Senile Doctor Wants to Award $50,000 to Women Who Have Illegitimate Children

by W.F. Price on May 31, 2012

Evan Evans, a retired OB/GYN from Utah, has proposed a bill that he thinks will obviate abortion. His idea is to force all unmarried fathers to fork over $50,000 to their babymommas. Leaving aside the fact that most unmarried fathers don’t have $50,000 lying around – and probably never will – the idea that lots of women will not be able to somehow convince some man to sleep with them is hilarious. All this bill will ensure is that the dumbest men with the least self-control will inseminate the majority of single mothers. It is such a stupid idea that it should be read aloud in congress as a joke (although I don’t know how many would get it).

Since Evans began practicing medicine in the 1950s, I’m guessing he’s well into his 80s. Although I don’t know for certain whether men really thought these kinds of plans might work back then, it’s possible, and that might explain how some of the godawful law around child support and divorce came into being.

As people live longer and the ratio of older to younger people has grown, the influence of old-fashioned ideas may actually be stronger than it used to be. This is counterintuitive, because we are frequently told that we are in a “new, progressive, era,” but just look how much influence 1960s style radicalism – a half-century old by now – still exerts on society. Both academia and the media sometimes seem stuck in Vietnam and the various “movements” of the time, because those were the formative years of senior managers and editorialists. PBS is possibly the most glaring example of this, with fuddy-duddies like Garrison Keillor still very popular amongst the geriatric progressive crowd.

This also brings up an interesting question. Are liberal, progressive youngsters now the reactionary, goody-two-shoes squares?

{ 100 comments… read them below or add one }

Depravo May 31, 2012 at 03:48

Are liberal, progressive youngsters now the reactionary, goody-two-shoes squares?

The whole political establishment is deeply reactionary in that it’s failed to appreciate the world as we knew it 1945-2000 is gone forever, let alone act on it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
AfOR May 31, 2012 at 04:22

I have an idea..

How about if a wimminz gets pregnant by a man, she pays HIM the 50k in cash and then GTFO of his life.

If she can’t pay, the baby goes to the father and she goes to debtors jail for 10 years.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 117 Thumb down 4
Miserman May 31, 2012 at 04:28

I read an editorial on CNN on the “demise of guys” in which video games and pornography were touted as the cancer that is destroying men. Of course, I remember being a teenager reading and hearing how the same general crowd saw video games (then a new phenomenon) and porn as healthy outlets for youthful expressions.

And there was no mention of how feminism has shamed boys for wanting to be heroes and have sex, leaving them no recourse but video games and porn.

Here’s a link to the article:
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/23/health/living-well/demise-of-guys/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 2
Miserman May 31, 2012 at 04:31

Forgot to add that my post was a response to the statement:

Are liberal, progressive youngsters now the reactionary, goody-two-shoes squares?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Opus May 31, 2012 at 04:31

I suppose the thinking is that with cash upfront of $50,000.00 women will take the feotus to term – a sort of modern one-off payment-alternative to a shot-gun wedding – and then I suppose the Father would still have to pay monthly child support. I am sure some women would give birth for the cash, but I am not predicting any great decline in abortion, as so many women use it as afterthought-contraception and do not want a child – which would so interfere with their corporate cubicle life-styles. Child support, never stopped a man from having sex did it?

Evans (now there is an Evans who deserves to be behind bars – for stupidity) has conveniently overlooked that the men most likely to get a woman pregnant are the sort of men who will get multiple women pregnant and who usually start from a position of impecunity in the first place. Once again, paying a sex-worker looks a much better deal.

Utah: I am guessing serious Christian here. Can anyone propose a Bill – in Utah? – in America? Nice point about Media/Academia – I feel so out of step with my contemporaries.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Joe May 31, 2012 at 04:37

Evan Evans feels guilty because he performed abortions in the past.
It’s a personal matter between him and his Maker. Instead of just leaving it at that, he expects the whole world and even human nature itself to change, so he can pass from this world guilt-free.
Tough Luck Doc! The world doesn’t work that way.
Be a man, doc, and face your God standing on your own two feet.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 61 Thumb down 1
walking in hell May 31, 2012 at 04:39

Once again we see the woman-can-do-wrong false assumption in action. Let me guess, the old geezer has all daughters.

In this case, this man, who came from the 1950s when women were more virtuous (less rotten?), has brought his experiences, prejudices and bad logic into the public policy arena where it can do the most harm. Unbeknownst to him, his “sensible” proposal will cause a birth explosion among the sluttiest, poorest, and most conniving girls bringing a new generation of bastards into the world and trashing young men in the process.

How about this instead?:

Any woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock must pay the man $50,000 and forfeit all parental rights to the child. The man can continue or terminate the pregnancy. This is the woman’s punishment for seducing the poor innocent man into fornication in an attempt to destroy his life.

This is more sensible because men are the more noble sex and are more honest.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 5
Poiuyt May 31, 2012 at 04:58

IN PURSUIT OF PUBLIC OFFICE FOR HIMSELF … Senile Doctor Wants to Award $50,000 … OF OTHER PEOPLES MONEY … to Women Who Have Illegitimate Children.

… Not to mention the elaborate police state apparatus and enforcement bureaucracy of official parasites to be paid for, by confiscated, stolen, borrowed and or printed monies bilked OFF OTHER PEOPLES.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 40 Thumb down 1
walking in hell May 31, 2012 at 05:05

@joe
“Evan Evans feels guilty because he performed abortions in the past.”

You said it.

It seems to me like this is an attempt to blame men for the abortions the “good” Dr. has performed; and his little bill is an attempt to clean his own name up in the universe.

Sorry Dr. Evans, God sees all and judges all righteously.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 2
walking in hell May 31, 2012 at 05:13

@AfOR

Sorry. I didn’t copy your idea. I put my post in before yours but it took a while to moderate it.

Yes, monetary compensation, loss of custody, debtor’s jail, chain gang, all good ideas.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3
Charles Martel May 31, 2012 at 05:22

If you tax something you get less of it and if you subsidize something you get more of it. This simplest possible economic principle will give you more insight into human behavior than a stack of Economics Doctoral Theses. So let’s ask the question, what would be the result of offering huge subsidies for births to single mothers?

The senile old white knight Evan Evans dreamed up this insane idea on the assumption he would be taxing the father’s sexual activity. The fatal flaw in this particular piece of gubmint rocket science? Men are not the reproductive decision makers, so instead of taxing the father he would be subsidizing the single slut’s pregnancy.

