Post: #26

Damn these conversations always scare me. What are the honest chances of a ONS girl deciding to have a baby and not open to abortion?

I have no problems with a women deciding to have the child, but if a man is told she's on the pill, and also shows ZERO interest in raising the child, why in the fuck are men expected to support.

With all of the equal rights stuff going on (gays, women, etc) is there any politcal action for freeing men from the whim of women? I feel like most men could get behind not supporting a child financially when they wanted nothing to do with it in the first place.

Man I wish I didnt nut in that girl this weekend. Need to only do it with people I know and trust.

Post: #27

(06-13-2013 05:01 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  Women love what you do for them, and will love you up to an extent as long as you continue to deliver. Hell, even while you're delivering, if they find someone they think will deliver even more, bye.

Briffault's Law

Post: #28

(06-13-2013 05:12 PM)_DC_ Wrote:  Damn these conversations always scare me. What are the honest chances of a ONS girl deciding to have a baby and not open to abortion?

What is the income disparity? If I can find it I will post it here but there was someone on this board who was making 6 figs, I think. He knocked up a $10/hr clerk or something. She wanted to keep it, no shit.

I think if you knock up a career woman, she starts to weigh the impact on her career, etc.

Sorry, hate to say it, but just wrap it.

Edit: Here is the link /thread-20818.html
Thread is called: ""She confessed that she stopped taking the pill" "
It was an article Roosh found, not someone on this board.
Talks a lot about men's rights, etc.

Post: #29

(06-13-2013 04:36 PM)JimNortonFan Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 03:20 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 11:18 AM)Menace Wrote:  2Wycked, I wish I had been more red pill during my Family Law course...it would have made for more interesting discussions.

DO NOT raise anti-feminist arguments in classes in academia. You are in a dictatorship where the professor has total power to ream you out, write you up, give you a shit grade.

You can fairly easily get thrown out of school not for a reasoned position, but for the fact that your position "makes others uncomfortable."

Of course, I don't have any personal experience with almost having this happen. Just heard about someone who did.

This needs to be seconded, thirded, fourthed, etc.

In college you are in a dictatorship. Talking back is like some gulag resident quoting Ayn Rand to the guards. No one cares, it doesn't do any good, and if they want, they can destroy you.

During my undergrad I had the misfortune of having a feminist professor for one of my philosophy classes.

At first I would voice my opinion like any other philosophy class, but then when she started to get really pissed off I just kept my mouth shut.

Then should would deliberately call on me to get my opinion and I would give it to her straight, and it would always piss her off.

I got a B- even though I understood everything and wrote brilliant papers in that class.

Post: #30

These discussions remind me of a brilliant David Mamet film.

OLEANNA

Post: #31

(06-13-2013 05:27 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 04:36 PM)JimNortonFan Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 03:20 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 11:18 AM)Menace Wrote:  2Wycked, I wish I had been more red pill during my Family Law course...it would have made for more interesting discussions.

DO NOT raise anti-feminist arguments in classes in academia. You are in a dictatorship where the professor has total power to ream you out, write you up, give you a shit grade.

You can fairly easily get thrown out of school not for a reasoned position, but for the fact that your position "makes others uncomfortable."

Of course, I don't have any personal experience with almost having this happen. Just heard about someone who did.

This needs to be seconded, thirded, fourthed, etc.

In college you are in a dictatorship. Talking back is like some gulag resident quoting Ayn Rand to the guards. No one cares, it doesn't do any good, and if they want, they can destroy you.

During my undergrad I had the misfortune of having a feminist professor for one of my philosophy classes.

At first I would voice my opinion like any other philosophy class, but then when she started to get really pissed off I just kept my mouth shut.

Then should would deliberately call on me to get my opinion and I would give it to her straight, and it would always piss her off.

I got a B- even though I understood everything and wrote brilliant papers in that class.

For me it was an English course, I didn't keep my mouth shut either, and I got a B (had an A at the half way mark, weird huh?).

Post: #32

Just watching that Oleanna film again.

Reminds me alot of the blogger 'The Last Psychiatrist'.

Post: #33

Quote:For me it was an English course, I didn't keep my mouth shut either, and I got a B (had an A at the half way mark, weird huh?).

