Hey, fellas! Do you hate feminists but also hate doing things? Our good friend over at the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog has an idea for you: strike at the heart of the feminazi matriarchy by “denying marriage and denying children to women.” This, PMAFT (for short) argues, will effectively transfer “the costs of misandry … back on to women.” And all you have to do is: nothing!
Apparently, feminist ladies have an insatiable need to marry and make babies with men who hate them. All you need to do to thwart this evil plan is to not have sex with them. But wait a minute, you say, don’t ladies make the babies themselves, in their bellies? Well, yes they do. But unfortunately for them they also need a little something from you as well. No, not your money – that comes later. You know that white stuff that comes out of your penis when you masturbate? Ladies actually need that in order to make babies. And you control the supply! Cut them off! Embargo that shit.
Also, if you ever find yourself in a chapel with one of these ladies, and some religious looking dude starts asking you all sorts of questions, do not – I repeat, do not – answer any of them with the phrase “I do.” That’s how they get you.
The great thing about denying ladies your babies is that it also helps you to strike back at your parents – by denying them grandchildren! Ha HA! As PMAFT helpfully explains:
Our parents’ generation had one foot in the old system and one foot in the feminist system. This meant that many of them have completely avoided the consequences of supporting feminism. I see this with my own parents who don’t particularly think of themselves as “feminists” but have effectively supported feminism all the same. They have experienced absolutely no consequences from their support of feminism. This goes for both my mom and my dad. …
Most of our parents want grandchildren so denying them grandchildren really forces the cost of misandry back on to them. This is particularly effective when done by only children or by men who have only brothers. Even for men who have sisters, this can still be effective if it prevents the “family name” from being passed on.
In your face! No babies for you!
First, I have seen numbers lower than that — numbers below replacement level.
Second, many of those births are outside marriage. I have seen numbers over 90% for the black community and the numbers for hispanics and anglos are moving in that direction. I think the Asians have largely avoided that trend for now. The point is that a child birth outside marriage has a large probability of being one the man did not consent to.
Particularly, where I live, a very large portion of the teenage girls get pregnant usually without marriage. Yes, they usually have a second and even third child often each by a different man married to none of them. These young boys are impregnating these young girls largely outside marriage and largely out of youthful stupidity not logical thought.
I agree that women have hormones working in their favor particularly with the youthful and the uneducated. I think that situation has little to say about the fate of educated women who go to college and then get a career and then decide they want a baby. I assume many women on this board fit that description. I think you’ll will find resistance in many men. By the time men are 30 or higher, they are going to be wiser. Actually, I think even some of the smarter teenagers are wising up as they have seen what happened to their fathers, etc.
The “boys” who are fathering most of the children around here young with no education and no assets. These are not the type of men the women here will probably want.
Third, there are a large number of articles that have been written on this topic including articles by women. These articles tend to say that men won’t commit, women are too immature and just want to play with their computers and bass boats, etc. These articles tend to confirm that the MGTOW movement is having an effect.
Excuse my error, it is men not women who are accused of being immature and just wanting to play with their computers and bass boats. That by the way is the definition of MGTOW — men finding an alternative to occupy their time and energies other than women.
For your information, I have done laundry for many years and most of the time I don’t even notice it. It takes a few moments here and there and it is done. It is an entirely easy task requiring almost no time or energy.
Now now, don’t you understand that driving to work every morning in heavy traffic is child’s play compared to the grueling task of twisting a dial on a washing machine? Stop oppressing these people with your facts and logic! :p
OK, guys. I have spent as much time as I can. It has been fun. I am out of here.
*inb4 FLOUNCE LOL*
2.6/woman comes from the CIA world factbook:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
As for whether babies are born in or outside of marriage is absolutely none of my business and I do not give a shit, and neither should you.
hd ttp://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=fertility+rate+united+states
Well, this source says the fertility rate in the U.S. was 2.05 in 2009. The trend of the graph is clearly down. I think 2.05 may be below replacement level.
When I clicked your link I really didn’t directly get any relevant data. It looked just the cover page of the CIA World Fact Book. I would have to look further for actual data.
As for the births being outside marriage, that is relevant. It shows or at least tends to show that those births were not the result of men making conscious choices. Those births very possibly in many instances were the result of a horny young man doing what horny young men do. That is not the ideal situation for either young men or young women IMHO.