Women respond to incentives. This is the big idea that has the power to end feminism and restore sanity to our society. Nothing else will. Women are rational actors. In reproduction, evolution has equipped women with a ruthless sense of pragmatism. Men, on the other hand, have been handicapped by evolution with irrational emotions that engender oneitis, chivalry and white knighting.

The only way to prevent the fempocalypse is to stop subsiding divorce and single motherhood.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 64 Thumb down 2
bruno May 31, 2012 at 05:26

50.000 dollars from the father to the mother?
How does that promote equal reproductive rights?
It doesn’t, off course, it’s only meant to enslave men more and more through their “crime” of making a woman pregnant.

I stick with my own proposal for equal reproductive rights between men and women:

- A woman can give birth to a child only if she has explicit permission from the biological father, otherwise she will be considered a rapist.
- There should never be any child support payments: the cost of raising the child will be paid by the person who is raising it.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 42 Thumb down 1
The Big Daddy C-Master May 31, 2012 at 05:29

This is just the same stupid crap. It’s just like business. Making laws that restrict consensual behavior just brings out more of the worse. We already have more losers spawning, because for men who have good genetics, wealth, and smarts, randomly popping out kids is too risky. For losers with nothing to lose though, they can pop out kids knowing the taxpayers will foot the bill. It’s welfare, just like sex laws are.

Like business. Leave people to their own free will and take away bogus government incentives. No money for single mothers or child support, alimony, etc. People can choose to do what they want sexually (as long as it’s consensual) and see what happens. People are going to go to what’s best for them. Women are going to go after the guys with the best genetics, genes, and looks that will provide the best. Then the taxpayer won’t have to foot the bill.

People don’t get it though.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 0
freebird May 31, 2012 at 05:51

The cost of delivering the baby would be exactly 50 grand.
He’s tired of the medical billing system.(and greedy)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
bruno May 31, 2012 at 05:59

“All pro-choice and pro-life forces need to do, he said, is “join forces and preach contraception and hold THE BOY responsible. We’d put them out of business because they’d have no business.” ”

Hold the boy resposible?
What’s the logic of that?
Where is the responsability of the woman?

This is just too crazy for words.

And he admits to have performed at least 500 abortions, so maybe he wants to compensate for that before meeting his maker?

I think this nutcase should pay 50.000 to every father of all those children that he aborted, let’s hold HIM responsible, for a change.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 0
Will May 31, 2012 at 06:05

I think this may be a leading indicator of things to come. I wouldn’t surprise me if at some future point the birth of a child will entitle the mother to share of the mans assets in addition to the already obligatory child support.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Donkey May 31, 2012 at 06:11

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 32
Elusive Wapiti May 31, 2012 at 06:18

I for one am looking forward to the Silent and Boomer generation no longer being in charge.

I am tired of their cafeteria egalitarianism and support for women’s lib, while they oppose men’s lib.

A society that has one without the other lacks balance. Of course, no society that has progressed beyond grass-hut matriarchy can survive without seizing men’s resources, and our society seems to intuitively recognize that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 0
AfOR May 31, 2012 at 06:23

Wouldn’t worry about it too much wapiti, war in the balkans is a comin…

If you ain’t scared you don’t get it yet

http://wimminz.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/you-picked-the-wrong-man-to-ask-the-right-question/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay May 31, 2012 at 06:32

Well this dude is probably a religious conservative, so he probably wouldn’t like the subsequent stratospheric rise in male homosexuality.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Charles Martel May 31, 2012 at 06:49

walking in hell
Sorry. I didn’t copy your idea. I put my post in before yours but it took a while to moderate it.

Comments appear in chronological sequence regardless of whether they are moderated or not. The time stamp on every comment is the time when you clicked “submit.” But there’s no need to apologize for coming up with the same good idea.

Where are you located? What state?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
slwerner May 31, 2012 at 07:00

By offering a $50,000 inducement, what the dumb-assed doctor fails to recognize is that there would likely be a rise in “accidental” (out of wedlock) pregnancies. Daniel Patrick Moynihan spoke of The Law of Unintended Consequences, but people still refuse to listen.

And, if their are “pregnancies-for-financial-prizes”, you can bet the next will come a multitude of unwanted and neglected children, who’ll likely become quite feral.

If money was no object, then the better bet would to to “invest” against low-quality, low-prospects, low-intelligence, and low-parental investment woman ever getting pregnant. Offer them $15k to have their tubes tied before they ever get pregnant. Most young women would rather have a quick large infusion of cash than future prospects of children anyway. So, make them a generous offer when they mostly believe that have children won’t matter to them.

There is even a good chance that there would be people willing to make private donations to help fund such an effort.

Am I being Harsh? Yes, of course I am. But, getting a bunch of useless women, who would never make good mothers nor raise decent children anyway to sell their fertility is much more fair and equitable than confiscating $50k from guys who the same women would later trap/trick into getting them pregnant.

Woman who get their tubes tied can still under go IVF, so if they later find that they really, really want a child, and if they have the personal resources to afford one, then they can still have children (unlike the prospects of most men who have vasectomies, as reversals are difficult to successfully achieve).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
The Big Daddy C-Master May 31, 2012 at 07:03

@slwerner

You don’t even have to go to that extreme. Take away all financial incentives and the losers with lesser genetics will be flushed out of the gene pool anyways. People will go for the best. Just like Capitalism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
crella May 31, 2012 at 07:06

What a crock! How many baby mommas would get pregnant for $50,000?

Think of all the expensive escorts you could hire for that money and not have to worry about an ‘Oops!’

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 4
Huck Finn May 31, 2012 at 07:15

“Are liberal, progressive youngsters now the reactionary, goody-two-shoes squares?”

Very possible. Socialism (fascism, corporatism, communism, marxism, feminism) on a larger political game-board level holds the record for oppressing and murdering more people than any other ideology in history or is it now herstory?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Suz May 31, 2012 at 07:15

Well. As a post menopausal woman I can only say: I’m too old to get in on this scam! That’s not faaaaaaaair! Unless of course he amends his bill to include a provision to pay for my fertility treatments, that is. I’d also have to get a divorce in order to be a single mother. Will he pay for my attorney too?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 22 Thumb down 11
keyster May 31, 2012 at 07:59

In other news, the trend of women marrying themselves continues:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/nadine-schweigert-woman-marries-herself_n_1546024.html

sol·ip·sism [sol-ip-siz-uhm]
noun
1. the theory that only the self exists, or can be proved to exist.
2. extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one’s feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
keyster May 31, 2012 at 08:11

Utah: I am guessing serious Christian here.