Of course. They didn't want you to catch on until the end when they could deliver the final blow.

Post: #34

(06-13-2013 04:50 PM)Hades Wrote:  I'm in the other camp on this one. They're not going to know that an opposition exists until you make yourself known.

You're right on that, however I have no desire to be the nail that sticks up and gets hammered down.

(06-13-2013 04:50 PM)Hades Wrote:  I have heard some incredibly dumb and dipshit opinions in liberal arts classes and the administration never got involved.

The teacher can't just nuke your grade out of nowhere if you make the other students look like middle schoolers

I respectfully disagree. That is WHY they will nuke you. The women who look like idiots because of the inconsistency of their statements will be enraged and complain.

Post: #35

(06-13-2013 04:50 PM)Hades Wrote:  I'm in the other camp on this one. They're not going to know that an opposition exists until you make yourself known.

You're right on that, however I have no desire to be the nail that sticks up and gets hammered down.

(06-13-2013 04:50 PM)Hades Wrote:  I have heard some incredibly dumb and dipshit opinions in liberal arts classes and the administration never got involved.

The teacher can't just nuke your grade out of nowhere if you make the other students look like middle schoolers

I respectfully disagree. That is WHY they will nuke you. The women who look like idiots because of the inconsistency of their statements will be enraged and complain.

Teachers are low risk oriented people. Their sole concern is to make sure no one complains about the SEXIST men in their class. As of 2013, complaints about anti-male statements are almost an absurdity.

It will take heroes who speak out like you recommend, who'll go through years of lawsuits and financial deprivation to frighten schools into stopping anti-male hate speech. I am not in a position to be one.

Post: #36

Watching 'Oleanna' again.

I hope men don't take up the cudgel of identity politics in the same way women did in the 1980's. There has to be a better approach than to retread those wars under a different pronoun.

Post: #37

Even though I support MRM and so on. I think it is best to avoid such debates.

It is like arguing with a child. It is better to let the child 'win' than it is to put up with the drama.

Living well is the best revenge. And I feel sorry for women. Since being a man is ten times more fun than being a woman. Any way you look at it.

I have yet to meet a woman who is truly happy. And at least a quarter of them is incapable of orgasm.

And they bleed every month.

Hell - I don't mind if the government throws them a few scraps. Particularly since it is only stupid men who fall foul of these laws.

If I ever knock a bitch up or get divorce raped - I will have nobody to blame but myself.

Nothing winds up a feminist more than patronising them. So - that is the approach I take.

Not sure if it is the best one - but at least it avoids the pitfalls of strident identity politics.

Post: #38

(06-13-2013 06:45 PM)cardguy Wrote:  Watching 'Oleanna' again.

I hope men don't take up the cudgel of identity politics in the same way women did in the 1980's. There has to be a better approach than to retread those wars under a different pronoun.

+1
Why not figure out what to like about women rather than bitch about things neither they nor we can change. 2-3 billion years of evolution is a formidable establishment.

Post: #39

Identity politics is the reason I don't read much MRA bullshit.

It is psychologically unhealthy - those dudes are developing complexes like feminists have. One of the reasons feminists hate MRA's is they get they are mirrors of their issues.

I am not going take pride in immutable traits I have - I take pride mutable traits, things I have accomplished.

Post: #40

(06-13-2013 11:12 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  @lurker

It went over horribly, with the one angry radical feminist frothing at the mouth about limiting women's autonomy. I said you can't be for full female control of the reproductive sphere if you are for equality. She coughed up some bullshit about male privilege.

...you only had ONE? My expensive stone-and-ivy-walled bastion of liberal elitism had an entire subculture of radfems and angry lesbians.

That said, remember that law school is not representative of the population as a whole, and the women you encounter there cannot validly support a conclusion about the behavior of the rest of their sex. It is, however, a certain strengthener.

Post: #41

(06-13-2013 02:41 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  This woman teaches women's and gender studies. Never forget that.

There's a big difference between writing an article asking if forced fatherhood is fair (of course it isn't) and fighting to eliminate it. Feminists have written about LPS before, but none of them actually fight for it, they fight for one-way reproductive rights, and indeed many of them are prepared to fight tooth and nail against LPS.

