|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 01, @11:41AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with bolth Men should be responsible and these women should'nt be so stupid ! The problem is people think they have to have sex! And the consiquences are like most everything else some one elses fault!!
Craig
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 01, @11:55AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
It doesn't seem to take in to account the fact that alot of these women DON'T WANT a man around.
We've all been told the last 30 plus years that; "Men are obsolete", "Women need men like fish need bicycles.", "Men are evil." "ALL sex is rape." "Women can have it all." "Single motherhood is great.", blah, blah, blah.
Yes too many men DO "screw and run". But remember, Men have been conditioned to beleive the SAME THINGS that women have.
Yes, children are victims here. But the truth is EVERYONE is a victim, here. All because of the feminist-media propaganda gender war that we now face.
END this and I believe the problem will be on it's way to healing. 'don't know how many generations it will take, but the sooner we end all this the sooner it WILL heal...!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 01, @11:59AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Go ahead, preach responsibility. But just say no to the government forcing a man to be a "hero" (pay "child support" for 18 years) just because he had sex. Being a coward or being a hero requires some choice. Men have no choice!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 02, @11:25AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Go ahead, preach responsibility. But just say no to the government forcing a man to be a "hero" (pay "child support" for 18 years) just because he had sex. Being a coward or being a hero requires some choice. Men have no choice!
This of course is the choice for men argument that reaches back into Marxist thought to teach the destruction of the family unit. It is because of the Marxist roots of this thinking that I oppose the choice for men concept except within a narrow range. That range is:
1) Men should have the choice to get a DNA test. In 98% of the cases men refuse to exercise that choice and whine when they learn that they were defrauded
2) Men have the choice to use a condom, abstain from sex, or to take responsibility. They need to stop whining if this form of birth control fails.
3) Men should have the choice to use safe-heaven laws just like mothers.
4) Men should exercise their choice to denounce the free-love socialist values. Currently, the choice for men crowd is rooted in the free-love socialist crowd when they advocate abandoning their children.
All of this other stuff about males having choice is just furthering the Marxist-Feminist agenda of the destruction of the family, and it promotes having the state treating the children as their property.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This of course is the choice for men argument that reaches back into Marxist thought to teach the destruction of the family unit. It is because of the Marxist roots of this thinking that I oppose the choice for men concept except within a narrow range.
Your straw man is burning quite badly.
1) Men should have the choice to get a DNA test. In 98% of the cases men refuse to exercise that choice and whine when they learn that they were defrauded
I'm in favour of mandatory DNA testing at birth, that would help to solve this problem.
2) Men have the choice to use a condom, abstain from sex, or to take responsibility. They need to stop whining if this form of birth control fails.
Translation: It's choice for her, checks from him.
3) Men should have the choice to use safe-heaven laws just like mothers.
It would help, won't solve the problem through.
4) Men should exercise their choice to denounce the free-love socialist values. Currently, the choice for men crowd is rooted in the free-love socialist crowd when they advocate abandoning their children.
Abandoning kids? tell me, why do you hold the nearest man to a higher standard than the nearest woman? I mean, you don't hold men to a higher standard because you have great faith in women do you?
All of this other stuff about males having choice is just furthering the Marxist-Feminist agenda of the destruction of the family, and it promotes having the state treating the children as their property.
You don't a clue do ya? here's a hint:
This entire debate is over forcing the nearest man, either through the state or through mommy-support to pay for unwanted kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 02, @02:21PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
You don't a clue do ya? here's a hint:
This entire debate is over forcing the nearest man, either through the state or through mommy-support to pay for unwanted kids.
Actually you are quite mistaken. The Marxist-Feminist state called the Soviet Union started the craze for massive abortion in the early 1900's. This resulted in a free-love climate similar to what we experienced in the 60-70's.
They also eliminated bastardization laws and promoted the destruction of the traditional family under the direction of feminism.
Further, there was a massive increase in the number of homeless children because men had CHOICE to abandon their children. The result was over 7 MILLION homeless children that MEN ABANDONED using C4M ideals. C4M wants to have the same privilege to abandon children as their evil Soviet Union counterparts.
