Feminists controlling the dialogue

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Twist wrote:

There are. No woman gets pregnant by accident. It is just too easy to prevent it.

Naw. Birth control methods can unintentionally fail. Not often, but it does happen. Usually the woman makes sure it intentionally fails, but even a vasectomy needs a urologist to confirm its effectiveness.

However, since Roe v. Wade there is no such thing as an accidental birth.

Every woman who gives birth chooses to do so.

So why can’t women pay for their own choices? Why are men still stuck with the bills when men don’t have a choice?

How the fu​ck can women claim to be the oppressed victims in this situation?

[narwhalParticipant]

sidecar wrote:

However, since Roe v. Wade there is no such thing as an accidental birth.

Every woman who gives birth chooses to do so.

So why can’t women pay for their own choices? Why are men still stuck with the bills when men don’t have a choice?

How the fu​ck can women claim to be the oppressed victims in this situation?

Government has failed citizens tremendously in this regard. They can eliminate so many issues, if the would only allow people to agree to terms of what happens when the s~~~ hits the fan in relationships BEFORE s~~~ hits the fan rather than after. This is exactly what happens in business relationships, and exactly why issues in business relations happen much less frequently. Companies don’t engage in business with each other without first agreeing to contract that sets the terms. You can’t change the duration of the engagement or costs without first getting the contract amended. And the contracts are going to vary based on the needs and leverage.

The same holds true for creating a business partnership. The duties and responsibilities, as well share of the profit are defined in advance, with penalties for not meeting your responsibility. If you buy and car or a home, the contract is agreed upon before the sale is made. Even when there is no loan involved, price is agreed in advance, as well warranty and everything else.

But when it comes to personal relationships…nothing. If you attempt to do a contract, like a prenup, it is often ignored in a court of law. Instead we are forced to set terms the government as decided on that no man would agree to if there were other options.

But imagine if men and women were allowed to engage in contracts of their choosing before marriage? It would not take long for the market to sell on arrangements that are fair and reasonable.

When it comes to birth and abortion, why not allow a man to claim he will hold no financial responsibility if he is the father of a child? If she doesn’t accept that, then she has the option to not risk sex with him. Conversely, she can declare that she will or will not have an abortion if she gets pregnant. If he doesn’t like it, then he has the option of not risking sex with her. Hell, have the legal options men and women can choose in advance put on lament cards you keep in your wallet. I have no doubt that it’s going to result in fewer abortions as men are going to be less inclined to sleep with a woman who admits that she’s going to get an abortion. At the same time, men who don’t want to claim responsibity will also get less action. Or maybe the abortionists and ‘not financially responsibles’ can start hanging out at the same bars. And that’s fine too.

But this will never happen as the government wants the chaos, and people don’t want to plan ahead or admit who they are for fear of shaming.

Ok. Then do it.

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

narwhal wrote:

But when it comes to personal relationships…nothing.

No. It’s not nothing.

It’s whatever most benefits the woman. As enforced by “family law”.

But imagine if men and women were allowed to engage in contracts of their choosing before marriage?

Or just get government out of the marriage business entirely.

The basic unit of a society is the individual, not the marriage. Just treat all citizens equally as individuals.

When it comes to birth and abortion, why not allow a man to claim he will hold no financial responsibility if he is the father of a child?

Especially when women already have zero financial responsibility.

A woman is entitled to abandon her children at any “sanctuary” and walk away scott free. Why aren’t men also allowed to walk away like that?

Where’s the fu​cking equality, feminism?

[Ranger OneParticipant 16836]

There is no dialogue.

Feminism is a monologue.

It is a dictation, a petulant list of demands from unruly children.

All my life I've had doubts about who I am, where I belonged. Now I'm like the arrow that springs from the bow. No hesitation, no doubts. The path is clear. And what are you? Alive. Everything else is negotiable. Women have rights; men have responsibilities; MGTOW have freedom. Marriage is for chumps. If someone stands in the way of true justice, you simply walk up behind them and stab them in the heart-R'as al Ghul.

[WraithParticipant 242]

Branched off wrote:

Also dismisses that old advice of “just keep your legs shut” Contraception has created a culture in which sex with anyone you like is basically regarded as a right. Sometimes contraception goes wrong. Abstinence has a 100% success rate every time it is used. If women were more responsible and only had sex with men they were happy to father their children, this simple and selfish choice would make their lives and the lives of men much better.

I agree. If I were into relationships, I wouldn’t get sexual until I was sure I was willing to have a baby with her. But that’s me. For society as a whole, the cultural expectation for recreational sex is so high that, just in terms of preventing abortion, a stronger approach to contraception might be the best way to get results.

[coolthingy450Participant 1223]

Monk wrote:

iMickey503 wrote:

I have to disagree with you there. Where are these Infants going to go bro? Venezuela? As soon as knowledge and good times come, they put themselves into power positions.

Who created the quotas and affirmative action schemes? Who funded the ‘feminist’ movement? It certainly wasn’t wimmin – they are far too stupid.
The answer is of course, the globalists. Wimmin are a tool to be used to destroy us. Once we are gone, they too will be disposed of. They are too troublesome – and generally useless – to keep around.
The elite vision of the world is asexual and transhuman. Cloning, GM, artificial wombs – all these have vast sums being poured into them. Normal human reproduction will be a thing of the past.
The elite look to what they call ‘the garden planet’ (Agenda 21 programs are now discreetly running everywhere), and a global population of 2m. The sterilisation of the masses has already begun.

Yup, Destroying the family unit is one of those steps, and the f~~~ing bilderbergs have other steps in play to make sure they get what they want.

Actions have consequences and consequences have prices. Cause and effect at work.

[Author]

Posts