Utah is 70% Mormon throughout the state and about 50% Mormon in Salt Lake City. Those that are not Mormon are typically secular-progressive/white trash (think Roseanne Barr, who’s from there).

Utah is nothing like “middle America”.
It’s an unusual place with a mix of unusual people.
Utah is so Mormon, that many Mormons don’t like living there.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6
Rmaxd May 31, 2012 at 08:22

“How about if a wimminz gets pregnant by a man, she pays HIM the 50k in cash and then GTFO of his life.”

ALL single dead-beat women should be paying men 50k for the use of their sperm

These 1960 senile demented morons, obviously dont understand basic economics …

If you take something from someone, you should pay him for it …

Of course its more important to steal a mans DNA, & his wealth, to satisfy a womans ticking std infested vagina …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Art Vandelay May 31, 2012 at 08:57

When the male is giving the female the biological seed required to make babies, and depositing in the part of the woman receptive to conception, that is giving permission to use that seed, despite wicked words and claims of sterile wombs.

Well with not having sex not being a serious choice and only condoms as an option for men, that deal sounds quite lopsided. I gave it to her to dispose of it, not make babies. If anything, she should pay me, I only get to have sex with her once and lose some of my precious sperm which I have to replenish on my own time and dime – she gets a baby that she wants? That’s worth far more I think.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
Nemo May 31, 2012 at 09:00

Women get tax credits and government goodies far in excess of $50,000 for every child that they have.

Let’s drastically limit the scope of the discussion and focus on just two line items on the federal tax form:

1) Earned Income and adjusted gross income (AGI) must each be less than:

$45,060 ($50,270 married filing jointly) with three or more qualifying children
$41,952 ($47,162 married filing jointly) with two qualifying children
$36,920 ($42,130 married filing jointly) with one qualifying child
$13,980 ($19,190 married filing jointly) with no qualifying children

Tax Year 2012 maximum credit:

$5,891 with three or more qualifying children
$5,236 with two qualifying children
$3,169 with one qualifying child
$475 with no qualifying children

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=233839,00.html

So, $3,169 per year for 18 years = $57,042 for the first child.

2) $1000 child tax credit

$1000/yr for 16 years = $16,000

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=106182,00.html

So there’s $73,042 right there, from just two lines in a 1040.

Never mind the deductions, WIC, food stamps/EBT, Section 8 housing, hiring preferences for females, or the other thousand programs and laws that allow women to pretend to be strong and independent at the literal expense of men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 1
criolle johnny May 31, 2012 at 09:07

1. Evans IS feeling guilty.
2. He IS trying to buy his way into heaven.
3. Typical liberal, he’s trying to do it with other people’s money!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 0
HeligKo May 31, 2012 at 09:11

Honestly that is the kind of ludicrous thing that we need. It would break the back of the system almost immediately, and force change. Sort of an atomic bomb to the system that has given women so much privileged in the past few generations. Women would be relentless trying to collect, and men would be filling the courts. This would explode the system. Smart men would not be having sex or would get snipped to ensure they aren’t snared by this, but it could be a system overload that would collapse the matriarchy.

Either that or we would have entire states turned into prison work camps.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Rmaxd May 31, 2012 at 09:14

Weird my comment seems to have been deleted …

Anyway …

“His idea is to force all unmarried fathers to fork over $50,000″

Btw this already happens in Israel, some random schmuck is picked to support single mothers child for life …

These guys pay way more then 50k …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Anti Idiocy May 31, 2012 at 09:17

Sorta, kinda related — take a look at this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/evolution/9295131/Why-women-prefer-weaker-men.html

Note the comments. A large and increasing number of people aren’t buying the PC bullshit anymore.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
slwerner May 31, 2012 at 09:24

[Off Topic]

Sorry for the interruption, but I just wanted to point this out.

Nearly 10 months after the notorious event of Catherine Kieu Becker cutting-off and grinding up her husbands penis, and all the delighted laughter of (many/most) women; another story of brutal physical mutilation in retaliation for relationship offenses has emerged.

But, this time, the gender roles are reversed. It will be telling to see how women who thought it so “fabulous” and “deserving” that a man would have his penis cut-off for divorcing his wife are going to respond this one:

Professor ‘cut off his wife’s lips and ate them because he believed she had insulted his honour by having affair’

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel May 31, 2012 at 10:03

slwerner
But, this time, the gender roles are reversed. It will be telling to see how women who thought it so “fabulous” and “deserving” that a man would have his penis cut-off for divorcing his wife are going to respond this one:

Took place in Stockholm. The perp is Iranian. “‘It was honour related. He doesn’t seem to regret a thing. He believes she insulted him…”

Well, that’s alright then.

Due to feminized Sweden’s insane worship of all things multi-kulti, the perp is only being charged with aggravated assault. The prosecutor “tried to have him charged for attempted murder” but as the perp is not a white male, that wasn’t possible.

Wimminz….failing to anticipate easily foreseeable consequences everywhere. Coming to a failed state near you soon.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
keyster May 31, 2012 at 10:10

The only way to prevent the fempocalypse is to stop subsiding divorce and single motherhood.

The Golden Uterus is omnipotent.
As long as the female of the species controls reproduction, she will always be considered “more equal than” the male; whether it’s contraception, abortion or bringing the birth to term.

Why do you think Feminism is so militant about women’s reproductive rights? It’s all about Power. It’s the one thing they can dangle over Patriarchy’s head, and control men with.

Sperm is a commodity.
Fertile young wombs are precious and rare.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
The Big Daddy C-Master May 31, 2012 at 10:47

When we have male birth control and artificial wombs all of that will change anyways. Women will have far less to bargain with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Reality May 31, 2012 at 10:50

I finally figured out a use for American women! If we go to war with say Iran, Russia or China, we’ll just air drop them all on the enemy country. Just the sheer amount of diseases they’ll spread alone along with the stench will be enough to bring the country to it’s knees. Then of course just being in their fat, horrifically negative presense will be so demoralizing they’ll just give up, having lost the will to live. 2 for 1! We get rid of them all AND defeat the enemy!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
Reality May 31, 2012 at 10:54

I shut up a raging liberal fag on Volconvo once when I asked him, “do you have any IDEA just how OUTDATED and old Feminism, street protests and all the rest are? The 1960s? Do you realize all of your core principles are the same as your GRANDMOTHER’S?!? What? Tie-Die and the Grateful Dead? Really? I thought that you were ‘progressive.’ Yet none of you have come up with any new ideas since.”

