lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Playing Abortion Chess

2006-09-15
By

Potent Feminist Weapon

In the Seinfeld episode called “The Couch,” there’s a famous scene in which Elaine and Jerry are sitting in Poppie’s restaurant, awaiting the duck Jerry ordered days in advance. Elaine expresses great anticipation about partaking of the vaunted fowl, while ever-cynical Jerry grumbles that he would be just as happy eating a Paccino’s pizza at home. In disgust, Elaine promptly announces her boycott of Paccino’s—because of its anti-abortion owner. To test Elaine’s policy, Jerry summons Poppie to their table to opine on the matter. Upon hearing Poppie vociferously denounce abortion, Elaine storms out of the restaurant, followed by the other outraged female patrons—with their annoyed husbands and boyfriends, still eating the meals they had purchased, in tow.

The imagery of this restaurant scene—strident feminists dictating the lives and destinies of men—is an accurate metaphor for life in the USA. And, no issue galvanizes feminists and gives them more power over men than abortion. Far more than a medical procedure, abortion is a potent feminist weapon in the political game of chess. Let me state for the record that I support abortion but reject “pro-choice,” a misnomer, as the way to characterize it.

Pro-choice is a politically correct, feminist term that really means pro-woman. It conveys upon women all reproductive rights and choices. The Roe v. Wade decision of the US Supreme Court gives women the exclusive power to opt out of parenthood. Accordingly, because Roe v. Wade violates the equal-protection clause of the US Constitution’s 14th Amendment, the National Center for Men, on March 9, 2006, filed a lawsuit called Roe v. Wade for MenTM—asking the federal government to recognize and uphold a man’s equal right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. The National Organization for Women (NOW), of course, immediately repudiated this lawsuit—equality for men is the last thing NOW wants.

In any American election, a politician must avow his “pro-choice” stance to get elected or reelected. A nominee to the US Supreme Court must articulate his acceptance and support of the Roe v. Wade decision, if he expects the US Senate to consent to his nomination and the feminists not to pillory him.

Then, there is the matter of parental notification in cases when pregnant minors seek to have abortions. As parents in many states have learned, if, through special elections or referenda, they demand such notification, NOW will fight them. State supreme courts, such as the one in California, have ruled that a girl’s right to privacy supersedes her parents’ right to be parents. Yet, this same minor needs her parents’ permission to take medication in school or to get her ears pierced. This insanity illustrates that it is abortion NOW cares about, not the lives or traumas or families of young, pregnant girls.

From the aforementioned Seinfeld episode, elections, Supreme Court nominations, and parental-notification battles, one might get the impression that: 1) feminists control the national agenda, 2) feminists speak for all women, and 3) abortion is the number-one issue for all women. Are these points true?

Let’s compare NOW bosses to union bosses, whose main agenda is job-preservation. Union bosses formerly controlled both the national agenda and the players. NOW still controls the national agenda and the players—it delivers female votes by scaring women and legislative votes by blackmailing “skeletons-in-the-closet” senators into passing anti-male legislation.

NOW leaders, like their union brethren, to this day wrongly believe that they speak for the rank and file. Hardly. If women were so fanatical about abortions, the out-of-wedlock birthrate would be zero, wouldn’t it? Instead of abortions, hordes of women are selfishly and fraudulently choosing single motherhood—out of narcissism and for the child support.

The Road to Fraudulent Maternity

The Alan Guttmacher Institute estimates that there were 744,600 US abortions in 1973, 1.6 million in 1990 (the peak year), and 1.3 million in 2004. Yet, the US population rose 45% in that 31-year period, from 203 million to 294 million. The Brookings Institution claims that, in 1965, the out-of-wedlock birthrates were 24% and 3.1% for blacks and whites, respectively. Those figures grew by 1990 to 64% and 18%, respectively. Now, they are 70% and 35%, respectively. Abortions, relative to population growth, are decreasing, while illegitimate births are rising. Creating fatherless homes is trendy!

In the course of everyday life, tort laws provide remedies to protect us from those who would mislead and defraud us, such as unscrupulous bankers, retailers, realtors, car dealers, and contractors. If, however, a woman makes false claims about her fertility or use of birth control, tort law hides under the proverbial desk, with family courts offering men this warning: caveat fornicator.

For those who don’t grasp that, in the US, women own most of the civil rights, have little regard for men, and are likely to choose child support over abortion, allow me to expose their three-phase path to “legalized” fraudulent maternity. Yes, thanks to feminist sycophants, family courts everywhere permit and encourage women to become unwed mothers, and reward them—at the expense of men—for their irresponsible behavior, as follows:

Three “Twisted” Phases of Legalized Fraudulent Maternity

  1. DisTORTION: twisting the facts of her fertility and use of birth control
  2. ConTORTION: twisting her body into amazing positions during sex
  3. ExTORTION: twisting his wallet through 18 years of child support.

Male Guilt

To fathom the genesis of American misandry, I look to Shelby Steele, a black research fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. Dr. Steele authored White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. Steele claims that, because of history, whites are forever stigmatized as racists and accused of “blaming the victims” if they encourage blacks to engage in hard work, self-reliance, and moral responsibility. Because of “white guilt,” blacks continue to play victims, receive deferential treatment from whites, and make excuses for not growing.

Strident feminism has analogously stigmatized men, also effecting a destructive outcome: lawmakers, governors, presidents, judges, and jurists have “male guilt.” They erroneously view women as “victims,” defer to them, and tolerate their excuses for not growing—perpetuating the endless cycle of unwed motherhood and blaming men for their mistakes.

I fantasize about the governor of a prominent US state, pen in hand, in front of microphones, journalists, and cameras at this bill-signing ceremony:

“It is my honor to sign into law today the Responsible Mother Act of 2008. We are ending the disgraceful pandemic of fatherless homes and fraudulent maternity. From this day forward, unwed mothers-to-be have two choices: abortion, a critical female right, or raising and supporting their children alone without child support. Women choosing single motherhood will sign certificates of selfishness, a copy of which each child, upon attaining the age of 16, will receive. The era of rewarding miscreant moms for their irresponsibility, anti-male fraud, and selfishness is hereby terminated.”

When writing my book, I coined this marketing tagline: Life with her needn’t be an endless game of chessTM. Originally, I meant it to warn men not to waste time and energy with women whose actions, words, and thoughts must be anticipated five iterations in advance. But, I now see another parallel. First, the objective of chess is to debilitate the king by cornering him and removing his options. Second, the queen is the most-powerful piece on the board. Third, the least-powerful pieces, the pawns, resemble children whom mothers bear and sacrifice solely to gain child support. It’s as if NOW invented chess!

NoNonsense Bottom Line

Abortion is a critical option to prevent unwanted children, ruined lives, and destroyed livelihoods. Yet, women do not universally use this option, as it is not their number-one issue—despite what NOW says. Not to worry: feminists created the child-support industry, too. They covered all the bases, but they never use child support as a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee. Only abortion. When feminists claim to speak for all women, they are lying. Abortion, for the feminists, is a powerful means to checkmate men. It’s worked so far.

Before having sexual intercourse, men and women must discuss what they will do in the case of an unintended pregnancy. Keep in mind that the woman can lie in this discussion. If you don’t trust her answer, or if she desires to bear a child you don’t want, put your pants back on and leave.

When men gain the equal right to opt out of unintended pregnancies, women who unilaterally choose motherhood will become solely responsible for raising and supporting those children. Then, the out-of-wedlock birthrate will plummet, and abortion just may peter out as a useful weapon in political chess.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an investment banker and business consultant residing in Silicon Valley, CA. He is the author of 27 articles and the book, The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet EarthTM (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s book, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.thenononsenseman.com/.

Copyright © 2006 by Marc H. Rudov. All rights reserved.

176 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
  • George

    Chivalry isn’t dead, but feminism shot the horse between the eyes with a 12 gauge.

