My body, my choice!!! (your tax dollars)

Yes, I get it. You're an independent woman who can make her own decisions. You're a strong single mom who can take care of herself... with everyone else's money of course. Don't want to forget that!

by Quinton Figueroa on February 26th, 2016

"Fuck off!!" -- (now come back and give me more money)

I find it so incredibly ridiculous how people don't see the straight contradiction of anyone who states, "My body, my choice". This statement is as dishonest and manipulative as you can get. If it's your body and your choice why can't you leave tax payers alone? Why are you telling people to leave you alone while at the same time not leaving them alone? Do people not get it? Oh I know, if you have a vagina and complain enough you get the best of both worlds. Makes sense.

In the past women used to be provided for by men. Then women were tricked into being told this was unfair and so the State fooled them into getting jobs too so that they could tax the other 1/2 of the population. Now women work jobs, get taxed just like men and have less time for their children and family. This is all by design of course, but it's hard for to grasp concepts outside of sex, drugs and rock & roll.


"Pay for my abortion because I don't need you!!"

Men have been replaced by the state. Rather than going out and being a good person and finding a decent man, women now sleep with indecent men, get stuck with pregnancy or children and then run to the state to take care of them. Why work on becoming an attractive person to guys if you can just force guys to give you money via the state? If you're with a guy you have to actually give and take with him. You have to actually reciprocate love and virtue. But with the state you can treat people however you want and still get money.

So when women say that it is their body and their choice I wish they were being honest and telling the truth. I would be so happy if women actually believed and acted on what they said. Because to women it is not their body and their choice. Apparently you and I are also brought into the picture because we have to help pay for their choices. We have to pay tax dollars to women who choose to do whatever they want to do with their body without any thought of future consequences to present actions. But that's how people think--er--are programmed to respond these days. People don't actually think. They just repeat menial lines their masters have trained them to parrot.

Way to be independent women. Way to truly show your worth by coming up with honest, truthful statements. Way to really show your independence by forcing other people to give you money.


"YOU DON'T OWN ME!! I'M A STRONG, INDEPENDENT WOMAN WHO AINT NEED NO MAN!!" -- (now give me your money)
 Filed under: Politics / Government, Growing Pains, Dependent Independents, Cognitive Dissonance, Best of Both Worlds

About The Author

Quinton Figueroa

Quinton Figueroa

Los Angeles, CA

I am an entrepreneur at heart. Throughout my whole life I have enjoyed building real businesses by solving real problems. Business is life itself. My goal with businesses is to help move the human ...

More

13 Comments

Vanessa: What about the flip side of

What about the flip side of this situation? In the age of tinder where are all of these amazing decent men that can provide for a family in such a way that he deserves for a woman to be subservient to him and give him her exclusive love and her virtue? Most of the men I've come accross in my dating life are not decent and are just trying to get it in. Obviously there are exceptions, but man are they rare. I imagine that many of these same types are the ones that like to bitch about condoms and then go off the grid and refuse to pay child support when their bad decision meets a girls bad decision and results in: single mom on welfare. There is more than one person being dumb here. However only one is physically tied to the concequences. Your argument would be valid if men still occupied their historical place as providers for women. If getting married and having a family was a viable option, I would consider it. However society treats me like a man. Work like a man, taxed like a man, put my own roof over my head and food in my fridge like a man, expected to not value my sexuality like a man! So what, I'm to be treated like a man and meet male expectations yet at the same time retain historically female responsibilities in an environment which severely deviates from the majority of human history?

What about women that do care about being a good person in a give-take adult relationship? I get where you're coming from with the whole having babies you can't care for by yourself is irresponsible thing. Absolutely on the same page here. But that responsibility does not fall with just the woman...right? If we really wanted to stop welfare babies we could just start chopping off the dicks of every irresponsible fucker putting it in with no good intentions right? No wait, of course that's ridiculous. But it would work. You're a pretty decent looking dude, I'm sure you've had your fair share of pre martial sex, have you been ready to step up and marry every single girl you've been with should an accident arise? If not, this entire article is kind of hypocritical...and if so, great, good for you for being such an excellent stand up guy, the world needs more of those for sure!

Quinton Figueroa: Let me make it a bit more
@Vanessa (view comment)

Let me make it a bit more clear, and of course this is a generality...