All they’ve come up with are new evil ways to enforce their psychotic ideologies.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0
Tom936 May 31, 2012 at 10:58

Evan Evans, a retired OB/GYN from Utah, has proposed a bill that he thinks will obviate abortion. His idea is to force all unmarried fathers to fork over $50,000 to their babymommas.

If I had to write a two-line parody of social conservativism, I couldn’t do better than this. That’s it in a nutshell.

He’s so focussed on eliminating abortion that he can’t see straight. In reality, whether you’re for abortion on demand or against it, it’s just one grain of sand in a big shitstorm. Fixing abortion on demand is not going to fix society.

But even though he’s consumed by abortion, he can’t see any solution that involves sacrifice by women.

Sacrifice by men, on the other hand, seems just fine to him. More than fine, he demands it at a truly insane level. He thinks the typical no-condom drunken badboy has got $50,000 that he can just hand over, if only society would hold him down and take his wallet.

And of course he doesn’t think that the guy is going to either disappear or go to jail, neither of which is going to create $50,000.

And he’s completely unaware that too many women already “oops” their boyfriends for profit as it is, and increasing the incentive to do it isn’t going to solve anything.

And to fill out the SoCon picture, he’s got some personal guilt in the dark corners of his mind. I bet he does. He’s a retired OB/GYN with a crusade about abortion.

And he wants to solve this guilt on the backs of other men.

Does the dictionary have this guy’s picture next to the definition of SoCon?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
Poester99 May 31, 2012 at 12:24

highly inflamatory and probably won’t get posted, but here is what I wrote on the dailymail:

We need a bunch of men getting together on a popular daytime talk show to giggle about this in order to keep things balanced. After all, it was in a relationship violence, all is fair. oh, maybe if he pulled out all her teeth or cut off her tits, then that would be funny?

Oh!?! physically maiming someone because they made you upset is not funny?!?! since when?
Come on! where is the EQUALITY?
It won’t happen, because men don’t get together to celebrate the maiming of a woman like women do when a man is the victim.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 0
Eric May 31, 2012 at 12:49

Evans might feel guilty about performing abortions, but his hypocrisy shows he still hasn’t changed. How many of those abortion he performed were government-subsidized? Now he wants to force others to foot the bill for his own guilty conscience, the way he used to force others to foot the bill for his own guilty acts.

He’d better write in his will a provision to be buried an asbestos suit, but I think he’ll need it where’s going.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Eric May 31, 2012 at 12:49

Evans might feel guilty about performing abortions, but his hypocrisy shows he still hasn’t changed. How many of those abortion he performed were government-subsidized? Now he wants to force others to foot the bill for his own guilty conscience, the way he used to force others to foot the bill for his own guilty acts.

He’d better write in his will a provision to be buried an asbestos suit, I think he’ll need it where’s going.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
keyster May 31, 2012 at 14:07

How many of those abortion he performed were government-subsidized?

None, because it was illegal at the time.

Abortions were commonly performed back in the day; a medical procedure as a private matter between the woman and her doctor. Planned Parenthood receives $500 million a year from the federal government that goes towards subsidizing abortions for poor minority women in typically urban areas.

The unintended consequence of Clinton’s Welfare Reform was the decrease in value of children for single mothers. The government check was automatic, suddenly relying on government to collect from BabyDaddies, not so much. The demand for “free” abortion services in urban areas rose in concert with welfare reform…although its also popular in many college towns.

If our tax dollars don’t go towards abortion services, that’s denying (poor) women access to healthcare. IOW women are uniquely qualified for “free” healthcare, and because of this we ALL must share in this expense “collectively”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
They Call Me Dave May 31, 2012 at 14:13

How about this? Slap both the man and the woman with a $12,500 bill payable to the government when a woman is pregnant out of wedlock. The cash can go toward offsetting the costs associated with the social problems single parent children tend to become involved in…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
SixStringsForever May 31, 2012 at 14:16

This guy Evans is so full of shit if he fell in the sea he would float away.
I have yet to understand why Government falls over themselves to prop up these feckless mares and their scrounging habits???
If she falls pregnant with no visible means of financial support,i.e a full time job,then the child should be taken from her and put into care with a suitable foster family,this way the child’s best outcome could be assurred and precious taxpayers wouldn’t be wasted on female deadbeats and no hopers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Rmaxd May 31, 2012 at 14:19

@W.F Price

It’s not just limited to womens rights …

Check this …

From Mindthecampus – how_diversity_punishes_asians

At the private institutions in their study whites from lower-class backgrounds incurred a huge admissions disadvantage not only in comparison to lower-class minority students, but compared to whites from middle-class and upper-middle-class backgrounds as well. The lower-class whites proved to be all-around losers.

The better-off whites were more than three times as likely to be accepted as the poorest whites (.28 vs. .08 admissions probability).

Having money in the family greatly improved a white applicant’s admissions chances, lack of money greatly reduced it.

The enormous disadvantage incurred by lower-class whites in comparison to non-whites and wealthier whites is partially explained by Espenshade and Radford as a result of the fact that, except for the very wealthiest institutions like Harvard and Princeton,

Private colleges and universities are reluctant to admit students who cannot afford their high tuitions. And since they have a limited amount of money to give out for scholarship aid, they reserve this money to lure those who can be counted in their enrollment statistics as diversity-enhancing “racial minorities.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
W.F. Price May 31, 2012 at 14:25

Private colleges and universities are reluctant to admit students who cannot afford their high tuitions. And since they have a limited amount of money to give out for scholarship aid, they reserve this money to lure those who can be counted in their enrollment statistics as diversity-enhancing “racial minorities.”

-Rmaxd

Of course this is the case, but I think that was already addressed in the Scalzi article, and is barely even tangential to the current topic.