    How is that for being flippant? Feminism allows women to have it both ways. A disproportionate preponderance of women are not to be trusted because they know that if a man lies to them that they can reap the benefits of his lie financially. They are only ethical within themselves and can hold a man in a relationship hostage based on something that happened to them in a previous relationship.

    If a man marries a woman and he cheats on her later on, he has to pay her alimony because he broke a vow in front of God. But it doesn’t often work the other way around. Unfortunately these women don’t want honesty from men because if a man is honest with a woman at the beginning of any date, the chances of him seeing her again are next to nil.

    Judging by a lot of my past experiences I think that a woman would rather prefer that a man lie to them than be honest because she will always know she has the upper hand in the relationship. That is masochism and I simply refuse to live like that and I have friends and co workers who do. But what many women don’t understand is that the minute she makes a man responsible for her happiness is the second that she starts to push him away and then trouble could start to brew. Men and women are both equally responsible for their happiness in a relationship and it should never be lopsided.

    I won’t to lie to a woman on a date even if I know that I would never see her again. I might feel disappointed but I have to remind myself that I know at least my wallet is still safe. I have had dates with women who have great careers who have asked me how much was in my tax refund this year or how much is in my 401K. I have replied to them, “Why do you want to know you are already planning the alimony?” That silences them and I know there is nothing more to come from a date like that and I end up shutting it down. A part of me applauds these women for such an honest question even if it is superficial and the sign that my time is being wasted.

    We live in the 21st century and no matter how many advances women have made financially and in the workplace playing field where technology is the leveler, women can still benefit in their private lives from an archaic view that should have been tossed aside. Fair or unfair, right or wrong, this is how the rules are set up. And most women out there don’t have a problem with that at all because everything in the end of any relationship is beneficial to them and punitive to men.

    When people say the institution of marriage is in trouble, I tell people don’t blame the institution. Put the blame the industry that is undermining the institution. One time at a bar after work, I had a conversation with a woman who just came out of a bitter divorce and she old me that “Marriage is a right of passage that starts with the florist and ends with the divorce lawyer.” As jaded as she sounded, she had a very interesting point.

    Last year when the “Runaway Bride” from Georgia made headlines, I went to the mall to get a haircut. I walked to the reception desk and about 10 feet away from me was a woman in her late 20s who was a bridezilla on quaaludes. This drama “queen for a day” just had her hair done for her special day and was trying out how her veil train would fit. She was just making a total spectacle and embarrassment of herself. She was rude and insulting to her mother standing next to her while also berating and personally insulting the stylist who did her hair. Everyone working in the place looked like they were walking on eggshells at a funeral home. When I mentioned to the woman at the reception desk that I wanted a haircut, the bridezilla shouted at me, “Excuse me but I was there first.” So I replied, “Correct. You were standing here but now you are over there.” I turned away looking at the receptionist who said to me “she is just awful!”

    So after my haircut I walked around the mall for a half hour and as I walked past the food court, here comes the queen for a day, complete with veil train still in her hairdo, preening into the food court to stop and get ice cream. She orders her cone and then berates the girl working behind the counter. I just shook my head thinking it really is an industry and I pity the poor bastard who is marrying her.

    Go to any shopping mall across the country on a weekend that has a bridal expo where everyone from florists, tuxedo rentals, limo services, cosmetologists, hair stylists, DJs, travel agents with honeymoon packages, invitation printers, photographers, sketch artists, portrait painters, videographers, you name it have a booth set up to show displays and hand out business cards. It is out of control but then again I also believe in honesty. Why not have booths for local strip clubs set up for bachelor and bachelorette parties as well as divorce attorneys show up with booths to advertise their services as well?

    But how did marriage become such an industry? I think it really started to thrive, and it is hard to believe it was a quarter century ago, when the world woke up and turned on the Today show and saw a royal wedding. And I think a generation of girls growing up at that time watched it and decided that they wanted to have something similar. The end result was that many of these marriages ended up a car wreck and I don’t necessarily mean in a Mercedes underneath a tunnel in Paris. They were built on a foundation as flimsy as a deck of cards so once the “queen for a day” feeling wears off and reality sets in that the marriage was more than a photo album or a pro shot video pressed on DVD with bonus footage of her aunt and uncle drunk on the dance floor, then the length of the marriage can almost be measured finitely. There may as well be bookies present at the reception to set up wagers to see how long the marriage will last.

    The average cost of a wedding across the country is around $22,000. Where I live in NY, the average wedding is about twice that and about 5 years ago I opted out of attending a wedding which cost $60,000. From what I heard it was pretty lavish (and somewhat garish occasion) with all the trappings that also included a horse drawn carriage. Not a lot of people attended the reception which didn’t break even with all the money spent on it. The event was more like a glorified prom rather than a special occasion. I recently heard from a friend who attended that wedding that the marriage was on the rocks in less than 3 years. All I kept thinking was 60 grand was flushed away and what I would have and could have done with that kind of money.

    As long as there are women in their 20s who want to be queen for a day, this industry will continue to thrive as long as they have $20,000 plus of mom and dad’s money to spend. On the other hand I don’t think the industry in the abstract is vile but someone should issue a caveat to these women: The DJ or Limo driver could care less if your marriage lasts 2 years or 25 years, they just want to be paid!

    My point of view often offends some women out there but I don’t care. They might call me unromantic telling me that money doesn’t buy love but when the average wedding costs $22,000, please don’t tell me I am being unromantic when I say money IS buying love! Money doesn’t buy you happiness, but it can buy you everything else. Because men out there should be aware that if they don’t want to pay the price of a divorce in this day and age, don’t get married unless there is open discussion with your fiance. If there isn’t honest discussion, then don’t spend one minute more together than needed. That way a man won’t have to worry about standing in front of his family and friends as well as a Rabbi, Priest, Minister, Justice of the Peace or Buddhist Monk and make a vow he might not necessarily believe and will compromise him financially in the future.

  • George

    Chivalry isn’t dead, but feminism shot the horse between the eyes with a 12 gauge.

    How is that for being flippant? Feminism allows women to have it both ways. A disproportionate preponderance of women are not to be trusted because they know that if a man lies to them that they can reap the benefits of his lie financially. They are only ethical within themselves and can hold a man in a relationship hostage based on something that happened to them in a previous relationship.

    If a man marries a woman and he cheats on her later on, he has to pay her alimony because he broke a vow in front of God. But it doesn’t often work the other way around. Unfortunately these women don’t want honesty from men because if a man is honest with a woman at the beginning of any date, the chances of him seeing her again are next to nil.

    Judging by a lot of my past experiences I think that a woman would rather prefer that a man lie to them than be honest because she will always know she has the upper hand in the relationship. That is masochism and I simply refuse to live like that and I have friends and co workers who do. But what many women don’t understand is that the minute she makes a man responsible for her happiness is the second that she starts to push him away and then trouble could start to brew. Men and women are both equally responsible for their happiness in a relationship and it should never be lopsided.

    I won’t to lie to a woman on a date even if I know that I would never see her again. I might feel disappointed but I have to remind myself that I know at least my wallet is still safe. I have had dates with women who have great careers who have asked me how much was in my tax refund this year or how much is in my 401K. I have replied to them, “Why do you want to know you are already planning the alimony?” That silences them and I know there is nothing more to come from a date like that and I end up shutting it down. A part of me applauds these women for such an honest question even if it is superficial and the sign that my time is being wasted.

    We live in the 21st century and no matter how many advances women have made financially and in the workplace playing field where technology is the leveler, women can still benefit in their private lives from an archaic view that should have been tossed aside. Fair or unfair, right or wrong, this is how the rules are set up. And most women out there don’t have a problem with that at all because everything in the end of any relationship is beneficial to them and punitive to men.

