If NAWALT Is An Acceptable Defense, Let's See How Women Like Switching Sides

[Anonymous 2]

The NAWALT excuse is the most commonly regurgitated one when it comes to men being attacked for not wanting to marry. If the people that throw this excuse out all the time truly believe this, then let’s offer to switch the system around and see how willing women will be to take part in that system. This means that married couples that end up in divorce court would now fall into these statistics:

97% of alimony payers will be women paying men.

Men will receive custody of the children and get to decide if and when the woman gets to see the children.

Women will be treated as walking ATM machines, and will be forced to pay child support even if they can’t see their kids.

Women will be getting around 50% of their check garnished for child support and alimony payments. If they cannot make these payments because they lost their job, they will be imprisoned.

Women will lose at least 50% of their money and assets to their husbands in divorce court, if there are kids involved, then up it to 75-80%.

This will imply no matter what the reason for the divorce, even if the man cheats on her.

For those not involved in marriages, women will now have to pay child support to single fathers that they got into a relationship with. They will also be imprisoned if they do not pay or cannot pay because of unemployment.

How many women do you think would be willing to take THAT f~~~ing deal?! How many of them would consider “NOT ALL MEN ARE LIKE THAT!” as an excuse for them to put themselves in that position? Absolutely f~~~ing zero! They’d scream bloody murder if they had to take that deal!

Funny how women want men to take a s~~~ deal that they would NEVER be willing to take themselves, isn’t it? It’s always easy to tell somebody else to take a s~~~ deal when they are the one risking everything, you are the one risking nothing, and to top it all off, YOU are the one reaping the benefits, RIGHT?

[bigboy83Participant 11312]

Knowing their c~~~ attitude, none.

Women f~~~ed everything up, now they have to deal with the aftermath.

Shit Tested, Cunt Approved.

[narwhalParticipant]

I’m not seeing the connection between NAWALT and switching sides. To me the opposite of NAWALT would be Not All Men Are Like That…and I’m not even sure I can come up with a example of what that means.

I get your point though in that women are implying that yes, some women will do that to you but it’s worth the risk. They don’t really understand what that risk means though, and certainly would not take the risk if they faced the same consequences.

Ok. Then do it.

[Silverstone the SecondParticipant]

The reason you see women always use that argument is because they are the one’s benefitting from marriage. Women get bent out of shape when you call them on their bulls~~~. And these are the women who will sit there, straight faced and say “All men are rapists.”

Women are the ones wondering where are “all the good guys” and “why are men so afraid of committment?” You don’t see a man in a hurry to settle down and get married, it’s always the woman with an ultimatum: Get married or we’re breaking up.

The minute a man no longer benefits a woman, then he’s gone. And yet women get mad when walk away from a woman that treats them like a tool. Women fail to address concerns that we voice.

“50% of marriages end in divorce, and of those that do, 60-70% are initiated by women.”
“NOT ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT!”
“But what about the one’s that are? We’re not talking about a small majority here, we’re not even talking about a 50-50 split, we’re talking about a large portion of women. So let’s discuss that topic. It’s a significant number, so don’t pretend like it’s not a valid consideration to make when discussing the topic of marriage.”
“NOW ALL WOMEN ARE LIKE THAT!”

You can see how pointless it is to argue. Just ignore these bitches and have a nice day.

Feminism is a movement where opinions are presented as facts and emotions are presented as evidence.

[ScarberianMPTGLParticipant 3286]

You even hear the NAWALT argument from blue pill mangina simps. Then again, I can’t blame them, they don’t know any better.

I, Lelouch Vi Britannia, command you, all of you, to Go Your Own Way!!

[John DoeParticipant 743]

It doesn’t matter if “NAWALT” if all the women I know are “AWALT”. What am I supposed to do? Throw a dart at a globe and move there hoping to find “the one”? F~~~ing seriously?

If that is the case, and we are suppose to leave it to “chance” or “Divine will”, then how do they know that what they have will not, well….err….die…like everything else?

[Biggvs_DickvsParticipant 3726]

Thanks Murph, for putting into such an easily understandable form.

My only reservation is that many people you explain this to will deny that men are treated as walking ATM machines. We know it’s true, but it seems like those who know either treat it as a dirty little secret, or are in denial about it, often not willing to acknowledge the truth even to themselves.

I think you’re on to something though. It’s a slightly different context, but I always liked this little gem along the same lines:

"Data, I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know." --Captain Picard,

[Anonymous 54]

Anonymous wrote:

The NAWALT excuse is the most commonly regurgitated one when it comes to men being attacked for not wanting to marry. If the people that throw this excuse out all the time truly believe this, then let’s offer to switch the system around and see how willing women will be to take part in that system. This means that married couples that end up in divorce court would now fall into these statistics:

97% of alimony payers will be women paying men.

Men will receive custody of the children and get to decide if and when the woman gets to see the children.

Women will be treated as walking ATM machines, and will be forced to pay child support even if they can’t see their kids.

Women will be getting around 50% of their check garnished for child support and alimony payments. If they cannot make these payments because they lost their job, they will be imprisoned.

Women will lose at least 50% of their money and assets to their husbands in divorce court, if there are kids involved, then up it to 75-80%.

This will imply no matter what the reason for the divorce, even if the man cheats on her.

For those not involved in marriages, women will now have to pay child support to single fathers that they got into a relationship with. They will also be imprisoned if they do not pay or cannot pay because of unemployment.