Cindy May 31, 2012 at 15:28

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 42
Rmaxd May 31, 2012 at 16:00

@W.F. Price

I know I was just drawing your attention to the article, theres alot more in there then in the Scalzi article

Also theres also the fact Asians, ie chinese & japanese are also discriminated against by U.S universities

& also the fact blacks & hispanics are given grants & affirmative action, precisely because they drop out of class & rarely graduate

This allows universities all across the U.S to profit, without having to provide any services … as all tuitions & fees are paid in advance …

Anyway its an exceptional article, which should give plenty of fodder for future articles, which is why I thought you should know …

Cheers …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Rmaxd May 31, 2012 at 16:13

@Cindy

LEARN TO READ …

Why the hell would a man want to keep a child, from a woman he never wanted to have a child with in the first place?

If a woman uses a man’s sperm without his permission, she should pay him for the privilege of using his DNA

Men have a right to choose who bears his children

It’s about time we stopped rewarding women, for taking away the choice away from men

If women want sperm, pay a sperm bank, or pay the man she stole the sperm from

It’s about time women paid for abusing their children, by depriving them of their biological fathers …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Cindy May 31, 2012 at 16:19

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 41
Uncle Elmer May 31, 2012 at 16:24
Rebel May 31, 2012 at 16:26

This world has inded gone mad.

Here’s the next thing I want to hear:”A woman gives birth to herself: 5 million dollars have been extracted from the sperm donor”

See who can beat that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0
greyghost May 31, 2012 at 16:34

@Cindy
“A woman should pay YOU 50k for getting knocked up, and you keep the child? Rofl you guys are seriously deluded. No wonder you can’t get shit done.”
Afor;s comment really sailed over your head didn’t it? BTW what are you doing in here hanging out in a room full of bitter loser men that have their penises out. People will think you are a floozy. Now get them panties off and spank yourself.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1
greyghost May 31, 2012 at 16:35

Yeah I saw that too Uncle Elmer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Rmaxd May 31, 2012 at 16:36

Also its worth noting …

In this day & age, its almost impossible for a woman to get pregnant, against her will

Even if a womans raped, they have literally hundreds of morning after pills to choose from

In fact women have so many options to kill a foetus in vitro, they dont even need abortion

The ONLY reason women have abortion, precisely because theyre so ignorant & illiterate about the options available to them

& their gynocologists & abortion clinics profit massively, from exposing clueless women to expensive, life threatening operations such as an abortion

Instead of giving the woman a number of pills, which safely prevents the foetus from developing enough to necessitate an abortion in the first place

The medical industry, is a highly corrupt & criminal industry

Of course women will never know, as its all about womens rights & not about womens health & safety …

Of course the medical industry, uses womens rights, to force women to use expensive life threatening operations, such as abortion, in place of safer forms of birth termination …

Congratulations ladies, feminism screwed over your ability to safely terminate unwanted pregnancies …

I hope you bitches are starting to see how, feminism is a corporate construct designed to screw over women for profit …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Rmaxd May 31, 2012 at 16:39

@Cindy

Do something about your reading skills …

So now you cant argue the point, you resort to swearing & throwing insults ?

Ameriskank much? …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
AfOR May 31, 2012 at 17:01

akshully, the only reason wimminz have abortions is when the PREGNANCY does not have the desired effect on the desired mug

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
crella May 31, 2012 at 17:41

‘When the male is giving the female the biological seed required to make babies, and depositing in the part of the woman receptive to conception, that is giving permission to use that seed, despite wicked words and claims of sterile wombs.’

Another defender of lying women. Amazing. You wouldn’t tolerate a used car salesman lying to you about a car you’re about to buy, you’d take him to court…but you condone deceiving a man to get pregnant?

‘@Cindy

LEARN TO READ …’

The problem is that feminists are some of the most humorless human beings in the planet, unable to detect irony or sarcasm, and are always just perched to pounce on words that trigger their rage, not that she can’t read…

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4
Rebel May 31, 2012 at 17:48

The artificial womb is the answer to all the questions. When BOTH males and females will reach reproductive independance, then peace will come back and the gender war will end.

Men and women must become wholly independant from one another. Maybe the best thing that could happen is a complete split of the human species into two different species having nothing to do with one another.

Humans are the first real sentient beings inhabiting this planet. Who knows: maybe the first attempt at intelligent life was a mistake.
Many species have come and gone, mainly because they could not adapt to changes or the competition from other species was too strong.
I would be surprised if humans were an exception to the rule. We are not the ultimate creature we seem to think we are. Perhaps there is something in the collective unconscious that drives us to extinction.

The way males and females interact with each other tells me something has gone awry. There is no other example like this anywhere on earth. No other species displays the same dysfunction. Something in the air?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
3DShooter May 31, 2012 at 18:59

Late to the party, not as much time as I used to have . . .

What this man (well, genetically maybe) is proposing is preposterous. Let’s get back to the basics: Women have babies, women have all the means imaginable to control whether they have babies – put the responsibility where the choice is – on the women.

@Keyster

“Utah is nothing like “middle America”.
It’s an unusual place with a mix of unusual people.
Utah is so Mormon, that many Mormons don’t like living there.”

. . .and it ain’t much better in So. Idaho. Having grown up around and observing these pseudo-socialists I can tell you they are a very closed society in many ways. I have no use for Obammy, but if you are considering ORomney as an alternative be forewarned he is Obammy-Lite in funny underwear.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
dragnet May 31, 2012 at 19:21

Paging Welmer….

http://news.yahoo.com/house-rejects-ban-sex-selection-abortions-202308339–abc-news-politics.html

Liberals vote down American ban on sex selective abortions…while pushing such bans in places like China & India.

The hypocrisy is so delicious it has to be fattening.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Eric May 31, 2012 at 19:23

Cindy
‘Rmaxd, nobody wants your f—ing sperm!’

LOL, for once I have to agree with a feminist.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Highwasp May 31, 2012 at 19:25

Dragnet:

I just saw that too and left a comment at Yahoo:

Finally! N.O.W. we can get rid of all those pesky, worthless, rapist, violent, greedy, war mongering, woman hating, patriarchical men. Just kill them before birth. It used to be called infanticide – N.O.W. we call it ‘sex-selection abortion’… ‘Selection’… Like ‘Choice’… That”s good – right?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Eric May 31, 2012 at 19:28

Keyster,

‘They {the abortions} weren’t subsidized because they weren’t legal at the time.’