    When people say the institution of marriage is in trouble, I tell people don’t blame the institution. Put the blame the industry that is undermining the institution. One time at a bar after work, I had a conversation with a woman who just came out of a bitter divorce and she old me that “Marriage is a right of passage that starts with the florist and ends with the divorce lawyer.” As jaded as she sounded, she had a very interesting point.

    Last year when the “Runaway Bride” from Georgia made headlines, I went to the mall to get a haircut. I walked to the reception desk and about 10 feet away from me was a woman in her late 20s who was a bridezilla on quaaludes. This drama “queen for a day” just had her hair done for her special day and was trying out how her veil train would fit. She was just making a total spectacle and embarrassment of herself. She was rude and insulting to her mother standing next to her while also berating and personally insulting the stylist who did her hair. Everyone working in the place looked like they were walking on eggshells at a funeral home. When I mentioned to the woman at the reception desk that I wanted a haircut, the bridezilla shouted at me, “Excuse me but I was there first.” So I replied, “Correct. You were standing here but now you are over there.” I turned away looking at the receptionist who said to me “she is just awful!”

    So after my haircut I walked around the mall for a half hour and as I walked past the food court, here comes the queen for a day, complete with veil train still in her hairdo, preening into the food court to stop and get ice cream. She orders her cone and then berates the girl working behind the counter. I just shook my head thinking it really is an industry and I pity the poor bastard who is marrying her.

    Go to any shopping mall across the country on a weekend that has a bridal expo where everyone from florists, tuxedo rentals, limo services, cosmetologists, hair stylists, DJs, travel agents with honeymoon packages, invitation printers, photographers, sketch artists, portrait painters, videographers, you name it have a booth set up to show displays and hand out business cards. It is out of control but then again I also believe in honesty. Why not have booths for local strip clubs set up for bachelor and bachelorette parties as well as divorce attorneys show up with booths to advertise their services as well?

    But how did marriage become such an industry? I think it really started to thrive, and it is hard to believe it was a quarter century ago, when the world woke up and turned on the Today show and saw a royal wedding. And I think a generation of girls growing up at that time watched it and decided that they wanted to have something similar. The end result was that many of these marriages ended up a car wreck and I don’t necessarily mean in a Mercedes underneath a tunnel in Paris. They were built on a foundation as flimsy as a deck of cards so once the “queen for a day” feeling wears off and reality sets in that the marriage was more than a photo album or a pro shot video pressed on DVD with bonus footage of her aunt and uncle drunk on the dance floor, then the length of the marriage can almost be measured finitely. There may as well be bookies present at the reception to set up wagers to see how long the marriage will last.

    The average cost of a wedding across the country is around $22,000. Where I live in NY, the average wedding is about twice that and about 5 years ago I opted out of attending a wedding which cost $60,000. From what I heard it was pretty lavish (and somewhat garish occasion) with all the trappings that also included a horse drawn carriage. Not a lot of people attended the reception which didn’t break even with all the money spent on it. The event was more like a glorified prom rather than a special occasion. I recently heard from a friend who attended that wedding that the marriage was on the rocks in less than 3 years. All I kept thinking was 60 grand was flushed away and what I would have and could have done with that kind of money.

    As long as there are women in their 20s who want to be queen for a day, this industry will continue to thrive as long as they have $20,000 plus of mom and dad’s money to spend. On the other hand I don’t think the industry in the abstract is vile but someone should issue a caveat to these women: The DJ or Limo driver could care less if your marriage lasts 2 years or 25 years, they just want to be paid!

    My point of view often offends some women out there but I don’t care. They might call me unromantic telling me that money doesn’t buy love but when the average wedding costs $22,000, please don’t tell me I am being unromantic when I say money IS buying love! Money doesn’t buy you happiness, but it can buy you everything else. Because men out there should be aware that if they don’t want to pay the price of a divorce in this day and age, don’t get married unless there is open discussion with your fiance. If there isn’t honest discussion, then don’t spend one minute more together than needed. That way a man won’t have to worry about standing in front of his family and friends as well as a Rabbi, Priest, Minister, Justice of the Peace or Buddhist Monk and make a vow he might not necessarily believe and will compromise him financially in the future.

  • fourthwire

    “Will Malven,

    You are a naive man, living in the twilight zone. Do you know how many married women have affairs, become pregnant, and then give birth to other men’s children? Plenty. And, if the unsuspecting husband supports this bastard child (immediately in Colorado, beyond two years in California), the state “tags” him as the father for 18 years. That’s why every married man should get a DNA test for EVERY child his wife bears.

    Women are NOT to be trusted, and the government has set it up that way. Women throw snowballs embedded with rocks, and the government supplies the rocks.

    If you want to get hit with these snowballs, do it. If you want to pay child support and vaginamony, instead of choosing abortion, have at it. It’s your choice.

    Don’t presume to preach to the rest of us.”

    Will, I agree with your post above so much that I only wish that I had written it myself.

    Concerning a wide variety of topics including domestic violence, paternity fraud, reproductive rape, false rape accusations, and more, individuals like Will Malven are flying their white flags, seemingly content to be fourth-class citizens in their own nations.

    Happily, those sorry individuals are becoming the exception, rather than the rule, as greater numbers of American men are heeding men like yourself, Tom Leykis, and any number of men’s rights activists.

    I’ve read Will Malven before, and tend to agree with much of his political works, but not necessarily his posts regarding social or reproductive issues.

    I suspect that his age is the culprit – that he’s unable to contend with those 21st century political and social realities that younger men face.

    It’s a bit like those World War I elderly generals, when facing stalemates and trench warfare, repeatedly sent massive frontal wave assaults at entrenched machine gun positions with their interlocking fields of fire……… because those generals were too old to think of any other options.

  • fourthwire

    “Will Malven,

    You are a naive man, living in the twilight zone. Do you know how many married women have affairs, become pregnant, and then give birth to other men’s children? Plenty. And, if the unsuspecting husband supports this bastard child (immediately in Colorado, beyond two years in California), the state “tags” him as the father for 18 years. That’s why every married man should get a DNA test for EVERY child his wife bears.

    Women are NOT to be trusted, and the government has set it up that way. Women throw snowballs embedded with rocks, and the government supplies the rocks.

    If you want to get hit with these snowballs, do it. If you want to pay child support and vaginamony, instead of choosing abortion, have at it. It’s your choice.

    Don’t presume to preach to the rest of us.”

    Will, I agree with your post above so much that I only wish that I had written it myself.

    Concerning a wide variety of topics including domestic violence, paternity fraud, reproductive rape, false rape accusations, and more, individuals like Will Malven are flying their white flags, seemingly content to be fourth-class citizens in their own nations.

    Happily, those sorry individuals are becoming the exception, rather than the rule, as greater numbers of American men are heeding men like yourself, Tom Leykis, and any number of men’s rights activists.

    I’ve read Will Malven before, and tend to agree with much of his political works, but not necessarily his posts regarding social or reproductive issues.

    I suspect that his age is the culprit – that he’s unable to contend with those 21st century political and social realities that younger men face.

    It’s a bit like those World War I elderly generals, when facing stalemates and trench warfare, repeatedly sent massive frontal wave assaults at entrenched machine gun positions with their interlocking fields of fire……… because those generals were too old to think of any other options.

  • fourthwire

    “Will Malven,

    You are a naive man, living in the twilight zone. Do you know how many married women have affairs, become pregnant, and then give birth to other men’s children? Plenty. And, if the unsuspecting husband supports this bastard child (immediately in Colorado, beyond two years in California), the state “tags” him as the father for 18 years. That’s why every married man should get a DNA test for EVERY child his wife bears.

    Women are NOT to be trusted, and the government has set it up that way. Women throw snowballs embedded with rocks, and the government supplies the rocks.

    If you want to get hit with these snowballs, do it. If you want to pay child support and vaginamony, instead of choosing abortion, have at it. It’s your choice.

    Don’t presume to preach to the rest of us.”

    Will, I agree with your post above so much that I only wish that I had written it myself.