I've known campus feminists like this before, and they'll often write throwaway articles like this one to validate the gender jargon they're indoctrinating people with as egalitarian. I'll believe it when they start fighting against court-enforced male slavery.

If you want to know where this woman is at just look at her last sentence.

Quote:And we need to protect children and stabilize family relationships, as Murphy suggests, by broadening our definition of “father” to include men who willingly perform fatherlike roles in a child’s life, and who, with informed consent, have accepted the responsibilities of fatherhood.

Now let's think about this for a moment. She wants to broaden the definition of father to include men who come into a single mother's life and help raise the kid. If said relationship were to end, would this hamster entertain the possibility that the father should get custody? Of course she wouldn't, because he isn't a biological parent like the mother is. Yet she still wants him to be legally held as the father. Why? So that he can be exploited as a post-breakup resource and no other reason.

This woman is not our friend gentlemen. She merely recognizes that LPS is an eventuality as the men's movement gains steam and she's attempting to coopt the LPS agenda with a feminist one.

I'm deeply concerned about the men's movement turning into a bunch of simpering manginas as soon as some woman anywhere says something nice about men or starts coopting MRM issues under the umbrella of feminism.

Edit: Just want to be clear that I don't mean to say anyone here is being a mangina.

Of couse this woman teaches gender studies. This is a gender studies issue - exactly what gender studies should be about.

Her final sentence is also far less inflammatory than you're holding it out to be. See the magic phrase in there? Informed consent. All she's saying is that a man fully apprised of his rights and the consequences should be able to decide to render himself legally responsible for the child. That's a significant part of the right of reproductive autonomy.

Post: #42

(06-13-2013 05:12 PM)_DC_ Wrote:  if a man is told she's on the pill, ... why in the fuck are men expected to support.

You guys have naive faith in the competence and resources of our judiciary to determine what a trailer trash skank said before you ejaculated inside her. Every player would just raw dog and claim she lied about the pill. And every hoochie mama would retort that the pill didn't work.

Why the fuck are taxpayers expected to support bastards? We have a simple, understandable, and enforceable system - if your sperm made a baby, then you are liable. I wonder whether Roosh or Fisto or another member will end up with a baby like Mystery.

Post: #43

Hey guys I got one for you...

Life's not fair. Deal with it.

It's your own fault if you get a girl pregnant, and it's always because you weren't cautious enough.

Post: #44

(06-13-2013 08:27 PM)lurker Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 02:41 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  This woman teaches women's and gender studies. Never forget that.

There's a big difference between writing an article asking if forced fatherhood is fair (of course it isn't) and fighting to eliminate it. Feminists have written about LPS before, but none of them actually fight for it, they fight for one-way reproductive rights, and indeed many of them are prepared to fight tooth and nail against LPS.

I've known campus feminists like this before, and they'll often write throwaway articles like this one to validate the gender jargon they're indoctrinating people with as egalitarian. I'll believe it when they start fighting against court-enforced male slavery.

If you want to know where this woman is at just look at her last sentence.

Quote:And we need to protect children and stabilize family relationships, as Murphy suggests, by broadening our definition of “father” to include men who willingly perform fatherlike roles in a child’s life, and who, with informed consent, have accepted the responsibilities of fatherhood.

Now let's think about this for a moment. She wants to broaden the definition of father to include men who come into a single mother's life and help raise the kid. If said relationship were to end, would this hamster entertain the possibility that the father should get custody? Of course she wouldn't, because he isn't a biological parent like the mother is. Yet she still wants him to be legally held as the father. Why? So that he can be exploited as a post-breakup resource and no other reason.

This woman is not our friend gentlemen. She merely recognizes that LPS is an eventuality as the men's movement gains steam and she's attempting to coopt the LPS agenda with a feminist one.

I'm deeply concerned about the men's movement turning into a bunch of simpering manginas as soon as some woman anywhere says something nice about men or starts coopting MRM issues under the umbrella of feminism.

Edit: Just want to be clear that I don't mean to say anyone here is being a mangina.

Of couse this woman teaches gender studies. This is a gender studies issue - exactly what gender studies should be about.

Her final sentence is also far less inflammatory than you're holding it out to be. See the magic phrase in there? Informed consent. All she's saying is that a man fully apprised of his rights and the consequences should be able to decide to render himself legally responsible for the child. That's a significant part of the right of reproductive autonomy.