It seems to me that in terms of men making conscious decisions to marry and have families there is real reason to believe that is way down.
I said I was gone but I couldn’t help myself. I am really gone this time.
Again, it has been fun.
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=fertility+rate+united+states
Well, I guess I am just a dumb ass male. I can’t seem to get the link to work right.
You have to open the tab that says “People and culture” or something like that and scroll down.
I believe 2.05/woman is above replacement, you moron. Women make up 50% of the breeding-age population, do they not? So if each woman has, on average, slightly more than 2 children, the population is replacing itself. Math, do you speak it?
Also bear in mind that the relevant childbearing numbers are per woman LIFETIME. I’m sure fertility did drop in 2009. You know what else happened in 2009? A giant fucking recession! Do you think, maybe, that some of the women who would otherwise have had babies that year might have decided to put it off for a while until the economy recovered? Hell, I seriously considered getting pregnant that year but decided against it. I’m pregnant now, and it looks like the economy is tanking again, so shows what I know.
Yeah, and you know this how? The same way you know that a birth rate of 2.05/woman is below replacement? Because no unmarried couple ever decides to have a baby, and no married couple ever has a birth control failure? Sounds like you are making an awful lot of assumptions.
Aw, shit, another whackjob from Texas. He sounds an awful lot like NWO in some respects.
Hengist: It’s not about the amount of work, you stupid nitwit — it’s about what it means, and the appreciation (or lack of it) you get for it. Yes, doing laundry is harder than driving in traffic. “Grueling traffic”, my foot. Now we know who never lifted a finger around the house. The fact that you believe you do laundry by just turning the dial tells me you’ve never done laundry, as well. And also — you ALREADY minimize and trivialize our contributions, and always have, so your threat is ludicrous. Not only do you minimize what women do in the home — you ignore the fact that most women, in addition to doing nearly everything at home, also earn incomes comparable to their husbands and sometimes outearn them. You deny this as if it doesn’t count — and then you tell me that you “can” minimize my contributions? Yeah. Quelle fucking surprise.
Additionally, that whole notion about men like MGTOW “I found alternative ways to expend my energy” troll (or possibly sockpuppet) here supposedly braving “grueling traffic” for an ungrateful woman — let’s put that inane notion to bed right now. You don’t earn money “for the family”. You earn it for yourself. You earn it to pay for a system designed and operated to meet only YOUR needs and YOUR desires, to provide you, and only you, with comforts and pleasures. What is it that you would provide the woman with, besides food and shelter — which she can earn elsewhere with minimum skills and a lot less effort? You don’t bring love (a logical inference to be drawn from your view of a “good” marriage as a terse exchange of goods and services). You don’t bring respect (a logical inference to be drawn from your flippant dismissal of women as “illogical” — a well-known pretext to denying legitimacy to any of one’s wife’s needs, wants or problems). You don’t bring sex ( a logical inference from your view of sex as something that women are obligated to perform and men have a right to being that you are lousy in bed). You don’t bring leisure (since you use your employment as a justification to never ever give your wife a moment’s relaxation). You don’t bring caring (since you expect only to be waited on, and never to wait on your partner). You don’t bring safety or support (a logical inference to be drawn from your idea that the wife would owe you every minute of every day and exist solely for your comfort and pleasure is that you wouldn’t care about your partner being in pain, sick or endangered, except to the extent that it affected your own comfort). And on top of that, you would actually expect your wife to work outside the home as well, possibly support you through economic downturns and graduate schools — and to be okay with you not giving her any credit for it. Yeah, you going your own way is kind of like a person who likes to stick needles into people’s eyes going his own way, because people don’t show him enough appreciation for having had needles stuck in their eyeballs. We are all broken up here. Now fuck off.
Hellkell: I propose a new term: TGHOWN. Troll Going His Own Way … Not!!
I am trying to be civil.
You called me me a moron.
Since you have broken the thin veneer of civility, I am just going to tell the truth.
You are are a stupid bitch.
Some people die before reproducing, dumb bitch.
Thus, you need more than 2 people per female to maintain a population, dumb bitch.
This is explained as follows, dumb bitch:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
Replacement rates
Graph of Total Fertility Rates vs. GDP per capita of the corresponding country, 2009. Only countries with over 5 million population were plotted to reduce outliers. Sources: CIA World Fact Book
Replacement fertility is the total fertility rate at which newborn girls would have an average of exactly one daughter over their lifetimes. In more familiar terms, women have just enough babies to replace themselves.
If there were no mortality in the female population until the end of the childbearing years (generally taken as 44 or 49, though some exceptions exist) then the replacement level of TFR would be very close to 2.0 (actually slightly higher because of the excess of boy over girl births in human populations). However, the replacement level is also affected by mortality, especially childhood mortality. The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries (2.075 in the UK for example), but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates.[4] Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. At this rate, global population growth would trend towards zero.
AS you can see the replacement rate for most industrialized countries is 2.1 so 2.05 is below replacement rate, you stinking dumb bitch.
I am sorry, but you need to engage your brain before you call someone a moron, bitch.
So? Three things:
(1) You have women literally at war being shot at.
(2) I see most (not all, but most) wars as unnecessary and fought for reasons that have nothing to do with the interests of women, children or families, and everything to do with the interests of people in power, who are overwhelmingly men.
(3) Are YOU literally at war being shot at? No? Then stop spewing irrelevant bullshit (and also kindly stfu about logic). You don’t get brownie points for the fact that some other person getting shot at somewhere also has a penis.
First of all, not during storms. Second — it’s a job, not charity. A job these men actually get real honest-to-goodness money, a job that has limited hours, vacations, weekends and hours off. Third — I very much want women to climb those electrical poles with the same salary and benefits as men.
You have women teaching in inner city schools sometimes in dangerous situations. You have women working as social workers going into tough neighborhoods, sometimes in dangerous situations. You have women working as nurses, caring for patients who sometimes attack them. And that’s just covering traditionally “female” jobs.
None of these jobs, however, are unpaid, round-the-clock, and with a boss who expects an endless array of services and never even provides the courtesy of a reach-around.
Because, for a man to have real hope of having connection with his children, he needs to marry the mother of the children. That is not much guaranty now but it is whole lot more than none. In fact, he has to be married to the woman to even have much hope of the child being his. It makes no sense at all for a man to seek to reproduce with a woman who is screwing other guys or who has not made at least a purported commitment to him.
What’s this preoccupation with reproducing above replacement rate, anyway? Ostensibly so that you have more people to care for the older generation — which characterizes it as a giant pyramid scheme. You can’t have infinite expansion in a finite world, and human beings have reproduced far too much this past half a century, anyway. I would prefer for people to have fewer children, but for society to provide better care and upbringing for the young. I am less worried about reproduction falling below replacement rate than about it rising much higher.
————–
(2) I see most (not all, but most) wars as unnecessary and fought for reasons that have nothing to do with the interests of women, children or families, and everything to do with the interests of people in power, who are overwhelmingly men.
——————
That is false. The wars now are explained in part by women’s rights and the wars in part are forcing feminism on other cultures. Further, to the extent the wars are motivated by oil or by supposed security, they benefit women to the same extent as men.
Most, importantly, women are just as war like as men when in positions of power. Hillary has been an active participant in war making as was Madeline Albright and many others.
The notion that women are more peaceful than men is just not born out by experience.
No — for a man to have a real hope of having connection with his children, he needs to spend time with them, care for them, play with them, take them places, instead of simply shoving them out of the way or lecturing them on occasion. In other words, to do “women’s work” every once in a while.
In modern day, if women wants a baby they no longer need a mate, they go have injections. Well, technically it still is favor from men; donating their sperm and all but there is no need for all the crap of getting them to knock you off…
That’s not what I said. I said most wars are fought for power, and most people in power are men. That is a fact. Deal with it.
Oh, you mean how peaceful the world was before feminism? Oh, yeah, wars were practically unknown before 1960. Uhm, actually, no, today’s society is more peaceful than any other in all of recorded history, while countries that don’t respect women’s rights also happen to be medievally violent. And no, this is not a claim that women are more “peaceful” than men — rather, as that article (which I am sure you won’t read) points out, the reduction in violence has to do with a critical mass of people willing to recognize those of different class, gender and race as people, rather than chattel or glorified appliances.
A war that’s motivated by corporate profits benefits very few people, but out of those few, most are men.
(3) Are YOU literally at war being shot at? No? Then stop spewing irrelevant bullshit (and also kindly stfu about logic). You don’t get brownie points for the fact that some other person getting shot at somewhere also has a penis.
——————-
Are you pregnant right now? If not, shut up.
Are you doing laundry right now? If not, shut up.
These statements make about as much sense as your statements — none.
—————-
You have women teaching in inner city schools sometimes in dangerous situations. You have women working as social workers going into tough neighborhoods, sometimes in dangerous situations. You have women working as nurses, caring for patients who sometimes attack them. And that’s just covering traditionally “female” jobs.
————————-
The work place mortality figures for women are trivial compared to men.
The notion that a social worker or teacher has a dangerous job is just false.
————————–
I very much want women to climb those electrical poles with the same salary and benefits as men.
——————————
Nothing is stopping them. The fact is that women don’t want those jobs. The same is true for offshore jobs (which pay very well). You know what a cook on an offshore platform makes very, very good money. Many women of course can cook. Women don’t apply for these jobs because they don’t want to be on an offshore platform. It is a matter of choice. I frankly doubt most women could be electrical one “men” effectively. Just reality.
——————————-
What’s this preoccupation with reproducing above replacement rate, anyway?
———————————
One of you brought it up the fertility rate. Actually, the graph does not show any decline in 2009. Rather, the rate is rather stable for several decades dipping just slightly in 2009. We are just barely below replacement level but again a very large portion of the babies are being raised outside traditional marriage. If you’ll want to argue that single parent families are as good as two parent families, the evidence is against you. I don’t have time.
No — for a man to have a real hope of having connection with his children, he needs to spend time with them, care for them, play with them, take them places, instead of simply shoving them out of the way or lecturing them on occasion. In other words, to do “women’s work” every once in a while.
——
That is just false. Absent a marriage, the man is relegated to a noncustodial parent in most instances. He has specific defined times and dates. If the woman does not honor his rights, he often has no money to enforce his rights. Even if he does, the courts often don’t enforce his rights. He needs the commitment of the mother to have much hope of being around his child day in and day out, and this is what marriage is (commitment). If he has a child without that commitment, he gets only what the law allows which is just “sometimes” and often not even that. Do some women allow more out of good graces? Sometimes, yes, He can’t count on it. If the woman hooks up with another guy that other guy is likely to be the “father” of his child especially if he doesn’t have the money to enforce his rights.
Oh, you mean how peaceful the world was before feminism? Oh, yeah, wars were practically unknown before 1960. Uhm, actually, no, today’s society is more peaceful than any other in all of recorded history, while countries that don’t respect women’s rights also happen to be medievally violent. And no, this is not a claim that women are more “peaceful” than men — rather, as that article (which I am sure you won’t read) points out, the reduction in violence has to do with a critical mass of people willing to recognize those of different class, gender and race as people, rather than chattel or glorified appliances.
————————
The world in general is more peaceful. I agree that wars are few and small right now in large parts of the world. Guess who is most war like in the world right now? The United States of America. Women have great influence in the power structure here right now. I would say the most war like country on earth right now is a feminist country. All our recent wars have had great input from women: Hillary, Condoliza Rice, Madeline Albright, and others. Yes, some feminists advocate using war and violence for their purposes (the feminization of the world).
I disagree that men benefit from wars any more than women. I disagree that men benefit from corporations any more than women. Most governments and corporations benefit women most and this is true regardless of the gender of the “President.” For example, with the U.S., women benefit from all kinds of social programs not really available to men.
Amused: I wish this one would would take off.
This idiot gets nasty when you poke him, although it is kind of refreshing to see the veneer of politesse these fools roll in on crack so fast.
MGTOW, someone here’s a dumb bitch, alright. Wanna guess who?
What is the most patriarchal part of the world? Say, South America, which is also the most peaceful. Of course the pacific Islands are almost complete peaceful. I think they are patriarchal. I think the middle east which is also patriarchal would be peaceful if it wasn’t for the whole Israel situation. China has been remarkably peaceful for a remarkably long time (yes, I know about its involvement in the Korean war).
What causes war is very complex but it is not true (or at least overly simplistic) to say that men cause war. Men are the prime victims of war (civilian populations most not always were not targeted until relatively recently with so called “strategic” bombing).
Women are almost always more materialistic than men. Most consumer goods are purchased by or for women (or to impress them). To the extent that war is caused by materialism, the finger points at women. MGTOW don’t need large SUVs or houses.