Today, we have the same free-love disaster that resulted in the Soviet Union. There can be no question but that the U.S. free-love disaster has resulted in a major disaster for children.
What the free-love C4M crowd wants is the same freedom to destroy children as the early 1900's Soviet Male.
I oppose this practice as a Marxist-Feminist one. Nobody should be permitted to have sex without consequence. That means that females should not have the right to use abortion as birth control to slaughter viable children.
I know there are some males that want the same right to slaughter or abandon those viable fetuses. However, I oppose this as nothing more than a Marxist-Feminist ideal that was introduced in the Soviet Union and later adopted by the American Communist Free-Love crowd.
I know who the C4M crowd is and where they came from. I know where their ideals have originated and have already seen the results of their values by studying Soviet history. We would be wise to not repeat history. Our children deserve better.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 02, @05:36PM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
If you mean places (fire stations, hospitals) where parents could drop off a child and thereafter be free of all responsibilities, why should he be responsible for the child if the mother decides to keep it but not be responsible for the child if both he and the mother want to be free of it?
The ideal has been proven that a children needs a mother and a father in a (married) family setting. Any other combination is less than ideal, and it does not address the best interest of societies children.
So, if either the mother or father want to surrender the child under safe-heaven laws then let either one do it. That allows equal choice for the mother and men. Note that currently, the mother is able to surrender the child without the permission of the father. All I'm saying is that the father should have that equal right, and this will assure that the children are placed into a family where there are both parents (hetero).
All other combinations and forms of C4M have been tested in the Soviet Union and been proven to be evil failures that harm children.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, Warble, Warble. WaadammigonnaDOwitchyou. You can dislike the C4M crowd if you want. I don't know them and perhaps your personal feeelings are involved here.
But let's consider your proposals a little more thoroughly, shall we?
1) Men should have the choice to get a DNA test.
Now where I live (NJ), the DNA test doesn't amount to a damn thing. An heir to a very well know band-aid company has found himself in just such a situation, has had the DNA test, and it has been disregarded by the state. So in effect, the State of New Jersey has legalized paternity fraud.
2) Men have the choice to use a condom, abstain from sex, or to take responsibility.
Yes, and that's all the choice they have. Women, on the other hand, can choose from a multitude of birth control methods, and they can choose to abort. And have you forgotten that, as far as absention is concerned, women have the same choice? Men are not wholly responsible for the choice to have sex or the subsequent risk of pregnancy, in case you've forgotten. Worse yet, a man who chooses such a risk and ends up becoming a father is denied his right to parent as is the child denied his/her right to have a father.
3) Men should have the choice to use safe-heaven laws just like mothers.
Just tell me, how is this practical? Isn't just what the C4M crowd is, in effect, saying?
4) Men should exercise their choice to denounce the free-love socialist values. Currently, the choice for men crowd is rooted in the free-love socialist crowd when they advocate abandoning their children.
That's not what I understand to be the truth. They do advocate being relieved of laws and judgements that impose unreasonable support leins. In fact, most of the fathers of these children I've been in contact with fully intend to support the children in question after the fact. They just cannot accommodate the draconian enforcement methods.
All of this other stuff about males having choice is just furthering the Marxist-Feminist agenda of the destruction of the family, and it promotes having the state treating the children as their property
You're presuming that the economic solution to the loss of support ends up being the burden of the state. You should make no such assumption. As noted above, many fathers would support their kids, but the current means of assigning child support is unreasonable, even for willing fathers. The intent here is to recognize that mom has responsibilities, not just rights. How many women find themselves pregnant and then dismiss the father only to take him to court for child support. I personally know one woman who did just this, and from all my conversations with her, I can tell you that she leads me to believe that it's common practice.
The real destruction of the family isn't coming from illegitimate (OOPS! I mean out-of-wedlock) births. It's coming from no-fault divorce and the "empowerment of women" who thereby believe that it isn't necessary to keep father as part of the family, that is, as long as they can get the courts to squeeze him for the money and the house.