    Concerning a wide variety of topics including domestic violence, paternity fraud, reproductive rape, false rape accusations, and more, individuals like Will Malven are flying their white flags, seemingly content to be fourth-class citizens in their own nations.

    Happily, those sorry individuals are becoming the exception, rather than the rule, as greater numbers of American men are heeding men like yourself, Tom Leykis, and any number of men’s rights activists.

    I’ve read Will Malven before, and tend to agree with much of his political works, but not necessarily his posts regarding social or reproductive issues.

    I suspect that his age is the culprit – that he’s unable to contend with those 21st century political and social realities that younger men face.

    It’s a bit like those World War I elderly generals, when facing stalemates and trench warfare, repeatedly sent massive frontal wave assaults at entrenched machine gun positions with their interlocking fields of fire……… because those generals were too old to think of any other options.

  • fourthwire

    “You know John and squiggy are right and all or the rest of you are arguing for the right to be irresponsible.”

    Actually, I know that John and squiggy are WRONG since their sort of “thinking” led to the sort of gender apartheid rampant in America today.

    Preaching “responsibility” is fine, provided that it’s done to both sexes.

    Holding one sex to a higher level of responsibility and to higher standards for behavior (which are precisely the case for boys and men in America) is NOT OK.

    And providing women with those old-fashioned notions of chivalry simply plays into the feminazis’ game of exploiting men while denying them equal civil, social, and reproductive rights.

    As mentioned previously, take away women’s current incentives to commit reproductive rape and their tendency to commit it will drop.

    “In addition keep your pants zipped up until you’re married (I know that this is an archaic concept, but it still works). Don’t get divorced.”

    Darned right it’s an archaic concept.

    Worse yet, it’s a downright sexist one since women aren’t required to “keep their pants zipped” given their multiple means of avoiding unwanted parenthood that are not available to men.

    I advocate to men that they not bother to marry at all, since that institution currrently provides ZERO benefits to men that are not also available to men WITHOUT marriage….. although it does provide plenty of RISKS to men.

    “The courts are always going to be more sympathetic to women because they actually do give birth. Get over it and grow up.”

    No, the courts will continue to be more sympathetic to men until men learn to ignore individuals like yourself and continue to make men’s rights a vocal issue.

    As for your asinine advice to “get over it and grow up”, perhaps you ought to try to remove your head from your rectum – you may enjoy living with inferior social, civil, and reproductive rights, but that’s not necessarily the choice of more intelligent, not to mention fair-minded individuals.

    Time to wake the hell up, Will – it’s the 21st century and men following your “advice” typically get their asses kicked in courts and legislatures by the feminazis and their beneficiaries.

  • fourthwire

    “You know John and squiggy are right and all or the rest of you are arguing for the right to be irresponsible.”

    Actually, I know that John and squiggy are WRONG since their sort of “thinking” led to the sort of gender apartheid rampant in America today.

    Preaching “responsibility” is fine, provided that it’s done to both sexes.

    Holding one sex to a higher level of responsibility and to higher standards for behavior (which are precisely the case for boys and men in America) is NOT OK.

    And providing women with those old-fashioned notions of chivalry simply plays into the feminazis’ game of exploiting men while denying them equal civil, social, and reproductive rights.

    As mentioned previously, take away women’s current incentives to commit reproductive rape and their tendency to commit it will drop.

    “In addition keep your pants zipped up until you’re married (I know that this is an archaic concept, but it still works). Don’t get divorced.”

    Darned right it’s an archaic concept.

    Worse yet, it’s a downright sexist one since women aren’t required to “keep their pants zipped” given their multiple means of avoiding unwanted parenthood that are not available to men.

    I advocate to men that they not bother to marry at all, since that institution currrently provides ZERO benefits to men that are not also available to men WITHOUT marriage….. although it does provide plenty of RISKS to men.

    “The courts are always going to be more sympathetic to women because they actually do give birth. Get over it and grow up.”

    No, the courts will continue to be more sympathetic to men until men learn to ignore individuals like yourself and continue to make men’s rights a vocal issue.

    As for your asinine advice to “get over it and grow up”, perhaps you ought to try to remove your head from your rectum – you may enjoy living with inferior social, civil, and reproductive rights, but that’s not necessarily the choice of more intelligent, not to mention fair-minded individuals.

    Time to wake the hell up, Will – it’s the 21st century and men following your “advice” typically get their asses kicked in courts and legislatures by the feminazis and their beneficiaries.

  • fourthwire

    “You know John and squiggy are right and all or the rest of you are arguing for the right to be irresponsible.”

    Actually, I know that John and squiggy are WRONG since their sort of “thinking” led to the sort of gender apartheid rampant in America today.

    Preaching “responsibility” is fine, provided that it’s done to both sexes.

    Holding one sex to a higher level of responsibility and to higher standards for behavior (which are precisely the case for boys and men in America) is NOT OK.

    And providing women with those old-fashioned notions of chivalry simply plays into the feminazis’ game of exploiting men while denying them equal civil, social, and reproductive rights.

    As mentioned previously, take away women’s current incentives to commit reproductive rape and their tendency to commit it will drop.

    “In addition keep your pants zipped up until you’re married (I know that this is an archaic concept, but it still works). Don’t get divorced.”

    Darned right it’s an archaic concept.

    Worse yet, it’s a downright sexist one since women aren’t required to “keep their pants zipped” given their multiple means of avoiding unwanted parenthood that are not available to men.

    I advocate to men that they not bother to marry at all, since that institution currrently provides ZERO benefits to men that are not also available to men WITHOUT marriage….. although it does provide plenty of RISKS to men.

    “The courts are always going to be more sympathetic to women because they actually do give birth. Get over it and grow up.”

    No, the courts will continue to be more sympathetic to men until men learn to ignore individuals like yourself and continue to make men’s rights a vocal issue.

    As for your asinine advice to “get over it and grow up”, perhaps you ought to try to remove your head from your rectum – you may enjoy living with inferior social, civil, and reproductive rights, but that’s not necessarily the choice of more intelligent, not to mention fair-minded individuals.

    Time to wake the hell up, Will – it’s the 21st century and men following your “advice” typically get their asses kicked in courts and legislatures by the feminazis and their beneficiaries.

  • fourthwire

    “Fourthwire, your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is “weak-minded” is pretty pathetic.”

    Focus, squiggy.

    I assume that you’re weak-minded NOT because I disagree with you but because your own assumptions (such as the one that I “hate women” are rather weak-minded.

    Try to keep up, if you can.

    “While I agree with you that a lot of women treat men like crap and abuse the legal system, I just don’t see where that matters to the child.”

    Indeed, quite a few women treat men like crap, and furthermore, those women don’t give a rat’s ass about their children……. otherwise they would only reproduce with men WHO ARE WILLING TO BE FATHERS.

    “And you could have kept your pants zipped up, now couldn’t you?”

    That same argument ought to hold true for women and men equally……. but if you were a bit brighter and more observant, you would notice that women’s superior reproductive rights DO NOT REQUIRE THAT THEY KEEP THEIR PANTS ZIPPED.

    And men ought to share those superior reproductive rights, no matter whether “geniuses” like yourself enjoy gender apartheid or not.

  • fourthwire

    “Fourthwire, your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is “weak-minded” is pretty pathetic.”

    Focus, squiggy.

    I assume that you’re weak-minded NOT because I disagree with you but because your own assumptions (such as the one that I “hate women” are rather weak-minded.

    Try to keep up, if you can.

    “While I agree with you that a lot of women treat men like crap and abuse the legal system, I just don’t see where that matters to the child.”

    Indeed, quite a few women treat men like crap, and furthermore, those women don’t give a rat’s ass about their children……. otherwise they would only reproduce with men WHO ARE WILLING TO BE FATHERS.

    “And you could have kept your pants zipped up, now couldn’t you?”

