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.
So my ex husband, who gets alimony and child support for 50% physical custody, should whore himself out, too?
This sounds a lot like DKM’s solution to women who like to have sex; and aren’t willing to be slaves to their fathers/husbands.
There is so much wrong, it’s past fractal, into the realm of being the quantum mechanics of wrong.
And don’t they blame women for ripping families apart? I think buying sex when your married is a pretty good way to rip a family apart.
It only rips families apart when women do it. When men do it, the laydeez are supposed to politely look the other way because men are slavering hose-beasts incapable of self-control.
And MRAs say feminists are the ones who hate men. (Also their world appears to be populated solely by heterosexual cis people.)
For once, what about the menz knocking these women up? Babies, contrary to MRA belief, don’t just happen. They act like child support is such a fucking burden. Well, wrap it up or get snipped, and stop whinging and advocating for rape, you assholes.
In before some dipshit comes in talking about “paper abortions.” Shitstains.
natfantastic: He does take more than three kids into account. If she has more than three she has to be a sex-slave, and gets paid nothing.
This will “drive her underground, like divorced fathers are”.
The vile, it’s crystalised.
In before some dipshit comes in talking about “paper abortions.”
The second that paper can get pregnant, I’ll believe in paper abortions. :p
Amen, Bagelsan. Amen.
(that is the stark legal reality – every child that is born is born due to the SOLE choice of the mother)
A second, more rational modest proposal: that everyone who thinks this crap commences at once to lobby for additional forms of male birth control that are effective, safe, reversible, and keep one’s swimmers safely in one’s nutsack.
You don’t want even the remotest chance that a child will be born with half your DNA without your enthusiastic consent? Fight for methods that give you greater control over when, where, how, and with whom you choose to share your sperm.
Would paper abortions be used to control a dangerous overpopulation of paper tigers?
@dani
You’re right. It’s strange that do many of them seem to hate women AND kids AND women having kids…they do realize that if we didn’t our species would be extinct, right?
You can always depend on the MRA to be busy busy busy reinventing the atrocities of yesteryear.
Wait. Watisdisidoneven.. I… They.. uh, gah.
Buh …
Money: it’s literally just like your body!
This message brought to you by the Council of Concerned Misogynists.
“Women, don’t they suck?”™
Even if one’s not provably fucking (or provably not fucking) anyone at all , there’s a debt, because one is not fucking the MRA complaining.
Remember, guys, obtaining consent is a boner-killer. Looking over your 1040, though? That’s foreplay.
“Then why won’t they suck me?” is the second half of that question. To which the answer is, In Your Dreams, Sonny.
Looking over your 1040, though? That’s foreplay.
“You have, uh, how many dependents that money is being withheld for?” o_O
blah.. i want to remove my earlier comment. But this whole thing is just as vile as the situations that i have described. Still a dweeb though.
I’m sure they’ll remember the importance of reproducing the second there’s a book or movie where women are depicted doing anything else 9_9
Can you believe that site to publicly allow comments like that?!…you’d think that they’d at least learn something from the RadFemHub & provide a private, password only section for that kind of stuff.
DLCalvin, ‘sallright, one’s immediate reaction to these things tends to be strong.
Why did you marry a man who can’t support his family?
this may be happening in sydney: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/single-mums-turn-to-brothels-and-stripping-20130120-2d0wn.html
I posted this on an earlier thread (can’t for the life of me remember which one) but I don’t think anyone saw it. It was in the thread where someone suggest they have a “man zone”. I wonder what would happen if we gave them what they want, their own man zone where women aren’t allowed and they never have to deal with women again which entails that they cant leave. Let them live it up there, and do as they please. My bet is that they either feel the loss of no women to harass and run screaming to the door, live happily until they die out from having nothing to procreate with, or simply redistribute their hate towards each other (say minority men, or alpha males vs beta males).
Because women are all dumb sluts. Obviously.