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.
@Kiwi girl, I was just thinking the same thing. Surely mass-brothel warehouses to pay off imaginary debts is the ultimate make-work?
Oh, and (Sic) male, the reason that RadFemHub use password-protected stuff is because a) they’re aware, as is every other fucker in the world who knows about them, that they represent a miniscule subset of thought, unlike The Spearhead, which treats itself as Teh Bringer of Truthy Truths Which Everyone Should Listen To and is one of the biggest MRA websites*. b) Even people who you and I don’t like should be free to make their own conversation without people jumping in to put forth their own pet topics every two minutes** and c) not everything on the internet has to be open and without privacy restrictions, silly.
(*Which is why people call it ‘the abusers’ lobby’. **You could learn something from this, you rude little fuck.)
That’s just blatantly false. Only fools deal in absolutes.
@Arctic Ape
I think with the current budget Finland could afford to train a smaller well-paid and very well-motivated army instead of dragging half the population in as unwilling recruits to do minimum service at minimum required levels. It’s not Winter War anymore, any future combat will not be won by with insurgent tactics and crawling in the snowy forests.
Quoth the man who not long ago was saying that sex had to be “perfect” or it was terrible and gross and awful …
Oh yeah, I noticed the MRAs forgot gay men in their proposal. So for the sake of equality pergals we should add that any man who has [some reason that is difficult to evade for men] is required to pay his debts by servicing men who want to have sex with men, regardless of their own sexual orientation. I mean, it’s just sex work right? Wake up in the morning and go to work. Shut up with the whining and work! How’s that for a modest proposal?
I wonder, btw, when these guys say “modest proposal” do they understand the connotations? Is there anyone who does not think of Swift and thus read it as “a completely insane and unreasonable proposal” instead? Does anyone seriously use the phrase when seriously proposing anything? It’s of course fitting the guy on Spearhead uses it…
Well, given Swift was indulging in the darkest of satire when he wrote it, these fools wouldn’t get it anyway.
This should go in the Manboobz hall of fame!
@Kitteh
You’re right. I overestimated their level of competence.
Though my annoyance at them disregarding lesbian “single” mothers (overestimated, again) and their dick-centered view of sex (work!) that I tried to hint between the lines with the gay example got me thinking of the homophobia of MRAs and their ilk. Especially the oversexualisation of gay men, the thinking that all gay men are after hetero arse all the time (OHMYGODTEHGAYZARELOOKINGATMYBUTTIMTURNINGGAYOHMYGODOHMYGOD)… It’s projection. They themselves are after pussy all the time and objectify women, so they think if a man likes men he must objectify men the same way. And they realise how very uncomfortable this thought makes them, that they would be objectified the same way they objectify women. They know it’s wrong, that they are doing something so horrible that they would never want to be subjected to it themselves. And that is how we get the intense fear of gays, because it turns these men into “women” in their own minds.
Someone probably thought of this before, but hey, it’s morning and I’m still in the process of intaking my caffeine.
Eline – “They know it’s wrong, that they are doing something so horrible that they would never want to be subjected to it themselves.”
I wonder. I don’t see many of these MRAs having anything like that sort of awareness, even subconsciously. I read them as being completely immersed in their contempt of women and hate/fear of anything seen as feminine. It seems to me they see women as so utterly inferior, fit for nothing but being fucked (raped, really) that the slightest hint of being feminised, or seeing other men they label as feminine, is the most demeaning thing they can think of. I don’t think they have any glimmerings of knowledge or conscience that what they are doing is totally wrong and hurting other human beings.
I know it’s not an absolute thing, that one can unlearn this mindset – we’ve regulars who are doing that very thing – but for the most extreme of these men … no.
I can’t tell if Diogenes was making an obvious comparison to Swift, or suggesting another “solution” to single mothers…
*hands coffee over to eline* here, clearly I just need sleep, not more coffee
Kitteh, I’m looking at -20°C when I have to leave for my food stamp hearing, please send warm weather!
You know what just jumped out at me? The guy’s comment about how his plan would “provide safe and legal access to prostitution”. It seems like he sees his force-single-moms-into-prostitution plan as a replacement for the system we have now. The thing is, the system we have now has some women working as sex workers who actually WANT to be doing those jobs, and who’re OK with what they do. He wants to replace them with women who’re being forced into those jobs as a punishment for having had kids.
It’s been said before, but…these guys don’t want to have sex with willing women. They want victims.
Argh WordPress ate my long post. I should learn to use notepad always when posting longer things, especially when using the phone… back to writing. In the meantime, here’s a rebuttal of that Finnish MRA sociologist’s book, although in Finnish (so it’s mainly for the Finns here but others might try google translate or such if curious). There may be a translation, I will in fact look for it. It’s a pretty good text, so might even do the translation myself if all else fails! Laasanen basically argued (in his master’s thesis nonetheless! he’s the Tom Martin of Finland) the most common MRA points and blamed everything on “women’s sexual power over men”. In short, because the women he wants to stick his penis in don’t want it and that means the evil ladies have unfair power over men, clearly.
http://ojs.tsv.fi/index.php/tt/article/view/689
Argenti, Swift was a minister, so I doubt he would write anything he didn’t literally mean.
I didn’t want to believe. Now I do. MRM is nothing but a hate group.
Diogenes, that is literally the dumbest statement I’ve heard from you yet.
AAAHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAAAAA…
HAAAAAAA…
AHAHAHHAHHHHHHAHHHAHA…
*breathes*
How’s that ‘not researching anything’ going for you Dingleberry?
Only fools deal in absolutes.
Really? Are you absolutely sure about that?
I don’t know if it’s ever a good idea to cite Star Wars in a serious discussion, but it’s doubly hilarious that people are so keen on that stupid and obviously self-contradictory quote.
(Oh, and changing ‘a Sith’ for ‘fools’ doesn’t make it any less stupid.)
pillow
I have to apologize. There isn’t an ironic font.
That is not the definition of irony.
OT: found this, found this interesting, if it will come thru, yes too many commas: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O60atA59xgE
This isn’t feminism as I was taught it. This is old school crap.
Sorry, I only got about 30 seconds into that when she did that whole ‘if you’re offended by stuff, just leave’ thing, which always precedes someone being a nasty, bigoted little shite. So I stopped, because yawn.
But as per her suggestion, here’s some old-school Sesame Street which is infinitely preferable to sitting through someone prattling on to appease men:
I don’t know why I keep coming back to this particular piece of repugnance -since the whole thing is so fucking gross- but, seriously, divorced women have to go to the sex-slave concentration camp too? What if their husband initiated the divorce? What if they initiated the divorce but it was because of infidelity, or abuse, or addiction?
So… women who have children are solely responsible for the economic support of said children because, why exactly? Men never want to have children, never initiate unprotected sex, and never tell women that they’re in relationships with that an accidental pregnancy will be “okay”?
You know, there’s no way for the advocacy of state-sanctioned rape as punishment for childbearing to be anything but completely repulsive… And yet, the only way that any of this makes sense is if you truly believe that: 1) all/most single mothers are on direct public assistance and 2) deliberately got pregnant by men with whom they were barely romantically involved in order to live a luxurious work-free existence from a combination of child-support and public assistance.
At which point your connection to reality is so tenuous, and your experience with relationships and sex so lacking, that I guess it stands to reason that you end up proposing government enforced sexual slavery on single moms. Why not?
Oh my god Diogenes Swift was a famous satirist. Have you actually any idea what the contents of his famous “Modest Proposal” was?
Here is somewhere that you can download it for free, please educate yourself;
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1080
It was actually a satire on English policy towards the Irish and the general attitudes towards the poor at the time.