The US Constitution makes no distinction between men and women, at least not anymore. And yet it carries this distant thing called the Fourteenth Amendment, that simply says that everyone should be treated equally under the law.
I hardly regard that as Marxist-Feminist, or any kind of socialist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 02, @05:48PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
3) Men should have the choice to use safe-heaven laws just like mothers.
Just tell me, how is this practical? Isn't just what the C4M crowd is, in effect, saying....
No. They have no such argument. They want to be able to abandon a child anytime prior to birth and permit a mother as a single parent to raise the child.
That has proven to be utterly disastrous to children. It is evil for America and the C4M crowd to support these selfish women and men when we have history in the Soviet Union that demonstrates the social disasters that result from their evil arguments.
A child needs both parents. Period. There may be exceptions but they should not be the rule. America should not encourage a growth in divorce or single parent-hood. The C4M crowd is nothing more than a free-love group that has ignorantly adopted a Marxist-Feminist Soviet Union argument. We only need to read up on history to find they are embracing a great evil.
Finally, now that we have the highest rate of increase and percentage of the prison population in the world, America knows without a doubt that a great evil has been done to the family and children. It is children that the C4M crowd wants to experiment upon even though they know of the Soviet disaster that resulted in 7 million homeless children.
The C4M crowd denies and lies about these facts. They also resort to sophistry to sell their convoluted arguments. If they were intellectually honest then they would admit that all of their proposed C4M arguments have been proven to be social disasters. Unfortunately, they are in denial and lie.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 02, @05:55PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
The real destruction of the family isn't coming from illegitimate (OOPS! I mean out-of-wedlock) births. It's coming from no-fault divorce and the "empowerment of women" who thereby believe that it isn't necessary to keep father as part of the family, that is, as long as they can get the courts to squeeze him for the money and the house.
That is half of the problem that we can thank Reagan the CA Gov. for starting. This single man did more to destroy the American family than any other individual in American history when he signed no-fault divorce into law.
The other half is America black robe totalitarians that have seized power from the judicial branch, and created a law that permits women to use abortion as a form of birth control.
The US Constitution makes no distinction between men and women, at least not anymore. And yet it carries this distant thing called the Fourteenth Amendment, that simply says that everyone should be treated equally under the law.
Note that there would be no unequal treatment if the abortion slaughter were stopped.....
That is the problem with the C4M crowd. They fail to acknowledge that rights cannot be derived from great evils. In this case, we have a rogue branch of government that has created a major human holocaust in the form of abortions. Now the C4M crowd comes along with their Marxist-Feminist style arguments and they want an equal right to participate in the holocaust. NOT! There can be no such thing and an equal right to increase the magnitude of a holocaust.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The quote below is very wrong.
"Worst of all, the man may have his night in bed but he may never have his day in court. Because, the way the law enforcement system works it seems that the man is never held responsible for his part in the pregnancy---even if they can find him".
Oh really? Where has this guy been? I guess he has never been hounded by the cs gestapo. These women know they will get child support, welfare etc. They also have complete control over birth control. Many times they will lie about this to a man. You see when you can collect 25% of one mans income, why not have three or four daddys and get the same money as a full time job. Not to mention this money is all tax free. Then you can collect the earned income credit and the rest of the tax breaks. Low income housing is available since child support does not count as income, medical benefits etc. Does this fool really think the man will not be held responsible? Do you really think these women would continue having children if they would get nothing? What a load of crap. He will have his day in court, but everything will be against him visitation, custody etc.
borgy1
anoother man destroyed by false accusations.
The New Inquisition a website for the falsely accused of abuse http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/grenada/776
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 02, @11:28AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I guess he has never been hounded by the cs gestapo. These women know they will get child support, welfare etc. They also have complete control over birth control. Many times they will lie about this to a man. You see when you can collect 25% of one mans income, why not have three or four daddys and get the same money as a full time job. Not to mention this money is all tax free. Then you can collect the earned income credit and the rest of the tax breaks. Low income housing is available since child support does not count as income, medical benefits etc.