    That same argument ought to hold true for women and men equally……. but if you were a bit brighter and more observant, you would notice that women’s superior reproductive rights DO NOT REQUIRE THAT THEY KEEP THEIR PANTS ZIPPED.

    And men ought to share those superior reproductive rights, no matter whether “geniuses” like yourself enjoy gender apartheid or not.

  • fourthwire

    “Fourthwire, your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is “weak-minded” is pretty pathetic.”

    Focus, squiggy.

    I assume that you’re weak-minded NOT because I disagree with you but because your own assumptions (such as the one that I “hate women” are rather weak-minded.

    Try to keep up, if you can.

    “While I agree with you that a lot of women treat men like crap and abuse the legal system, I just don’t see where that matters to the child.”

    Indeed, quite a few women treat men like crap, and furthermore, those women don’t give a rat’s ass about their children……. otherwise they would only reproduce with men WHO ARE WILLING TO BE FATHERS.

    “And you could have kept your pants zipped up, now couldn’t you?”

    That same argument ought to hold true for women and men equally……. but if you were a bit brighter and more observant, you would notice that women’s superior reproductive rights DO NOT REQUIRE THAT THEY KEEP THEIR PANTS ZIPPED.

    And men ought to share those superior reproductive rights, no matter whether “geniuses” like yourself enjoy gender apartheid or not.

  • http://www.dontmakehermad.com/ dontmakehermad

    KateM:

    The choice to become a parent exists in all human beings. Refraining from sexual activity ensures 100% that you will not become a parent (except for paternity fraud).

    Using contraception can reduce your risks of becoming a parent, but then again the risk (however diminished) is still there if a pregnancy results from contraception that failed.

    Can we get back to the notion that once a child is brought into being, his parents should have no “rights” to kill or abandon him? Why do I keep hearing a chorus of men wishing they had the equal right (with women) to do just that? Why do so many men who advocate for this kind of child-hostile policy fail to visualize the poor kid to will be left behind, if and when such a “right” is ever exercised? This kind of policy ought not be seen as just another way for men to “level the legal playing field” with women. We are talking about lives here — the lives of children. And for what? The right to have an orgasm with no consequences? Since when did an orgasm take precedence over the needs of one’s own offspring?

    And as for those who simply say “well I never intended to become a parent, I just wanted to screw her; she tricked me” I say GROW UP. Either keep it in your pants, or accept the risks that come with sexual activity (namely that you risk becoming a parent, each and every time).

    John Dias
    Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com

  • http://www.dontmakehermad.com/ dontmakehermad

    KateM:

    The choice to become a parent exists in all human beings. Refraining from sexual activity ensures 100% that you will not become a parent (except for paternity fraud).

    Using contraception can reduce your risks of becoming a parent, but then again the risk (however diminished) is still there if a pregnancy results from contraception that failed.

    Can we get back to the notion that once a child is brought into being, his parents should have no “rights” to kill or abandon him? Why do I keep hearing a chorus of men wishing they had the equal right (with women) to do just that? Why do so many men who advocate for this kind of child-hostile policy fail to visualize the poor kid to will be left behind, if and when such a “right” is ever exercised? This kind of policy ought not be seen as just another way for men to “level the legal playing field” with women. We are talking about lives here — the lives of children. And for what? The right to have an orgasm with no consequences? Since when did an orgasm take precedence over the needs of one’s own offspring?

    And as for those who simply say “well I never intended to become a parent, I just wanted to screw her; she tricked me” I say GROW UP. Either keep it in your pants, or accept the risks that come with sexual activity (namely that you risk becoming a parent, each and every time).

    John Dias
    Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com

  • http://www.dontmakehermad.com/ dontmakehermad

    KateM:

    The choice to become a parent exists in all human beings. Refraining from sexual activity ensures 100% that you will not become a parent (except for paternity fraud).

    Using contraception can reduce your risks of becoming a parent, but then again the risk (however diminished) is still there if a pregnancy results from contraception that failed.

    Can we get back to the notion that once a child is brought into being, his parents should have no “rights” to kill or abandon him? Why do I keep hearing a chorus of men wishing they had the equal right (with women) to do just that? Why do so many men who advocate for this kind of child-hostile policy fail to visualize the poor kid to will be left behind, if and when such a “right” is ever exercised? This kind of policy ought not be seen as just another way for men to “level the legal playing field” with women. We are talking about lives here — the lives of children. And for what? The right to have an orgasm with no consequences? Since when did an orgasm take precedence over the needs of one’s own offspring?

    And as for those who simply say “well I never intended to become a parent, I just wanted to screw her; she tricked me” I say GROW UP. Either keep it in your pants, or accept the risks that come with sexual activity (namely that you risk becoming a parent, each and every time).

    John Dias
    Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com

  • KateM

    Is the question still should a man have the right to choose, just like a woman can, whether or not he wants to be a parent? If men could legally separate from a child or prospective one, just like a woman can, when he finds himself to be in the unfortunate position of having played a part in an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, perhaps selfish women would wake up. Far too many people have an “it is all about me attitude” and a classic example is a women deciding to have a child without a willing and wanting partner.

    What can we all do to see that men gain the same right women have to decide whether or not to become a parent?

  • KateM

    Is the question still should a man have the right to choose, just like a woman can, whether or not he wants to be a parent? If men could legally separate from a child or prospective one, just like a woman can, when he finds himself to be in the unfortunate position of having played a part in an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, perhaps selfish women would wake up. Far too many people have an “it is all about me attitude” and a classic example is a women deciding to have a child without a willing and wanting partner.

    What can we all do to see that men gain the same right women have to decide whether or not to become a parent?

  • KateM

    Is the question still should a man have the right to choose, just like a woman can, whether or not he wants to be a parent? If men could legally separate from a child or prospective one, just like a woman can, when he finds himself to be in the unfortunate position of having played a part in an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, perhaps selfish women would wake up. Far too many people have an “it is all about me attitude” and a classic example is a women deciding to have a child without a willing and wanting partner.

    What can we all do to see that men gain the same right women have to decide whether or not to become a parent?

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    Any man who can make a blanket statement and I quote you, “Women are NOT to be trusted,” is a woman hater. As an attitude, “that’s curious.”

    What the matter some girlie beat you up in the past?

    You fail to answer any of my response to your earlier attack on me. Your apparent goal is to gain approval for a contemptable and irresponsible lifestyle. You wish to sow without reaping (taking responsibility for your actions). Chivalry (fr. chevalier-knight) is not a creation of the women, it was an idea conceived of by Elizabethan men who believed in treating women with respect and dignity rather than as chattel.

    “The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.” American Heritage Dictionary

    Chivalry is dead only if men become what the feminist accuse us of being. Your whole patois is an ode to selfishness and self-centeredness. It is a product of the “me” generation attitude of what can I get out of life rather than what can I contribute to life.

    A man can be a man without denigrating women, and a man can be respectful of women without being cowed by them. With freedom comes responsibility.

    Good luck with it.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    Any man who can make a blanket statement and I quote you, “Women are NOT to be trusted,” is a woman hater. As an attitude, “that’s curious.”

    What the matter some girlie beat you up in the past?

    You fail to answer any of my response to your earlier attack on me. Your apparent goal is to gain approval for a contemptable and irresponsible lifestyle. You wish to sow without reaping (taking responsibility for your actions). Chivalry (fr. chevalier-knight) is not a creation of the women, it was an idea conceived of by Elizabethan men who believed in treating women with respect and dignity rather than as chattel.

    “The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.” American Heritage Dictionary

    Chivalry is dead only if men become what the feminist accuse us of being. Your whole patois is an ode to selfishness and self-centeredness. It is a product of the “me” generation attitude of what can I get out of life rather than what can I contribute to life.

    A man can be a man without denigrating women, and a man can be respectful of women without being cowed by them. With freedom comes responsibility.