Which actually makes the good doctor an even greater hypocrite. This would be about like an ex-bootlegger from Prohibition demanding that the legalized liquor industry pay restitution for all the rival gangs he was forced to gun down because of government policy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
3DShooter May 31, 2012 at 19:31

@Cindy

“nobody wants your f—ing sperm!”

Really, they were yowling for it like alley cats in heat – “Fuck me, fuck me, fuck me!!!” You are laughable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
Eric May 31, 2012 at 19:37

Poester99:
Yes, I have a feeling that the Pedestal Princesses would not respond favorably to a daytime talk show where men laughed about violence against women in the same way these harridans routinely yuk it up over violence against men. It reminded me of a PSA ad that was running over a few years back where a bunch a guys were looking at themselves in a mirror and saying things like ‘Does this shirt make me look fat?’

“We don’t hear men talking like this” the mangina announcer scolded us sternly, “Why should women not be just as comfortable with their looks?” Apparently it never dawned on the geniuses who wrote this that men might actually try to look nice too.

These feminist hypocrites never seem to find a limit to their own stupidity.

P.S. Off-topic but you have the coolest avatar of anybody here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
will May 31, 2012 at 19:43

@Cindy

Cindy I dare you to go to heartiste.wordpress.com . If you want the tingles down there heh heh heh.

W.F price please do not delete my comment that troll needs it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
will May 31, 2012 at 19:46

@Uncle Elmer

*Vomit

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Eric May 31, 2012 at 19:48

Dragnet:
I remember back a few years ago in Missouri, they were trying to give out free condoms (to promote safe sex) at the same time they were trying to ban pornograpy (because it led to too much sex). When I lived in Nevada briefly, some legislators were considering trying to raise the age of consent for marriage to 21 while keeping the age for legal prostitution at 18.

But the abortion story isn’t surprising either—look how much money the abortion industry pours into Democratic coffers every year. They don’t have the same financial interest in the Indian or Chinese governments, so stories like that just prove what’s really motivating ‘the right to choose.’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
GT66 May 31, 2012 at 19:48

In PA, the courts just ruled in favor of a nursing home that went after the son to pay the bill of his parent who was a patient. Along with the CS debtor’s prisons, this appears to be the new strategy for male financial enslavement. And they seriously think men will have incentive to work and earn when everyone now has legal right to your money before you’ve even earned it? Lunacy.

And another one… “In Savoy v. Savoy, a suit brought by the mother against her son and decided by the Superior Court in 1994, the court ordered the son to pay $150 a month toward his mother’s $10,000 health care debt. ”

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/pennsylvania-son-stuck-moms-93000-nursing-home-bill/story?id=16405807#.T8gsrFKPbZ8

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Jason May 31, 2012 at 20:04

Yeah this is a profoundly brain damaged idea. It is horrific to think such an idea would ever be taken seriously. As for abortion, just frickin ban it. You don’t kill other human beings for reasons of personal convenience. If you don’t want to raise the child the lines for adoption are really long.

Surely the proper approach to the problem of unwed mothers is to go in the other direction. Make the father entirely off the hook unless her is married to the mother at the time of the birth. Otherwise his obligation and any rights in the childs life should be exactly zero.

The current solution, and this proposed abomination is just a recipe for disaster and abuse.

Jason

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Eric May 31, 2012 at 20:27

Martel:
You’re right about the effect of a payout incentivizing women to have more children out of wedlock; but the ultimate absurdity of it would come by how it would be enforced. We know, for example, that most women are getting knocked up by thugs who’ve never earned anywhere close to $50k combined in their entire lives; in fact, the reason so many of these scum go around impregnating so many willing females is because they are virtually uncollectable for child support.

That being the case, not only would women have the greater incentive to knock out feral offspring, like you pointed out, but the ultimate responsibilty for paying them would devolve back onto the welfare system.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel May 31, 2012 at 20:30

Crella
Another defender of lying women. Amazing. You wouldn’t tolerate a used car salesman lying to you about a car you’re about to buy, you’d take him to court…but you condone deceiving a man to get pregnant?

According to the Illinois Appellate Court it’s not deception. Once a man has “delivered” the sperm, he has made an irrevocable gift to the recipient who may use that gift in any way they see fit.

I suppose someone could take this issue to the Supreme Court. I doubt they’d hear such a case.

Another vital fact for young men. The moment that sperm leaves your body it’s no longer yours, under the law.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0
crella May 31, 2012 at 21:08

GT66, I read the article. It’s an awful situation, that man needs the advice of an attorney well-versed in elder law.

The other really disturbing thing in the article, was that it cost over $92,000 for six months’ care!? How can they charge these amounts?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4
OPT-OUT May 31, 2012 at 21:14

“I read an editorial on CNN on the “demise of guys” in which video games and pornography were touted as the cancer that is destroying men.”

Anything men enjoy is portrayed as the the destroyers of men. Sorry but western marriage has destroyed more men than most wars combined. Dead on your feet so to speak.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Rebel May 31, 2012 at 22:14

Of course, if you give credit to Malthus, then there is only one solution that can solve humanity’s future problems that will outclass all other problems put togeher: overpopulation,is to stop having children for most humans. A severe limit to the freedom of giving birth to human beings should be strictly imposed.

Not doing so will ineviably result in hundred of millions of people dying of thirst and starvation. It has been calculated out ¸that by year 2050, there will be nine billion people on this small planet at the expense of most other species.

Either that, or wars will erupt to reduce the actual human population.
Just water shortages will be a very major problem over which wars will be started. The people who will be living during the next fifty years will think nothing about feminism: it will be the least of their worries.

Survival will the the business to be in.In my opinion (the opinion of an old, dying man), only the countryside, a small piece of arable land will provide some people some decent life. Check survivalist sides and try to consider them seriously, if you can.

And if you want the companionship of a female, maybe a (very) small family, you will have to select a woman with extreme care.

Yes, I am terribly worried about the state of the planet and its future capacity to maintain human life.

If I was young, I would give these thoughts very close attention and I would most definitely buy some arable land. The futue is going to be particularly challenging for the generations to come.

I am probably preaching in the desert, but, WTF, those are the breaks..lol!!

There are many ideal places in the United States where such a country life will still be possible for those who will understand on time.
Be careful if you do: those already in place do nor trust outsiders too much and the longer you wait, the toughest it will get.

What is happening between men and women today is a warning sign that something much more dire is going to occur. There are no coincidences: I learned that recently.

Take example from the Mennonites and other religious groups such as the Amish and try to imitate their lifestyles: it may buy you more life time.