Women generally bring fertility to the relationship equation while men bring resources. Women start off fertile when they are young and their fertility and attraction decreases with time. Men, on the other hand, start off without resources when they are young and their resources usually increase with time. So the sexual value of women declines as they grow older and for men their sexual value increases with time.

We all kind of know this in our own ways. When women are young they can get pretty much any guy they want. If a woman is in her 20s and in decent shape she can get pretty much any guy. A guy in his early 20s that's in decent shape can't get any woman. Women have guys throwing themselves at them when they are younger while guys have very few, if any women throwing themselves at them when they are younger. And this if perfectly fine and how it should be.

Conversely, once women hit around 30 - 40 their fertility and their good looks start to fall off. And around this same time guys begin to bring in more and more resources which is more attractive to women, especially women who want a guy that can actually provide for them and isn't some loser. A guy making decent income in decent shape in his 30s and 40s can get pretty much any woman in her 30s and 40s.

So the tables clearly turn. A decent guy in his 30s - 40s is like a decent woman in her early 20s. And women seem to forget this. Women forget that when they are younger they have all the cards in their hands. When women are younger rather than chasing every hot loser they should instead be looking for a solid guy who has a long term plan on how he's going to bring in resources and how he's going to provide for them as they grow together.

But a lot of women don't look for decent guys when they have the looks. Instead they squander their looks and get knocked up by losers that are more attractive than the decent guys they should be going after. Women go after a 9 that appeals to them at a biological level as opposed to a 7 or 8 that appeals to them on a personal, emotional or even spiritual level.

When women are young it's not fun to be with a loner guy who is working on building something great. When women are young and hot they don't want to be with a guy who will be rolling in the dough in 10 - 20 years. They want it now! Women don't want to support a guy who is inferior to them now sexually to lock in a marriage with a guy who will be superior to them sexually later in life. And so women find themselves in this tough predicament as they grow older and haven't settled down with a decent guy.

So what am I getting at?

Women choose who they sleep with. Women don't accidentally get pregnant. Women don't accidentally become single moms. Women choose who they have sex with, every time. And if women choose losers then the losers are going to leave them. There are plenty of decent guys, they just don't all have six packs or sweep you off your feet every minute with bullshit lies. But most woman don't want decent guys when they're young and hot. They want hot guys when they're hot. And when they're not hot then they want decent guys. But that's not how it works. And most people don't get this.

I can guarantee you if the next guy you go on a date with is ugly he won't be trying to get it in. So you have to ask yourself if maybe you're looking for the best of both worlds rather than what you really want. If you really want a decent guy get a decent guy. Who cares how he looks? They're everywhere. So you don't just want a decent guy. I know, I've been in the dating game. I've been with people who will describe exactly what they look for in a relationship only to go for the complete opposite when they find somebody hot. And then they will continue to skip over what they're looking for if the person isn't quite attractive enough for them. And they're never attractive enough in the woman's eyes. Because as women get older they still think they can date guys in the same range as when they were younger.

Back in the day women were supposed to hold out on sex. Women weren't supposed to give sex until they were married -- or at least wait a few months for crying out loud. That is part of what made it work. If women didn't have sex until they were in a committed relationship it would really help them close the deal. But once women started to break the ranks and they started to sleep around before marriage they began making it harder on themselves. Then they started competing with each other on who could sleep around first to get the next cool guy. I'm not saying it's wrong to sleep around. I'm just saying women are way too easy these days. Women need to hold out on sex. And some do. But majority of women don't. Majority of women value themselves so little these days, and quite frankly offer so little these days, that the only thing they really have to offer a man is sex rather than character, integrity, compassion, encouragement and real, honest love.

Look, I'm not saying guys are any different. Guys are just as stupid. People in general are pretty freaking stupid if you get right down to it. But if a guy is a loser why would a woman sleep with him? If you know he's not marriage material why have sex? If you know it's somebody who would leave you if he found out you were pregnant why have sex? If your gut told you he wasn't right for you why continue? It's just crazy to me.

