anything to imply that?Does not that child support offset the financial loss a woman faces (and then some)?I don’t know- does it? You’ve given me no actual information for which that assumption is based on. Lost financial earnings due to the choice of having a baby are not examples of discrimination.It is a loss men will never have to face, being as that they can’t give birth. It is a loss only applicable to women, and therefore, unfair at the very least. And your experience with the system is?Are you asking me this because some of my information is wrong?Quote me please.“Let me ask you this, if a woman is already going to be on welfare, because she can't or is unwilling to get a job, is she better off as a single recipient or as a single mother (with both child support and welfare)?” From your post on Feb. 27, 5:11PM
>Sorry. This is a long couple posts: Part 1“From your post on Feb. 27, 5:11PM “Thanks. I just looked over that article you linked earlier and am amassed that you would even provide it as a source. It’s a joke. It says women get paid $11,000 dollars less…. $11 K less then what? $30,000? $100,000? It’s not a particularly helpful number. In addition, it doesn’t make mention of other factors that may have been offered instead, such as additional vacation time or family benefits.Fortunately, the link (that worked) to the study explains that a little further. It says on average a 5% per child decrease (which would mean that $11K less was based on a $220K/year job application). As most child support is at least 10%, and women generally seek a man who is an equal or higher earner then themselves, not to mention child support doesn’t get taxed… We can see that any income lost due to being a mother is more then made up for by child, not to mention the rewards of having a “wanted” child you mentioned earlier.As to welfare: In the states, Welfare for a single person is significantly lower then welfare for a single mother + child support. In Canada, Welfare for a single mother results in at least twice as much money from assistance[1] as that for a single individual [2] (it seems to be around $10K/year more for having a child. This conflicts directly with your assertion they get an equal ratio based upon their needs), plus eligibility for national child benefit supplements, this more then amply offsets the costs of having a child. Not to mention the rewards of having a “wanted” child you mentioned earlier.[1] http://www.cnb-ncw.gc.ca/[email protected]?lid=331&fid=27%5B2%5D http://www.cnb-ncw.gc.ca/[email protected]?lid=331&fid=25So, based on this, the answer to my question “is she better off as a single recipient or as a single mother “, is that she is better off as a single mother, except in the rare circumstances that she makes over twice as much money as the babydady. So, as far as this shows me (your own sources), what I claimed earlier, that any financial consequences are passed onto the man or government, is correct.Therefore, the lack of financial consequences due to child support and/or government support, combined with the rewards of having a “wanted” child, actually encourages women who want a child to have one, whether the chosen man actually wants it or not. I don’t think it is reasonable to deny a man the right to choose whether he is willing to allow
>Part 2“given what we learned from the reform in 1834;”Given that was almost 200 years ago and things have changed dramatically (women’s ability to support themselves, birth control options and availability, government support, abortion), not to mention the suggestion for male reproductive rights is not the same as a uniform ability to abandon your support obligations, regardless (as was the case in 1834), I don’t see how anything relevant can be taken from that example.“given that currently, women have children despite the negative financial consequences;”As I showed above, government and child support negate the negative financial consequences you have listed.“given that single mothers are the most likely people to be on welfare”And men are the most likely to be homeless and/or dead (via Workplace death, suicide or street violence).“you have not made a convincing argument that the birth rate to single mothers would drop enough as to be economically sustainable for everyone. “And you haven’t proven that it wouldn’t drop “enough”, or that women who choose to have a child against the fathers will, shouldn’t incur the financial consequences. And as equality would demand male reproductive rights, I don’t see the validity of your argument, other then to maintain the status quo of female privilege, the very argument regularly used against men who seek change. Furthermore, As far as social assistance is concerned, in Canada, nothing would change for the mothers. In the US, women would lose part of a significant financial incentive to trap and force men, against their will, into financial servitude, and I don’t see this as a bad thing. An unjust system should not be maintained simply because the solution “may” not be economically sustainable for those who choose to abuse that unjust system. If they choose to have a baby, even though the man doesn’t want to, it is her choice to do so, and she should be the one to carry the burdens. If she wanted help, she’d find a man who wanted a baby.“Do you have any facts to argue this point?”No, I don’t (though I suspect they are out there). That’s why I presented it the way I did, IE, a thought.“Where did I ever say or imply that women should be forced to have children?”By the assertion that her having a baby means there is a child that must be supported (by the man). There is only a baby because she made a choice, several in fact, to get there. If she had no choice in the matter, then I would agree the responsibility should be 50/50, but she isn’t forced, therefore he should not be ether.“It is at this moment because there is no other viable way.”There is a viable way… GIVE MEN A CHOICE!!! Your arguments have not even come close to proving that a woman can not support a child without a man’s support, and as such, as a woman is capable of supporting a child on her own, without a man, there is a viable option… IE if she really, really wants the child, she can do it on her own, because as even you acknowledge, she is not incapable of doing that.“If you had an actual solution to the economics of this problem”But I do. If a woman insists on having a child, against the wish’s of the man involved, make her as accountable for the responsibilities of raising that child as she was for the choice to have the child in the first place.
>Part 3“My point is that there are certain life events that we do despite the financial hit. Some women have children.”But currently, there isn’t really a financial hit for a woman to have a child with a man who does not want one.“I don’t want anyone forced into anything it is entirely their choice to accept the consequences of that.”Except men forced into child support, so women can “do” that life event without the need to sustain that financial hit. A married couple takes a financial hit for having a child, as their income before child ether doesn’t change or decreases (due to time taken off or downsizing career), yet, you don’t think it’s reasonable for a single woman to incur this same thing if she chooses to do so without the support of a man. Does this not actually encourage women to stay single and have a child (and then find a man to be with)?“It is a loss men will never have to face,”Not true. If men were given equal rights and responsibilities with regards to their children, IE, equal parental leave (UK) and Equal shared custody in divorce (not to mention a choice as to whether or not to have a child), plus if women were more willing to consider men who make less then them (and thus, the men would make the career sacrifices for children, that is the economically sound decision), then the reasons for women making less due to being a mother may very well be incurred by men as well. Separated fathers tend to HAVE to work more just to pay the support plus cost of living… Plus they tend not to have much to do most nights due to not having their kids. Fathers who are still with their child’s mother tend to be the one who makes (more due to hypergamy (generalization, not meant to be indicative of all cases)), and thus are the ones who stay at work when additional money is needed or wanted (After all, are you going to get the higher earner to come home early to take care of the kids while the low earner gets overtime?). These are why men are typically considered better options. This is changing, but will require men to be considered equal in family regards before women can truly benefit. Feminism has demanded equality in the workplace, but still hordes dominance of the family influence. That dominance of the family influence will always have an impact on the workplace, unless that dominance in family is given up in favour of equality. I have no sympathy for this kind of “unfair” treatment of mothers, so long as it is a consequence of men’s discriminatory treatment in family regards.“Are you asking me this because some of my information is wrong?”As I’ve shown above, in the links to welfare payments by province, yes, you are very wrong when you claim single women and single mothers get the same (basic or otherwise) assistance. Simply having a child tends to increase the base amount (not including child benefits) by 50% or more. Further child based benefits effectively doubles (or more) the total potential assistance.
>Oh, I forgot. I was under the impression it was illegal to ask in an interview if a person has children?