All of this of course originated in the Soviet Union, and the conservative hero Reagon started the U.S. down this road when he signed the first no-fault divorse law into affect.
Now the U.S. has duplicated almost every key Marxist-Feminist family law throughout the U.S..
Too bad that the country is so corrupt that they will not fight this evil.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 02, @01:18PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
You got that right, Warb.
Thundercloud.
"hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given that people have casual sex, given that women can opt for an abortion almost any time ("My body, my business"), it's remarkable that men should be held responsible at all. If women decide to go ahead with a pregnancy that resulted from a booty call, the onus should be on them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So true! I wonder how many fewer single moms there would be if mothers and their children borne out of wedlock were entitled to no more fiscal compensation than the proven father was willing to give of his own volition...
Wonder how many more 'poor folks' would start getting married instead of questing after welfare?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why isn't there a form that a man and a woman can sign to release the man from responsibillity from the booty call. Why is it the man is responsible for the womens decision to keep the baby. This isn't fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 02, @08:19AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
her choice. I don't know if I owned a womb I'd keep my legs closed if I didn't want to support a child. It's a women's choice, it's the women that gets pregnant why should any man be held responsible for what a women chooses to do with her own body?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday February 02, @11:21AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. It's the woman's choice to get pregnant. It's the woman's choice to remain pregnant. The State has no right to enforce a man to observe the traditional duties of fatherhood ever since they abolishe the traditional privileges associated with fatherhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have read both sides of the C4M and the "Child Needs both Parents" debate. I admit, I had not heard such good arguments for the "Child" side of the debate. Here is my take on it, for what it's worth.
There needs to be one standard for all parents. Men cannot force a woman to get an abortion. I loathe abortion, but it's the law of the land (no matter how misguided). Does a child need both parents? Sure, but the "Child" argument is supported by women only when convenient. And the "choice" (for women) is supported only when convenient. Nowhere in the mainstream debate is the C4M argument even mentioned, and if we have choices for women, it follows that there must be choices for men.
The arguments against this are as follows (feel free to correct me)
1) A man cannot leave his child unsupported. A child does eat an argument nor live in a political movement. Fair enough, but if that is the case than the "no shame, no blame, no name" program makes criminals out of men while absolving women. A clear violation of our supposedly gender "blind" laws. If a child can count on a gov't to feed an orphan due to a woman's choice, than so then does the arguement ring true for a man's choice. The government enforces child support monies paid out that are in excess of what it ITSELF deems necessary when the gov't is the provider. Also, if the mother is so unable to support the child, let the default judgement be to give the father first choice in the custody, and let the mother show her devotion through monetary support. It IS the child this argument was based on.
2) He played he pays. If this carries weight then there can be no abortion as a "choice". Only in cases of rape, incest, or a VERIFIABLE IMMEDIATE threat to a woman's life should a "choice" be allowed. We cannot have a RIGHT, immediate and binding, that allows one to choose, but makes another pay for their choice. If she can choose to carry to term, abort, or give for adoption only 1 of the three governs a single person's body. The other two are parenting decisions. Since one parent may terminate those responsibilities at any given time it would violate our 14th amendment to violate a man's rights claimed under the same protection.
3) If we let men off the hook there will be millions of women and children without support. If this is such a dire need than perhaps the default judgement should be to the parent most able to financially support the child. And the arguement ignores the millions of men paying for children that are not their own. It's not apples and oranges. These men may have families of their own, but the law makes not provision for them. These children, who mother's advocates scream about responsibility are curiously (or not) quiet about maternal responsibility when "no shame, no blame, no names" or paternity fraud are brought into play.
4) Moving the child to the father hurts the child. Does it indeed? Says who? The mother? And if we want to start that argument we had better start charging CPS with abuse (that argument is to easy). The argument is very convenient for a woman, and makes it almost impossible for a man to get custody. We move children in this country every day. Why not move the child to the financially more productive parent, releive the mother of her "burden", let her pay support (she DOES love the child right? "best interest of the child"), and let her trust the father to allow visitation. The opposite is already true, so it MUST be fair under the law. And if anyone complains about a father using daycare instead of being at home ... I suggest that person consult with women making 100K a year and see who THEY use and if THEY should have their children yanked away. This argument just died a quick death.