Part of the right of reproductive autonomy? How does this have anything to do with reproduction?

Quote:by broadening our definition of “father” to include men who willingly perform fatherlike roles in a child’s life

It has nothing to do with reproduction, the child has already been born. It's just another encroachment on male autonomy.

I've got a better idea. If a woman gets into a relationship with a guy and he takes a liking to her child and performs "fatherlike roles" then great. If the relationship ends, then he stops performing "fatherlike roles." That includes laboring in the child support mines.

Post: #45

(06-13-2013 06:22 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(06-13-2013 04:50 PM)Hades Wrote:  I'm in the other camp on this one. They're not going to know that an opposition exists until you make yourself known.

You're right on that, however I have no desire to be the nail that sticks up and gets hammered down.

(06-13-2013 04:50 PM)Hades Wrote:  I have heard some incredibly dumb and dipshit opinions in liberal arts classes and the administration never got involved.

The teacher can't just nuke your grade out of nowhere if you make the other students look like middle schoolers

I respectfully disagree. That is WHY they will nuke you. The women who look like idiots because of the inconsistency of their statements will be enraged and complain.

To each his own, man, for sure it's important to cover your own ass. Most of my soft-science teachers were on the older side and (likely?) second wave feminists and weak liberals and were completely open to discussing issues about men's rights in the interest of equality. The trick here was that I made equality the issue rather than just women's rights and they didn't have so much pride that they would disregard what I'd say. It was a small school so issues were handled differently.

Post: #46

Only suckers pay child support. This dude is up to somewhere between 18 and 22 kids:

Post: #47

(06-13-2013 11:28 PM)Ensam Wrote:  Only suckers pay child support. This dude is up to somewhere between 18 and 22 kids:

That guy was born poor and will die poor(he made sure of that). After all with over a dozen kids and a criminal record he has little reason to care about his future.. He has so much going against him I imagine that feeling could almost be liberating.

Post: #48

This is a different situation. I specifically said ONS. I think 99% of childless women want a guy to love/love them. Its different when a girl is deeply in love with a guy she's been dating for a year and prob dreams about their baby all the time (although its still deplorable to fake the pill).

This all being said I really need to wrap it just incase. Damn, when im wasted fearless rawdogger comes out. Didnt roosh recently post there is no reason not to rawdog? If youre not scared of stds, I agree your chances of a ONS girl keeping the baby is super low. Still the idea that 1/3 or more of my income could be stripped away from me is horrifying.

Post: #49

(06-13-2013 09:33 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  Part of the right of reproductive autonomy? How does this have anything to do with reproduction?

Quote:by broadening our definition of “father” to include men who willingly perform fatherlike roles in a child’s life

It has nothing to do with reproduction, the child has already been born. It's just another encroachment on male autonomy.

I've got a better idea. If a woman gets into a relationship with a guy and he takes a liking to her child and performs "fatherlike roles" then great. If the relationship ends, then he stops performing "fatherlike roles." That includes laboring in the child support mines.

Male post-conception reproductive autonomy - our counterpart to abortion, and, in short, this entire fight - is about having a choice in raising and funding a child, not the biological impossibility of unilaterally preventing its birth. If a man wants to raise and fund a child he didn't biologically sire, that's part and parcel of that autonomy. It's silly to claim that a man should have the freedom to make an informed decision to permanently withdraw his time and money from a child's life and not give him the same opportunity to make an informed decision to permanently supply it. Whether that idea is wise, noble, or utter folly depends on the circumstances of the individuals involved.

Post: #50

The bottom line is that by making unwed fathers culpable for financially supporting children they never planned for nor wanted you're incentivizing women to keep bringing bastards into the world.

Modern society, in its infinite wisdom, has decided that it's more humane to financially provide for bastards (or rather to force their supposed fathers to do so) even if it means encouraging the birth of many more bastards in the future.

Forget about giving men the right to financially abort their children. The default should be that unmarried women are *always* on their own when they get pregnant, as far as the legal system is concerned. If the biological father or some would-be unrelated father wants to provide for the child, that's their choice but the state doesn't need to get involved.