That was the essence of my philosophical for today.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3
Eric May 31, 2012 at 22:36

Rebel:

I agree that survivalism will be the business to be in; it’s already a bigger industry than the media wants to admit. The problem isn’t from overpopulation, though, it’s from sheer mismanagement of resources. What we’re witnessing in our time is the end of several false ideologies imploding and likely we’re headed for social conditions similar to the Early Middle Ages. Because of our better technology it won’t hit us as hard as the collapse of Rome; but it will change the demographic landscape considerably nonetheless.

I think you’re right that there will be agrarian communities, I’d add there will also be cities and villages along the same structure. What we’ll witness is those communities holding civilization together (like the monasteries did in the Middle Ages) while outside will be on a level with the most primitive barbarism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire May 31, 2012 at 22:49

about Miserman’s link:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/23/health/living-well/demise-of-guys/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

“The excessive use of video games and online porn in pursuit of the next thing is creating a generation of risk-averse guys who are unable (and unwilling) to navigate the complexities and risks inherent to real-life relationships, school and employment.”

well, duh! what do ya think mgtow is philip retardo?

everyone should read that article because it IS a preview of the future

soon the surgeon general will come out to say that porn is a hazardous addiction

this will be where the future battle will lie

white knights, manginas, and females (both fems and ‘antifem’) vs. mgtowers

freemen vs. the pussy cartel

be ready for forced marriages (or at least increased shaming to marry), bachelor taxes *, and bans on video games and porn

stockpile games and porn (if you don’t already). DON’T just assume the stuff will be around in ten years time

with tenacity and resilience we might at least sap western governments of enough money to bring them to the negotiating table regarding gender relations

want us to marry up? well it’s gonna cost you
men who marry will be compensated for it BIG TIME

* in a sense we already have this in the form of tax credits for marriage (same thing really)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire May 31, 2012 at 22:58

Since Evans began practicing medicine in the 1950s, I’m guessing he’s well into his 80s.
*************

ever notice how it’s older men who back this shit?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Justinian May 31, 2012 at 22:59

@evilwhitemalempire

Well they shut down the comments on that “man up” article real fast. Damn fascists don’t want the truth getting out on why video games are a better deal than marriage.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Ted May 31, 2012 at 23:06

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/23/health/living-well/demise-of-guys/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

That article is a hoot.

“Young men — who play video games and use porn the most — are being digitally rewired in a totally new way”

Exactly. They are being “rewired” to handle the world as it is now. I wonder how old the authors are. Could they even understand the Foul Bachelor Frog?

Fap.

The Battery Low light comes on.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Ted May 31, 2012 at 23:16

More hilarity from the geriatric duo:

“Guys are also totally out of sync in romantic relationships, which tend to build gradually and subtly, and require interaction, sharing, developing trust and suppression of lust at least until “the time is right.”

Lay off it guys, my sides are hurting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Ted May 31, 2012 at 23:23

“Once a man has “delivered” the sperm, he has made an irrevocable gift to the recipient who may use that gift in any way they see fit.”

I suspect that’s what Cindy’s trawling for.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Eric May 31, 2012 at 23:39

EvilWhiteMaleEmpire:
As if I already didn’t have enough incentive for expatting…

At the risk of diverging into a political debate, the ultra-socon Thomas Fleming called for a ban on porn in one of his recent blog posts (if you like, I can look up the link). I think I’ve heard Bill O’Reilly call for the same thing via Internet censorship. You’re right about this being a preview of the future; but I don’t think it would hurt for the Conservatives to keep a close watch on the Trojan Horses within their own movement. The Conservatives might have potential for advancing the MRM; but your spokesmen are a serious problem.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Eric May 31, 2012 at 23:56

Ted:
I would suspect strongly that a lot of younger guys have turned to porn and playing video games precisely because what these two clods describe ISN’T typical of most women they know. Most women ‘require interaction until the time is right’ by dropping their panties for any random gang-banging thug who thinks five minutes of intercourse makes him an alpha-stud.

Let’s hope that’s ‘developing trust and suppression of lust’ enough!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2
evilwhitemalempire June 1, 2012 at 00:57

Eric

The Conservatives might have potential for advancing the MRM; but your spokesmen are a serious problem.
*************

yes, this situation has occured to me

and it’s also the most realistic explanation for the proliferation of anti-feminism among females these days

which is why i don’t worship conservatives

but all the internet porn and video games in the world will do us no good if there’s no electricity

and if the liberal’s spending isn’t stopped it might come down to that
someday

furthermore, whose to say that there won’t come a time when liberals start calling upon the poor white man (after all, he is white and male) to pay for their continued entitlement when it becomes clear to them that there simply aren’t enough rich folks to foot the bill?

especially when you consider that mgtow is, in a sense, a novel form of income tax evasion (by simply not producing so much income to begin with)

how long do you reckon before this way of thinking occurs to liberals?
you don’t think they’d start condemning that x-box controller your holding as an oppressor of women and minorities?

the only reason liberals don’t tell mgtowers to man up is because they haven’t yet felt the need to!

i reckon the best way to go about it is to let conservative politicians know that our votes are contingent on them supporting mgtow

this might be easier to do that one thinks since mgtow IS a kind of (personal) conservatism

conservatives want to cut spending. mgtowers do that too no?

and liberals want to spend (other peoples money) extravagantly just like females!

when you think about it the liberal mindset is really the political extension of the female mindset

-spend others money
-whiny
-shaming language and all emotional when challenged by reasoned debater
-willful, shameless double standards

all disturbingly similar!

this being the case, when all is said and done, which political party really has the pussy cartel’s interests at heart?

the conservative (al bundy grudgingly forking over his pay to peg)
or the liberal (peg the spandex monster)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Justinian June 1, 2012 at 01:18

especially when you consider that mgtow is, in a sense, a novel form of income tax evasion (by simply not producing so much income to begin with)

how long do you reckon before this way of thinking occurs to liberals?
you don’t think they’d start condemning that x-box controller your holding as an oppressor of women and minorities?

the only reason liberals don’t tell mgtowers to man up is because they haven’t yet felt the need to!

This is why MGTOW is not any kind of real solution.

Its just a way of avoiding conflict in the hope that you’ll be dead by the time they finally decide to come for your kind.

By going MGTOW, you cede any power political power you may have had. Then they start putting the screws in .