    Good luck with it.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    Any man who can make a blanket statement and I quote you, “Women are NOT to be trusted,” is a woman hater. As an attitude, “that’s curious.”

    What the matter some girlie beat you up in the past?

    You fail to answer any of my response to your earlier attack on me. Your apparent goal is to gain approval for a contemptable and irresponsible lifestyle. You wish to sow without reaping (taking responsibility for your actions). Chivalry (fr. chevalier-knight) is not a creation of the women, it was an idea conceived of by Elizabethan men who believed in treating women with respect and dignity rather than as chattel.

    “The qualities idealized by knighthood, such as bravery, courtesy, honor, and gallantry toward women.” American Heritage Dictionary

    Chivalry is dead only if men become what the feminist accuse us of being. Your whole patois is an ode to selfishness and self-centeredness. It is a product of the “me” generation attitude of what can I get out of life rather than what can I contribute to life.

    A man can be a man without denigrating women, and a man can be respectful of women without being cowed by them. With freedom comes responsibility.

    Good luck with it.

  • http://TheNoNonsenseMan.com Marc Rudov

    Mr. Malven,

    You are yet another reader who has not read. You have such a vitriolic anti-abortion agenda, that, when you see the word “abortion” in print, you go nuts. You feel the need to teach us about murder.

    Had you read my article — really read it — you would have recognized that it isn’t about abortion. You are so blind to women, you cannot allow yourself to accept any criticism of them. That’s curious.

    I can accept criticism — when it’s apt and well-founded. So far, I haven’t seen any.

  • http://TheNoNonsenseMan.com Marc Rudov

    Mr. Malven,

    You are yet another reader who has not read. You have such a vitriolic anti-abortion agenda, that, when you see the word “abortion” in print, you go nuts. You feel the need to teach us about murder.

    Had you read my article — really read it — you would have recognized that it isn’t about abortion. You are so blind to women, you cannot allow yourself to accept any criticism of them. That’s curious.

    I can accept criticism — when it’s apt and well-founded. So far, I haven’t seen any.

  • http://TheNoNonsenseMan.com Marc Rudov

    Mr. Malven,

    You are yet another reader who has not read. You have such a vitriolic anti-abortion agenda, that, when you see the word “abortion” in print, you go nuts. You feel the need to teach us about murder.

    Had you read my article — really read it — you would have recognized that it isn’t about abortion. You are so blind to women, you cannot allow yourself to accept any criticism of them. That’s curious.

    I can accept criticism — when it’s apt and well-founded. So far, I haven’t seen any.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    Marc, you and those like you are the ones presuming to “preach.” It is you who are using the Courts to impose your beliefs on others. If you believe in abortion then pass a law allowing it. Stop using the courts to thwart the will of the people.

    “Do you know how many married” men “have affairs,” impregnate another woman and then abandon the child? Plenty. Talk about an empty argument…

    Your very statement convicts you as a woman-hater. For every woman how cheats on her husband, there is a man who is there betraying his brother man. How can you condemn the woman without condemning the man as well?

    I am not “naive” I am a realist and understand that what I say is not popular. That does not invalidate the truth of it.

    The “laissez faire” culture that you promote is one of the primary reasons for the decline of American society. Civilization imposes a thin veneer of morality on us because the system has proven its worth. It is that morality that separates us from rutting deer. If you wish to behave like animals, then do so. Just don’t pollute the sanctity of marriage by using it as a cover to engage in sex.

    And if you choose to spill your bile on the rest of us then you better be able to accept the criticism.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    Marc, you and those like you are the ones presuming to “preach.” It is you who are using the Courts to impose your beliefs on others. If you believe in abortion then pass a law allowing it. Stop using the courts to thwart the will of the people.

    “Do you know how many married” men “have affairs,” impregnate another woman and then abandon the child? Plenty. Talk about an empty argument…

    Your very statement convicts you as a woman-hater. For every woman how cheats on her husband, there is a man who is there betraying his brother man. How can you condemn the woman without condemning the man as well?

    I am not “naive” I am a realist and understand that what I say is not popular. That does not invalidate the truth of it.

    The “laissez faire” culture that you promote is one of the primary reasons for the decline of American society. Civilization imposes a thin veneer of morality on us because the system has proven its worth. It is that morality that separates us from rutting deer. If you wish to behave like animals, then do so. Just don’t pollute the sanctity of marriage by using it as a cover to engage in sex.

    And if you choose to spill your bile on the rest of us then you better be able to accept the criticism.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    Marc, you and those like you are the ones presuming to “preach.” It is you who are using the Courts to impose your beliefs on others. If you believe in abortion then pass a law allowing it. Stop using the courts to thwart the will of the people.

    “Do you know how many married” men “have affairs,” impregnate another woman and then abandon the child? Plenty. Talk about an empty argument…

    Your very statement convicts you as a woman-hater. For every woman how cheats on her husband, there is a man who is there betraying his brother man. How can you condemn the woman without condemning the man as well?

    I am not “naive” I am a realist and understand that what I say is not popular. That does not invalidate the truth of it.

    The “laissez faire” culture that you promote is one of the primary reasons for the decline of American society. Civilization imposes a thin veneer of morality on us because the system has proven its worth. It is that morality that separates us from rutting deer. If you wish to behave like animals, then do so. Just don’t pollute the sanctity of marriage by using it as a cover to engage in sex.

    And if you choose to spill your bile on the rest of us then you better be able to accept the criticism.

  • http://TheNoNonsenseMan.com Marc Rudov

    Will Malven,

    You are a naive man, living in the twilight zone. Do you know how many married women have affairs, become pregnant, and then give birth to other men’s children? Plenty. And, if the unsuspecting husband supports this bastard child (immediately in Colorado, beyond two years in California), the state “tags” him as the father for 18 years. That’s why every married man should get a DNA test for EVERY child his wife bears.

    Women are NOT to be trusted, and the government has set it up that way. Women throw snowballs embedded with rocks, and the government supplies the rocks.

    If you want to get hit with these snowballs, do it. If you want to pay child support and vaginamony, instead of choosing abortion, have at it. It’s your choice.

    Don’t presume to preach to the rest of us.

  • http://TheNoNonsenseMan.com Marc Rudov

    Will Malven,

    You are a naive man, living in the twilight zone. Do you know how many married women have affairs, become pregnant, and then give birth to other men’s children? Plenty. And, if the unsuspecting husband supports this bastard child (immediately in Colorado, beyond two years in California), the state “tags” him as the father for 18 years. That’s why every married man should get a DNA test for EVERY child his wife bears.

    Women are NOT to be trusted, and the government has set it up that way. Women throw snowballs embedded with rocks, and the government supplies the rocks.

    If you want to get hit with these snowballs, do it. If you want to pay child support and vaginamony, instead of choosing abortion, have at it. It’s your choice.

    Don’t presume to preach to the rest of us.

  • http://TheNoNonsenseMan.com Marc Rudov

    Will Malven,

    You are a naive man, living in the twilight zone. Do you know how many married women have affairs, become pregnant, and then give birth to other men’s children? Plenty. And, if the unsuspecting husband supports this bastard child (immediately in Colorado, beyond two years in California), the state “tags” him as the father for 18 years. That’s why every married man should get a DNA test for EVERY child his wife bears.

    Women are NOT to be trusted, and the government has set it up that way. Women throw snowballs embedded with rocks, and the government supplies the rocks.

    If you want to get hit with these snowballs, do it. If you want to pay child support and vaginamony, instead of choosing abortion, have at it. It’s your choice.

    Don’t presume to preach to the rest of us.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    You know John and squiggy are right and all or the rest of you are arguing for the right to be irresponsible.

    Abortion is premeditated murder, no more, no less (state sanctioned no less).

    If you don’t like the laws concerning peonage and parental rights, get off your duffs and start campaining to change them.