How many women do you think would be willing to take THAT f~~~ing deal?! How many of them would consider “NOT ALL MEN ARE LIKE THAT!” as an excuse for them to put themselves in that position? Absolutely f~~~ing zero! They’d scream bloody murder if they had to take that deal!

Funny how women want men to take a s~~~ deal that they would NEVER be willing to take themselves, isn’t it? It’s always easy to tell somebody else to take a s~~~ deal when they are the one risking everything, you are the one risking nothing, and to top it all off, YOU are the one reaping the benefits, RIGHT?

Anonymous wrote:

The NAWALT excuse is the most commonly regurgitated one when it comes to men being attacked for not wanting to marry. If the people that throw this excuse out all the time truly believe this, then let’s offer to switch the system around and see how willing women will be to take part in that system. This means that married couples that end up in divorce court would now fall into these statistics:

97% of alimony payers will be women paying men.

Men will receive custody of the children and get to decide if and when the woman gets to see the children.

Women will be treated as walking ATM machines, and will be forced to pay child support even if they can’t see their kids.

Women will be getting around 50% of their check garnished for child support and alimony payments. If they cannot make these payments because they lost their job, they will be imprisoned.

Women will lose at least 50% of their money and assets to their husbands in divorce court, if there are kids involved, then up it to 75-80%.

This will imply no matter what the reason for the divorce, even if the man cheats on her.

For those not involved in marriages, women will now have to pay child support to single fathers that they got into a relationship with. They will also be imprisoned if they do not pay or cannot pay because of unemployment.

How many women do you think would be willing to take THAT f~~~ing deal?! How many of them would consider “NOT ALL MEN ARE LIKE THAT!” as an excuse for them to put themselves in that position? Absolutely f~~~ing zero! They’d scream bloody murder if they had to take that deal!

Funny how women want men to take a s~~~ deal that they would NEVER be willing to take themselves, isn’t it? It’s always easy to tell somebody else to take a s~~~ deal when they are the one risking everything, you are the one risking nothing, and to top it all off, YOU are the one reaping the benefits, RIGHT?

can You imagine living in a world like this! I’d be wife shopping! I’m a MAMALT Husband! Now wheres my f~~~ing alimony check lady? Haha

[FaxmodemParticipant 1415]

That would be too funny. Watching these women have a f~~~ing melt down. I have to pay HOW MUCH a MONTH!!!!!!
Cant I see my kids, (nope, unless you pay me more money).
These laws are too unfair. Why am I the one getting screwed over.

Us men didn't start the battle of the sexes, but we're clearly going to win it via the simple tactic of just leaving the battlefield in contempt."

[Prefer Peace to PieceParticipant 10809]

Murph-

Great logic.
I know of no woman who would switch sides.

Woman only want to participate in deals that are highly stacked in their favor.
Like MrSpock said recently- it doesn’t matter if NAWALT. All marriage contracts ARE like that.

[Big BossParticipant 4496]

narwhal wrote:

I’m not seeing the connection between NAWALT and switching side

He’s saying that if women use that as a defense, ask those women would they take the risk if they were dealing with the same risk men were.

Most are going to balk and say “nah, f~~~ that” meaning they lost the argument and it doesn’t matter if “NOT ALL women are like that” the risk is to massive. Like are you willing to commit a crime if not all crimes are solved? There are crimes that are unsolved out there.

[Anonymous 3]

Big Boss wrote:

narwhal wrote:

I’m not seeing the connection between NAWALT and switching side

He’s saying that if women use that as a defense, ask those women would they take the risk if they were dealing with the same risk men were.

Most are going to balk and say “nah, f~~~ that” meaning they lost the argument and it doesn’t matter if “NOT ALL women are like that” the risk is to massive. Like are you willing to commit a crime if not all crimes are unsolved?

Exactly, women bulls~~~ about gender roles and not needing a man as a provider, but then why aren’t women marrying men that are unemployed or have lower incomes than them? They straight refuse to do so. That’s because they have zero interest in taking that risk or subsidizing a man in any way. They’re a lot smarter on these things than men give them credit for.

Women’s hypergamy is well documented. But it’s also documented that they love bad boys and thugs. They get vagina tingles from thugs, but they can disconnect that emotional/sexual desire with their parasitic leeching goals. If women can snag a beta male provider while running off to screw the “alpha” then that’s what she wants to do. These men aren’t really “alpha” but we can run with that.

[AttonParticipant]

How many women do you think would be willing to take THAT f~~~ing deal?

Simple don’t give them a choice in the matter.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[Anonymous 2]

Big Boss wrote:

narwhal wrote:

I’m not seeing the connection between NAWALT and switching side

He’s saying that if women use that as a defense, ask those women would they take the risk if they were dealing with the same risk men were.

Most are going to balk and say “nah, f~~~ that” meaning they lost the argument and it doesn’t matter if “NOT ALL women are like that” the risk is to massive. Like are you willing to commit a crime if not all crimes are solved? There are crimes that are unsolved out there.

Thanks for clarifying my point, Big Boss. If women were dealing with all the risk, while men got all the rewards, women would have no interest in marriage and would avoid it at all costs.

Using NAWALT against a MGTOW is useless. It’s like having a tray of muffins and telling people that half the muffins are poisoned, and then when people don’t want to take one, yelling at them “But not ALL the muffins are poisoned!” That’s seriously how stupid their logic comes across.

[Author]

Posts