Men SHOULD have the same choices as women. Women abort for all sorts of reasons (I think it's wrong, but THEY fought for their cake - let em eat it). Sometimes not wanting children yet, (too much responsibility) not being financially ready (maybe dad isn't either), career (maybe his is important too), and for "personal" reasons (he may have those too). When it comes down to the fact that a CHILD needs both parents, fine and well spoken: LETS ENFORCE and DE-GENDERIZE the LAW. I will not say "until them let's just worry about 'me'" ... why? Because it is that same attitude that "feminists" (my choices = your bill) think, and when it comes down to it, ... I AM a man. I want to pay for a child that is MINE (all bets are off if it aint), but if it IS mine, so then is it my INALIENABLE right to be in that child's life. To shape, guide, love, chide, nurture, and simply spend time with that part of me. When I have no rights, but am required to work for you and your well being and your wants: I am just your slave. It's called tyranny.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas,
I talk to some men in the military about what I post about. My politics are no secret. But remember, even in my, just recently, all male unit, PC rules apply. So, everyone KNOWS but I don't advertise. Some are interested (somewhat) but many are not. It's like it has been discussed her before, until a man gets burned he sees little use for the movement. It's just how men are wired. So at work I walk a fine line. Everyone knows that I post, write articles (my name is never used for obvious reasons), and am willing to talk, but mostly they know and let me alone.
Also, a few months ago a I got into a E-mail pissing contest with a "feminist" about the "wage gap". It was only 3 E-mails from me and 3 from her. I basically shredded her argument on a BBS and it really pissed her off. I sent her a very nice E-mail ("sorry we disagree, blah blah blah, hope to see you on the BBS soon"). Soon she had e-mailed me soem snitty response and I then responded the same. 1 more time for each of us and that was the end. At least for me. She took my E-mails (where the worst name I called her was "cup cake") and mailed them to H.Q. of the Army and made it sound like I was stalking her (she conveniently left out my very nice first E-mail). Just because we got into an arguement and she was embaressed she tried to shred my 14 year career.
Why do I mention all this? Because the guys in my office know it too. Soooooo, it puts a chill on getting them interested when they see things like that.
Steven
Guerilla Gender Warfare is just Hate Speech in polite text
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Holy crap, she did that? What a bitch! What is a BBS, and how did she know where your HQ was?
Damn. TBQ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 03, @01:11PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
She took my E-mails (where the worst name I called her was "cup cake") and mailed them to H.Q. of the Army and made it sound like I was stalking her (she conveniently left out my very nice first E-mail). Just because we got into an arguement and she was embaressed she tried to shred my 14 year career.
Marxist-Feminism 101 - Rule #1:
When loosing an argument make false allegations to destroy the opponent. It is unacceptable for any masculist to win in politics or debate.
Warble
[
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday February 03, @01:20PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
There needs to be one standard for all parents. Men cannot force a woman to get an abortion. I loathe abortion, but it's the law of the land (no matter how misguided). Does a child need both parents? Sure, but the "Child" argument is supported by women only when convenient.
Very good arguments, but they have a fundamental flaw at the foundation.
The truth is that men & women can force pregnant women to get an abortion, if the law of the land permits the practice. We only need to look to China to see that forced abortions are SOP. Yet few would dispute that there is a human right violation when an abortion is forced, but it is the law of the land.
Likewise, just because a person can get an abortion because it is "the law of the land" doesn't mean that the C4M group is justified in compounding the holocaust of abortions by demanding a perverted form of choice.