    In addition keep your pants zipped up until you’re married (I know that this is an archaic concept, but it still works). Don’t get divorced. I realize that in this society keeping your word is becoming passe, but too many people believe that quitting is the best alternative. Marriage is difficult. It requires hard work. Unless one or the other is intent on killing their spouse or children, work it out, or suffer the consequences.

    The courts are always going to be more sympathetic to women because they actually do give birth. Get over it and grow up.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    You know John and squiggy are right and all or the rest of you are arguing for the right to be irresponsible.

    Abortion is premeditated murder, no more, no less (state sanctioned no less).

    If you don’t like the laws concerning peonage and parental rights, get off your duffs and start campaining to change them.

    In addition keep your pants zipped up until you’re married (I know that this is an archaic concept, but it still works). Don’t get divorced. I realize that in this society keeping your word is becoming passe, but too many people believe that quitting is the best alternative. Marriage is difficult. It requires hard work. Unless one or the other is intent on killing their spouse or children, work it out, or suffer the consequences.

    The courts are always going to be more sympathetic to women because they actually do give birth. Get over it and grow up.

  • http://houstonconservative.com Will Malven

    You know John and squiggy are right and all or the rest of you are arguing for the right to be irresponsible.

    Abortion is premeditated murder, no more, no less (state sanctioned no less).

    If you don’t like the laws concerning peonage and parental rights, get off your duffs and start campaining to change them.

    In addition keep your pants zipped up until you’re married (I know that this is an archaic concept, but it still works). Don’t get divorced. I realize that in this society keeping your word is becoming passe, but too many people believe that quitting is the best alternative. Marriage is difficult. It requires hard work. Unless one or the other is intent on killing their spouse or children, work it out, or suffer the consequences.

    The courts are always going to be more sympathetic to women because they actually do give birth. Get over it and grow up.

  • pskurnick

    You know there has already been a sort of ‘real world’ test of making women responsible for their birth rates. When welfare reform stopped funding additional children while the mom was on the dole, additional births while on welfare dropped precipitously. Hmm what happens if we make non-welfare single women responsible for their birthrates?

  • pskurnick

    You know there has already been a sort of ‘real world’ test of making women responsible for their birth rates. When welfare reform stopped funding additional children while the mom was on the dole, additional births while on welfare dropped precipitously. Hmm what happens if we make non-welfare single women responsible for their birthrates?

  • pskurnick

    You know there has already been a sort of ‘real world’ test of making women responsible for their birth rates. When welfare reform stopped funding additional children while the mom was on the dole, additional births while on welfare dropped precipitously. Hmm what happens if we make non-welfare single women responsible for their birthrates?

  • Squiggy

    Fourthwire, your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is “weak-minded” is pretty pathetic.

    While I agree with you that a lot of women treat men like crap and abuse the legal system, I just don’t see where that matters to the child. He doesn’t care what she’s done to you. And he doesn’t deserve to be killed because you got screwed over.

    And you could have kept your pants zipped up, now couldn’t you?

    There, I’ve said my piece, now I’m out of this.

  • Squiggy

    Fourthwire, your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is “weak-minded” is pretty pathetic.

    While I agree with you that a lot of women treat men like crap and abuse the legal system, I just don’t see where that matters to the child. He doesn’t care what she’s done to you. And he doesn’t deserve to be killed because you got screwed over.

    And you could have kept your pants zipped up, now couldn’t you?

    There, I’ve said my piece, now I’m out of this.

  • Squiggy

    Fourthwire, your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is “weak-minded” is pretty pathetic.

    While I agree with you that a lot of women treat men like crap and abuse the legal system, I just don’t see where that matters to the child. He doesn’t care what she’s done to you. And he doesn’t deserve to be killed because you got screwed over.

    And you could have kept your pants zipped up, now couldn’t you?

    There, I’ve said my piece, now I’m out of this.

  • roger

    “Instead of abortions, hordes of women are selfishly and fraudulently choosing single motherhood—out of narcissism and for the child support.”

    This is absolutely correct.
    And any family law attorney can point to scores of cases where this is fact.

  • roger

    “Instead of abortions, hordes of women are selfishly and fraudulently choosing single motherhood—out of narcissism and for the child support.”

    This is absolutely correct.
    And any family law attorney can point to scores of cases where this is fact.

  • roger

    “Instead of abortions, hordes of women are selfishly and fraudulently choosing single motherhood—out of narcissism and for the child support.”

    This is absolutely correct.
    And any family law attorney can point to scores of cases where this is fact.

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    I turn my back for a few hours and look what happens! 19 comments before I am even aware of this article!
    There is a solution to this problem that does not involve murdering any unborn children or passing any new laws:
    Scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law!
    No one has the right to engage in armed robbery, extortion, or peonage, whether with or without the aid of tax funded tyrants.
    No one.
    It is a CRIME.
    Just as there is no excuse for domestic violence (since when do angry people need an excuse, he-he), neither is there any excuse for violating the Constitution of the United States and the 50 state constitutions.
    When we have family court judges violating the rest of the Constitution, we have a someone in Reno using the Second Amendment!
    Once we get that through everybody’s THICK skull, (and I don’t mean fast moving lead, but sometimes that what gets through your thick skull when nothing else does) we can begin to replace present insanity with a healthy regime of American freedom and family law.
    Is all of this so difficult for everyone to grasp? Seems pretty simple to me.

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    I turn my back for a few hours and look what happens! 19 comments before I am even aware of this article!
    There is a solution to this problem that does not involve murdering any unborn children or passing any new laws:
    Scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law!
    No one has the right to engage in armed robbery, extortion, or peonage, whether with or without the aid of tax funded tyrants.
    No one.
    It is a CRIME.
    Just as there is no excuse for domestic violence (since when do angry people need an excuse, he-he), neither is there any excuse for violating the Constitution of the United States and the 50 state constitutions.
    When we have family court judges violating the rest of the Constitution, we have a someone in Reno using the Second Amendment!
    Once we get that through everybody’s THICK skull, (and I don’t mean fast moving lead, but sometimes that what gets through your thick skull when nothing else does) we can begin to replace present insanity with a healthy regime of American freedom and family law.
    Is all of this so difficult for everyone to grasp? Seems pretty simple to me.

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    I turn my back for a few hours and look what happens! 19 comments before I am even aware of this article!
    There is a solution to this problem that does not involve murdering any unborn children or passing any new laws:
    Scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law!
    No one has the right to engage in armed robbery, extortion, or peonage, whether with or without the aid of tax funded tyrants.
    No one.
    It is a CRIME.
    Just as there is no excuse for domestic violence (since when do angry people need an excuse, he-he), neither is there any excuse for violating the Constitution of the United States and the 50 state constitutions.
    When we have family court judges violating the rest of the Constitution, we have a someone in Reno using the Second Amendment!
    Once we get that through everybody’s THICK skull, (and I don’t mean fast moving lead, but sometimes that what gets through your thick skull when nothing else does) we can begin to replace present insanity with a healthy regime of American freedom and family law.
    Is all of this so difficult for everyone to grasp? Seems pretty simple to me.

  • fourthwire

    Here’s randyf’s description from the message board associated with the child-support article on mensnewsdaily covering aspects of men’s rights including reproductive rape.

    I edited it a bit.

    1) Women can decide whether to support a child or not; present law gives no choice to men.

    Women’s legal rights involving reproduction include:

    abortion, abandonment (within 72 hrs.) adoption, keeping the child, and collecting child support.

    Men’s legal rights: The right to pay. Not necesssarily the right to see or be with his own child.

    Fight in court, hope to win even if not the father.

    In some cases men have been financially enslaved even though they were NOT even the biological father, for the “INTEREST OF THE CHILD”, or go to jail.

    The actual interests being served are not necessarily the child’s, of course.

    2) Child rearing is dominated by the female, who can withhold privileges from the father to even SEE his own children.

    Men who object can simply be fraudulently accused of domestic violence, spousal rape, or child abuse as a sure-fire pretext for assuming full custody of the child, the house, and more.

    3) Women are not held accountable for child support money spending. They can spend it on new clothing, shoes, makeup, spa, new boyfriends……. whatever the female wants to spend it on, unless hard abuse of the child can be proven.

    Walmart and Good Will for the kids’ needs. Neiman-Marcus for mom, though if she wants it.

    4) Men can be incarcerated in prison through unjust rulings in Family Court, such as not taking into account a father’s true income when determining child support.

    Women have garnered most of the civil, social, and reproductive rights and privileges in America.

    Guess who gets the responsibilities, though…..

    6) A bit off-topic but relevant to institutionalized misandry and even child abuse:

    Even female pedophiles are treated much differently than male pedophiles .

    Has anyone heard of a man being sentenced to house arrest after having sex on multiple occasions with a 14 year old?

    I haven’t.

    But there she was on TV (Debra Lefave), the child rapist, saying “he wanted it, I gave it to him”.

    Think that such a ploy would work in court for a male pedophile-teacher?

    She doesn’t have to serve a day in prison.

    Yet the hell-hags from NOW, who trot out tearful stories involving children whenever doing so will further their goal of winning more rights and privileges for women at the expense of men’s rights and privileges are curiously silent about Debra Lefave’s case.

  • fourthwire

    Here’s randyf’s description from the message board associated with the child-support article on mensnewsdaily covering aspects of men’s rights including reproductive rape.

    I edited it a bit.

    1) Women can decide whether to support a child or not; present law gives no choice to men.

    Women’s legal rights involving reproduction include:

    abortion, abandonment (within 72 hrs.) adoption, keeping the child, and collecting child support.

    Men’s legal rights: The right to pay. Not necesssarily the right to see or be with his own child.

    Fight in court, hope to win even if not the father.

    In some cases men have been financially enslaved even though they were NOT even the biological father, for the “INTEREST OF THE CHILD”, or go to jail.

    The actual interests being served are not necessarily the child’s, of course.

    2) Child rearing is dominated by the female, who can withhold privileges from the father to even SEE his own children.

    Men who object can simply be fraudulently accused of domestic violence, spousal rape, or child abuse as a sure-fire pretext for assuming full custody of the child, the house, and more.

    3) Women are not held accountable for child support money spending. They can spend it on new clothing, shoes, makeup, spa, new boyfriends……. whatever the female wants to spend it on, unless hard abuse of the child can be proven.

    Walmart and Good Will for the kids’ needs. Neiman-Marcus for mom, though if she wants it.

    4) Men can be incarcerated in prison through unjust rulings in Family Court, such as not taking into account a father’s true income when determining child support.

    Women have garnered most of the civil, social, and reproductive rights and privileges in America.

    Guess who gets the responsibilities, though…..

    6) A bit off-topic but relevant to institutionalized misandry and even child abuse:

    Even female pedophiles are treated much differently than male pedophiles .

    Has anyone heard of a man being sentenced to house arrest after having sex on multiple occasions with a 14 year old?

    I haven’t.

    But there she was on TV (Debra Lefave), the child rapist, saying “he wanted it, I gave it to him”.

    Think that such a ploy would work in court for a male pedophile-teacher?

    She doesn’t have to serve a day in prison.

    Yet the hell-hags from NOW, who trot out tearful stories involving children whenever doing so will further their goal of winning more rights and privileges for women at the expense of men’s rights and privileges are curiously silent about Debra Lefave’s case.

  • fourthwire

    Here’s randyf’s description from the message board associated with the child-support article on mensnewsdaily covering aspects of men’s rights including reproductive rape.

    I edited it a bit.

    1) Women can decide whether to support a child or not; present law gives no choice to men.

    Women’s legal rights involving reproduction include:

    abortion, abandonment (within 72 hrs.) adoption, keeping the child, and collecting child support.

    Men’s legal rights: The right to pay. Not necesssarily the right to see or be with his own child.

    Fight in court, hope to win even if not the father.

    In some cases men have been financially enslaved even though they were NOT even the biological father, for the “INTEREST OF THE CHILD”, or go to jail.

    The actual interests being served are not necessarily the child’s, of course.

    2) Child rearing is dominated by the female, who can withhold privileges from the father to even SEE his own children.

    Men who object can simply be fraudulently accused of domestic violence, spousal rape, or child abuse as a sure-fire pretext for assuming full custody of the child, the house, and more.

    3) Women are not held accountable for child support money spending. They can spend it on new clothing, shoes, makeup, spa, new boyfriends……. whatever the female wants to spend it on, unless hard abuse of the child can be proven.

    Walmart and Good Will for the kids’ needs. Neiman-Marcus for mom, though if she wants it.

    4) Men can be incarcerated in prison through unjust rulings in Family Court, such as not taking into account a father’s true income when determining child support.

    Women have garnered most of the civil, social, and reproductive rights and privileges in America.

    Guess who gets the responsibilities, though…..

    6) A bit off-topic but relevant to institutionalized misandry and even child abuse:

    Even female pedophiles are treated much differently than male pedophiles .

    Has anyone heard of a man being sentenced to house arrest after having sex on multiple occasions with a 14 year old?

    I haven’t.

    But there she was on TV (Debra Lefave), the child rapist, saying “he wanted it, I gave it to him”.

    Think that such a ploy would work in court for a male pedophile-teacher?

    She doesn’t have to serve a day in prison.

    Yet the hell-hags from NOW, who trot out tearful stories involving children whenever doing so will further their goal of winning more rights and privileges for women at the expense of men’s rights and privileges are curiously silent about Debra Lefave’s case.

  • http://TheNoNonsenseMan.com Marc Rudov

    Squiggy, it is obvious that you don’t pay child support. Get off your hypocrisy soapbox.

    Again, this article is NOT about abortion — if you read it carefully. Did you?

    If you are so concerned about killing babies, tell all your DNA-terrorist sisters to get tubal ligations. Then, they can’t get pregnant and foist their responsibilities onto men.

    You can’t buy a car unless you can finance it. Yet, society gives women permission to “buy” babies but force men to pay for them.

    A DNA terrorist — a miscreant mom — is akin to a person who steals my car and then, with the help of the legal system, forces me to buy it back, over 18 years. Somehow, this arrangement is acceptable to women. Why not? It appeals to their sense of “fairness.”

  • http://TheNoNonsenseMan.com Marc Rudov

    Squiggy, it is obvious that you don’t pay child support. Get off your hypocrisy soapbox.

    Again, this article is NOT about abortion — if you read it carefully. Did you?

    If you are so concerned about killing babies, tell all your DNA-terrorist sisters to get tubal ligations. Then, they can’t get pregnant and foist their responsibilities onto men.

    You can’t buy a car unless you can finance it. Yet, society gives women permission to “buy” babies but force men to pay for them.

    A DNA terrorist — a miscreant mom — is akin to a person who steals my car and then, with the help of the legal system, forces me to buy it back, over 18 years. Somehow, this arrangement is acceptable to women. Why not? It appeals to their sense of “fairness.”

  • http://TheNoNonsenseMan.com Marc Rudov

    Squiggy, it is obvious that you don’t pay child support. Get off your hypocrisy soapbox.

    Again, this article is NOT about abortion — if you read it carefully. Did you?

    If you are so concerned about killing babies, tell all your DNA-terrorist sisters to get tubal ligations. Then, they can’t get pregnant and foist their responsibilities onto men.

    You can’t buy a car unless you can finance it. Yet, society gives women permission to “buy” babies but force men to pay for them.

    A DNA terrorist — a miscreant mom — is akin to a person who steals my car and then, with the help of the legal system, forces me to buy it back, over 18 years. Somehow, this arrangement is acceptable to women. Why not? It appeals to their sense of “fairness.”

← Older Comments
Newer Comments →







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search

RSS Amy Alkon

RSS Donna Laframboise