My guess is that there will be hyperinflation that will wipe out most of the worlds wealth and equalize nearly everyone monetarily.

Single men will then become the #1 tax target as even though nobody has any money, men will have the highest potential for productivity and the easiest targets.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Eric June 1, 2012 at 01:40

EvilWhiteMaleEmpire:
I agree that the liberals are completely hopeless. The real only real potential for developing a men’s movement on the left disappeared about 20 years ago when Bill Clinton, at the instigation of his shrewish wife, enacted NAFTA and GATT and effectively wiped out Organized Labor. The labor unions were very anti-feminist, as opposed to the unions of today, which are mostly teachers’ and government-employee unions all feminist to the core. It’s too bad in a way, because you could well imagine the effect a ‘Men’s Union’ would have had compared to a ‘Men’s Movement.’

What I really worry about with Conservatives most is that the maginas in the movement are its most visible faces. If you ask a typical conservative who he identifies as a leader, the name Hannity will come up a lot more often than the name Keyster. Even though I support a lot more conservative than liberal positions, I can hardly stand reading or hearing their continual pedestalization and what always sounds like an urge to have a ‘strong female’ running things (i.e. Sarah Palin). I think there’s at least a 50-50 chance Romney will pick a Palin clone for his VP. It’s really going to be a difficult task to convince MRAs that a ticket like that is in the interests of men; and even more difficult when jokers like Fleming are out there repeating the same kinds of vile nonsense that the CNN article was touting.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Justinian June 1, 2012 at 02:04

What I really worry about with Conservatives most is that the maginas in the movement are its most visible faces. If you ask a typical conservative who he identifies as a leader, the name Hannity will come up a lot more often than the name Keyster.

The Hannitys of the the world do nowhere near as much damage as the feminized christian churches that conservatives worship at. The RCC always fights against welfare reform under the guise of preventing abortions. When the so-called conservative churches subsidize the baby-mama culture its OVER.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
bruno June 1, 2012 at 04:39

” Paging Welmer….

http://news.yahoo.com/house-rejects-ban-sex-selection-abortions-202308339–abc-news-politics.html

Liberals vote down American ban on sex selective abortions…while pushing such bans in places like China & India.”

Probably they want to ban it in India and China, because there they abort girls, and then want to allow it here, because here the women want to abort the child when they hear it’s a boy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Rmaxd June 1, 2012 at 05:35

@Afor

“akshully, the only reason wimminz have abortions is when the PREGNANCY does not have the desired effect on the desired mug”

Brilliantly put …

If a woman cant extort & guilt trip a man to hand over his cash & a relationship against his will, by getting pregnant

To punish him, she murders the child, hoping the death of his child haunts him … what these ignorant bitches dont realise, men are just glad, they dont have to pay child support …

An abortion, dodged a lifetime of slavery & kick a skank out of your life …

A 2 in 1 special … available at abortion clinics for vindictive bitches everywhere …

Whats even more hilarious, the bitch has to endure a life threatening surgical operation, which’ll take her months, if not years to recover from …

But that showed him … his child’s dead … as he moves onto the next 3 billion women available to impregnate & have his child …

Womens rights, the gift that keeps on screwing over clueless women, in hilarious & exploitative ways for decades …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
Thomas Tell-Truth June 1, 2012 at 07:10

As the things get worse, the maternalist state is going to increasingly put the screws to men. The powers that be lack the moral courage to criticise women for the damage thier stupid choices have wrought, so they will double down on men instead. Its going to get worse boys. The solution? MGTOW.

MGTOW is a strike by men. Strikes aren’t an ideal solution, but sometimes they are the only sane option in the face of the intolerable. If enough men go on ‘strike’ then one of three things will happen.

1) The system become increasingly autocratic towards men, hitting them with ever more financial extractions and enacting ever more punitive and controlling regulations on men. Thier attempts to reengineer male behaviour by taxation and fiat will backfire disastrously. Instead of a turning men into pacified serfs for the twatocracy, it will radicalise and catalyse men. Even the most effete, betafied urban eloi hipster will radicalise given enough bullshit.

2) change the system to produce a more male friendly environment.

I suspect the first option will happen. Modern government is run for the benefit of princess, and she wants her goodies. They will become increasinly punitive, more men will drop out and the system will collapse. After that, all bets are off.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Migu June 1, 2012 at 07:26

<blockquoteOf course, if you give credit to Malthus, then there is only one solution that can solve humanity’s future problems that will outclass all other problems put togeher: overpopulation,is to stop having children for most humans. A severe limit to the freedom of giving birth to human beings should be strictly imposed.

Everybody loves ole Thomas Malthus. Everybody loves to add to his simple statement. “The population will grow until there is not enough food to support it.”

China is packed nut to butt and they can still support more people. We are a long way off from overpopulation, and if you believe Malthus this is a self resolving problem. No need to go all murderous in order to prevent it happening. (Not saying that you are, just playing off the Malthus reference.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
keyster June 1, 2012 at 08:33

The Conservatives might have potential for advancing the MRM; but your spokesmen are a serious problem.

The Liberal biased media loves nothing more than when a sanctimonious Conservative speaks out with righteous indignation about social issues. CNN represents Bill Bennett as a “voice” for conservative opinion, and he’s really not that liked or respected, at least among anyone younger than 60. O’Reilly is similar. These dinosours from an age-gone-by are dying off.

Conservatives opining on morality never ends well, because outside of religion it’s been deemed relative; if it feels good, do it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
The Big Daddy C-Master June 1, 2012 at 09:17

@Eric
It’s a mismanagement of resources because the people who are having all of the kids are losers, having more loser kids. The illusion of productivity is the largest welfare there is. Most people will never be too productive, while the ones who are productive with better genes have to pay a high cost if they want to populate that much since these laws assign it to a man’s wealth. Losers can pop out kids ad infinitum at the cost of the taxpayer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire June 1, 2012 at 10:27

Thier attempts to reengineer male behaviour by taxation and fiat will backfire disastrously. Instead of a turning men into pacified serfs for the twatocracy, it will radicalise and catalyse men. Even the most effete, betafied urban eloi hipster will radicalise given enough bullshit.
***************

i’m counting on it

take away their x-box 360 and see how ‘herbivorous’ they remain

“the only reason wimminz have abortions is when the PREGNANCY does not have the desired effect on the desired mug”
*****************

gotta archive this one

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: