I haven’t been keeping up with The Spearhead of late, but a commenter here drew my attention to the sort of timeless wisdom I’ve been missing from the Spearhead gang.
In this comment, DW3 offered his thoughts on how to combat the evils of single motherhood. The solution involves putting single moms in workhouses. To be more specific, in sex-workhouses — that is, whorehouses.
I think there should be whorehouses for single mothers to work at, to pay their debts to society. Such a system would kill several birds with one stone.
There would be safe and legal access to prostitution, presumably reducing the drugs and violence associated with the way the trade is currently practiced.
It would allow single mothers to learn the value of getting up and getting to work on time, so that they might aspire to a different career.
It would assist traditional families in steering their daughters and nieces and sisters in a different direction, with a very visible and well-known consequence to ignoring the families’ advice.
It would allow single mothers to give back for all the resources they consume, and ideally it could replace child support on some sort of sliding scale of pay for the workers. Perhaps starting at $50 paid per client, less $20 per child more than 1. That way, a single mother with 3 kids could still get $10, and more than that would be inclined to try to hide off the grid the way divorced and separated fathers now have to.
I have my own opinions about whether choice single mothers cause more harm than divorcees, but for this proposal I suppose that they should be treated differently. Divorced women would surrender their children to the father and have to pay half their whorehouse earnings to support the family, however they would get the full $50 regardless of the number of kids.
Perhaps the whorehouses could charge $80 for providing their services, with a modest 20% discount for married men who proved they had a family to support.
DW3 prefaced this comment with a line in which he notes that this idea might be a bit much even for the regular denizens of The Spearhead. But no one actually took issue with his proposals. Indeed, Lyn87 (a Spearhead regular I’ve written about before) noted that he’d had similar thoughts on the matter himself.
Since men are responsible to pay for the children that women they have sex with choose to bear (that is the stark legal reality – every child that is born is born due to the SOLE choice of the mother), then it stands to reason that:
Money paid to support a child = the obligation a man incurs by having sex with the mother.
Since having sex is enough to legally entitle a woman to a man’s money if a pregnancy ensues and she elects to give birth, shouldn’t taking a man’s money legally entitle him to have sex with the mother if he has not already done so?
Fair is fair, right?
My Modest Proposal: a single-mother-by-choice who takes public assistance should be required by law (as men’s financial obligations are), to have sex with any man who can produce a 1040 showing that he paid taxes in the past 12 months (at least once for each child).
The Spearhead: As reliably awful as stomach flu.
Yeah I thought tedious was grounds for banning, but I guess our trolls get pretty tedious by default and thus have to be extra tedious to be remarkable.
That sentence, it fails, sorry (twitter and #OpThunderbird have my attention currently)
Demarcq: You made an absolute claim. I refuted it. You tried to change the subuject; you then tried to change your argument.
So… Your argument is now, “small countries at risk of war/possessed of hostile neighbors need conscription”.
See my first rebuttal, re Pakistan.
Your knowledge in this area is deficient. So are your attempts at argument.
One must remember the great sheep of the elder gods, Cthulewe
More Cthulhu puns! Excellent!
Demarcq was om nom / Mister No Name and is thus banned, again. So you’re never going to get that debate (not that he would’ve been capable of it if still around)
I wondered how long until he was outed. I was also pretty sure it was someone who has been banned. Funny, all in all, that it was one of the ones I forgot about.
You too huh? He really is quite forgettable, kind of ironic given his original nym.
I also found out that Australia has changed policy to allow women in (some) combat roles, and within a few years there will be no difference between what men and women are allowed to do in the defence forces. Unrelated, but it’s been fine to be gay and in the army for a while now. I went to an officers’ mess with a friend of mine, and one of his fellow officers was a lesbian, and she had her gf there with her too.
Cthulewe, anyone?
@titianblue – LOL oh yes, the heels are red, at least when he’s dressed up. That was a pic of him in his old age in the article you linked to. 🙂
Actually I’m wondering now if that’s 5′ 4″ in current inches or in a different French measurement – I’ve seen it mentioned that the whole Napoleon-was-really-short trope comes from French inches being longer than English ones. The Bourbon men are sort of short to middling for the time. My FiL is shorter than my MiL and Mr K’s shorter than his first wife (he’s 5’7″, plus-don’t-forget-half-inch-heels-kthnx).
Kitteh: a crochet blanket suitable for a queen: http://www.e-patternscentral.com/detail.html?code=EC00177&source=CEPOTDE 🙂
Kiwi girl – I iz ded of gorgeousness
and dusty rose is SO my favourite pink
That’s all right, I wasn’t using that point of SAN anyway.
“While virtually all feminists I know oppose the draft, most agree that as long as registration is going to be required, it should be required for both men and women.”
Why? That is ridiculous. It is like arguing that men should get paid less to even out the wage gap instead of arguing women should get paid more.
It is like arguing we shouldn’t be trying to make female victims of domestic violence safe we should just try to make male victims less safe.
It is like arguing instead of getting rid of apartheid in South Africa they should have just held white people to the same repressive standards and sent them off to live in the ghettos as well.
This is MRA logic101. If a man is suffering, a woman must suffer too!
The whole everyone should be fucked over because some people are fucked over argument is bunk.
The government pulls it out when they want to take away more rights though. What they do is they first introduce laws into aboriginal communities using racism. Then a few years later they say “oh this is a racist policy, we must apply it to white people as well!”
Cassie, the draft doesn’t fuck over anyone because it is not active.
Katz, the argument is indeed that the draft fucks men over so women should have to be fucked over equally. If it doesn’t fuck anyone over then why talk about it at all?
However I seem to have accidently stuck that comment on the wrong spot, so I shall shift it over to the correct one!
As this thread originated with TheSpearhead, it would seem to be the correct place to post my latest sputtering rant on the wilful stupidity of its ringleader. The latest: he’s even wrong about his own ethnicity. He talks about the Norwegians preferring Seattle over the midwest because it reminded them of fjords. Fact: the Scandinavian migration was mostly east->west and there are still plenty of Norwegians in the midwest. Hasn’t he even heard of Lake Wobegone Days? And it wasn’t a matter of preferring Seattle, it was that midwestern land, especially northern midwestern land, was oversold during a rare wet period of history. Then, the more normal dry conditions returned and many farms failed, people just moved on. (happened in my family too) I’m sure that Seattle is more fjord-like than Havre, but it’s not like the Norwegians made a beeline for Seattle. He talks about a great grandmother who made a killing in real estate, as if that proves that patriarchy was no big deal. The fact that she was allowed to earn and handle her own money and buy real estate seems to pass unoticed by him – it was not the law or custom throughout America back in the earlier days.
RE: Cassie (though I know you’re gone)
I actually WANT to be on the damn SS list, but can’t because I’m trans. (And would never be accepted, due to health issues, but regardless.)
Is it truly so hard to believe that I’d rather be in the trenches with the rest of humanity? If my brother has to go, if my father has to go, it’s just not fair that I don’t. And being FORBIDDEN to sign up honks me off.
The Cassie Show was hilarious.
Feminists – If only men are required to register that’s sexist, we should fix that.
Cassie – OMG how can you say that! By the way, patriarchy is not real. I don’t care about identity politics but I want to make it very clear that feminism in particular is Not OK.
Were they pining for the fjords?
Also: “I’m a socialist and you’re a feminist so we’ll never agree because no one can be two things.”
Put me in a whorehouse and you’ll wake up in the morgue.
MRAs’ rants against single-mothers without euphemism:
Women should know that they are walking vaginas & wombs, which serve no other purposes than lodging teh menz’ penises & teh menz’ children (yes, you read it correctly), and for whose sustenance teh menz had patronizingly doled out a mere pittance for.
[Sarcasm]
To mine ears, a single man, this sounds like coming from a sexist arsehole who disgust his female partner so much that she left; & whom she must reasonably shielded their children from. The arsehole never thinks that it IS HIS ARSEHOLERY which discredits him from raising their children, not the fact that he fathers the children, whose need must be provided by both parents.
Moreover, capitalists need unemployed people, including some single mothers, as a reserve army of laborers, whom they must provide for with “welfare” left the unemployed die & capitalists cannot recruit them in case of strikes (even though capitalists cause unemployment by refusing to hire those people in the 1st place).
Moreover, many single mothers work hard and are NOT on “welfare”.
EITHER WAY, SINGLE-MOTHERS OWN ‘society’ (read: MRAs) NOTHING.
I dare MRAs “put me in a whorehouse and [they]’ll end up [dead] in the morgue.”
From a Middle-Class, Straight, Cisgendered, Able-Bodied, Male with the Wrong Skin Color & without any Religious Belief (or a Wrong Religious Belief, according to some dumb-fucks).
O, I forgot, what about REAL, CONCRETE Single Mothers whose REAL, CONCRETE Husbands had died, or rather killed by society?
I mean, those REAL, FLESH&BLOOD,husbands & fathers who had been overworked to death by diseases, accidents, etc.?
Those husbands & fathers who were maimed & killed in war to serve war-profiteers’ interests?
Those husbands & fathers who were driven to crimes out of desperation when they are first told to be their ‘family’s breadwinner’, then thrown away by corporations when they’re no longer needed? How should they assert themselves again when all their ‘breadwinner’ identity has been built up by corporations, but also shattered by corporations?
A Society (read: corporations) which kills CONCRETE Husbands & Fathers now bad-mouths ABSTRACT Single Wives & Mothers? As if every single-mother is a wife of a middle-class sexist MRA arsehole.
Such a mentality is utterly Classist & Sexist (if not Racist since what skin color of single mothers shown to you by corporate media).
MRAs who blame single-mothers are merely corporate shills & useful idiots. They masturbate themselves to some mere crumbs of male & middle-class privileges dole out to them by corporations, & then feel. It never appears to them that those privileges keep every one down.
This is just…just…
*runs off into the woods and screams like Bobcat Goldthwait*
@DW3: FUCK YOU for talking about my mother and those like her in such a shameful way! (She was widowed, but even if she wasn’t, FUCK YOU!!!)