Humans will never be able to derive "rights" from human holocaust, and there are always consequences when a holocaust takes place. It is only a matter of time till America feels the consequences of their holocaust. That day is inevitable and cannot be avoided. We will experience the fallout within our lifetimes.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think that C4M is asking for is that women stop asking men to fund their choices. Conception is more controllable by women. Condoms have a higher failure rate and make sex less enjoyable for men. It makes sence that women on the pill be the one using contraception. However, if she has said she was on the pill and A lied or B missed a day or two and fails to tell her partner, then that partner should not have to pay if he chooses to not be a father, just as she chooses not to pay by aborting or adopting. If you think that leaves men off scott free that is playing into the stereotype that men feel nothing for unborn children. An abortion or adoption is hard on both. Yes, more so physically on the woman, but then she has the choice. To abort or adopt. The man has not those choices. By giving him the right to opt out of parenthood, at the SAME time as allowing 50/50 shared custody for fathers who want to be in their childrens lives, and requiring DNA tests, after a few years I believe you will find things better. I truly believe that when things are more difficult for a woman by herself, then she will work harder not to get pregant. Right now it is too easy for a woman to get pregant and either live off the father's child support or welfare. If those options were not there, then perhaps people would think twice. Also, if the fathers could actually BE In their childrens lives, not just visiting, then more fathers would be willing to parent their children.
This is a very difficult issue. What do you think the solution is, Warble? You have mentioned the problems, do you have any ideas? The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your personal views on abortion aside it is a right supported by our laws, so the ability to opt out of being a parent (both financially and emotionally) should also be available to Men. I do not believe C4M is demanding anymore than what women currently have as choices.
I believe the Men's Right movement is centered around the idealogy of equal rights for both sexes?
While honestly I personally could give a damn about the father's that have lost thier children to women, I do care about the issue of choice. As father's rights fall under men's rights, though, I do happen to care and will support it as its a way to show support to the movement itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"While honestly I personally could give a damn about the father's that have lost thier children to women, I do care about the issue of choice."
NextEntity, how could you not care? That was about the most callous, unfeeling thing I have ever heard on this board. It is your right to say it, but damn.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Apologies on the harshness of the words, but the words towards one the largest issues that I do care about within the mens rights movement were harsh as well.
Responsibility has nothing to do with choice. The only choice for men is total abstinance and no drinking whatsoever, yet people I would expect to be supportive of choice for men are bashing it here of all places.
Basically by stating the words I did in the harsh way I did I hoped it would bring into focus that numbers of people whom care about something will help get change promoted and sabatoging something that is important to one section of the mens right movement, will mean a loss of support for another section IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Great article. Need more like it in every media, weekly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I know of a lot of ne'er-do-well, unstable life guys who have "abandoned their children" - but not a damn one responsible head-on-their-shoulders guys who have done so.
You know the types. The former can be found out in bars, working a different job every year, dropping out of schools, and their life is a soap opera. They spend money like it is going out of style, and when they do work, are one paycheck away from financial ruin. They are the exciting and dangerous ones.
The latter don't have time to hang out in nightclubs as they have to work the next day. They've stayed in school, save their money, and you can hardly tell if they have been laid off, because they manage their time and money well. But these are the boring guys.
Guess which ones are getting laid, and then moving out of town when a little loaf starts rising in the oven?
Hmmm.
I hink the article more accurately would have been "Dumb and Dumber Women."
A lot of people are angry with Mr. Stable when he doesn't want to take in Little Miss Easy Pants and raise Doctor Dangerous' love child. This is the bullshit here.
Blaming women? Well, yes. She knew he was a loser when she met him, screwed him, decided that she would not have an abortion and keep it because "It will CHANGE him!" andthen gave birth. He just did what he more than likely told her he would do. And she screwed him and let herself be knocked up anyway.
Probably not fair, no, but it is what happens when one focuses on choices and contraceptives for their team alone, and be damned the other guy. Pretty soon, with all the choices and power in your dugout, it becomes disingenuous to blame the other guy when shit falls apart.
Sad to say, but the solution is simple. If women would stop fucking losers, if they would stop rewarding jerks with sex for their boorish behavior, there would be fewer jerks and losers. It's that simple.
It's only women who fuck jerks and low life trailer trash who seem to have these problems - well, them and feminist fish without need for a bicycle. Woner if anyone ever made the connection?
Hmmmm.
* Putting the SMACKDOWN on Feminazis since 1989! *
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