Here's another thing that is my opinion, but since it's my blog I'll say it. I think about 80% of relationships are going to be pretty shitty for both parties. I think most people are too stupid to have a good relationship and most people are going to have surface level relationships built around the physical body. I think about only around 20% of relationships are actually going to be good relationships with people who are mature enough to make it work. If most people are stupid then what makes the average person think that they are capable of being in a good relationship? A good relationship requires high quality people. Most people aren't high quality.

So yeah, the cycle just keeps repeating over and over again and with each iteration children come out with worse and worse parents and people become dumber and dumber. It's a sad, sad state of affairs and the welfare state is only making it exponentially worse.

Vanessa: Nothing was unclear at all, I

Nothing was unclear at all, I'm perfectly aware of the historical male-female sexual value creation scale. However, like Uber is busting up the taxi business, other societal changes are busting up this outdated exchange of value that is RESULTING in women demanding to be taken care of by the state. Why? Because men are failing at holding up their end of the bargain and women are forced to adapt. Did women stop being fertile? No. Did women stop being attractive or young? No. Did men stop being able to provide enough income to support a traditional nuclear family? Yes. Which party is not doing what they are "supposed" to? Now, arguably, this is not each individual man who has failed at this' faults. For the guy that never finished high school and never made anything of himself, sure let's hold him personally responsible for his failures. But in the general population there are plenty of people with relevant skills that they should be able to capitalise on but are less able to do so than in the past because of:
1) an economic system that has essentially moved labour jobs overseas which has removed this historically typical job from the list of options for providers
2) the doubling of the labour force without the doubling of jobs available as a result of women joining the workforce over the last 60 years
3) a western economy based on services, where arguably women are more naturally competent than men, and therefore outperforming them, and pushing them out of what jobs are available.
1 essentially resulted in 2 and 3 out of necessity. If men want to blame anything, they can blame unbrindled capitalism and globalisation for taking away the ability of most men to provide for a woman.

Women are simply adapting to new realities of society. A lot of men dislike this, hey, lots of people don't like change, that's ok. But for someone that defines smart as being the ability to adapt to different situations how can you put all the blame on women for what is going on? We might choose who to sleep with, but when all of our options suck, what are we left with to choose from?
You make a lot of assumptions about women that are not even generally true. A lot of us (myself included) do not give any shits about a six pack. Not all of us are vain, vapid, cock-chasing dumb dumbs, ok? Some of us think loners who are dedicated to building something are super interesting and awesome, and would much rather date them than some douchebag football player who cannot make conversation. Provided this smart loner is not an illogical misogynistic asshole of course. I've met a couple of those. Next! You have also wrongly assumed that my expressed frustration at the dating scene meant that I was single. And you also assumed that I have never dated anyone unattractive before. I think "unattractive" is relative, I'd sooner date someone with an unattractive face or body than an unattractive personality. Oh wait, I did both. And dumped both. They both sucked. They both tried to "just get it in". Before I met my current boyfriend I was with a PHD student. GREAT guy. Probably best I've dated. Broke my heart to turn him loose. Anyway, I ended things because he was immature. Because he hadn't lived life as much as me, because he wasn't a "fully cooked" human, and because mom and dad were still far too involved in the financial picture for my comfort. Maybe I'm an anomaly here (aren't we all), but being 26 and launching my 3rd venture, having already been some form of self-employed and self-sufficient for the last 7 years , I find it Super Crazy Hella Difficult to meet a guy close to my own age that has even the SAME ability to bring in resources and manage a life compared to me, let alone MORE. I am not alone here, my best girlfriend and I discussed this at dinner tonight, and she makes even more $ than I do and we both experience the same issue with always being the breadwinners in our relationships. My current boyfriend is 19 years older than me, and only after expanding my dating pool this much was I able to find someone in the same income bracket as myself who could contribute equally. Still haven't met anyone in a much higher one.

Why, instead of assuming that women have nothing to offer, do you not look at what it is men are ACTUALLY offering to women nowadays as a backdrop for your observations. Not what they used to. What they are really, in the physical world of today offering. When you don't pay employees, they tend to go on strike. Same concept, different variables.

If it's not wrong to sleep around why did you write this article? If you think it's ok for people to sleep around, you should be ok with paying for the consequences. Blaming women for consequences of giving sex earlier while saying it is ok to sleep around? Which one is it? Are women to blame for all of these problems? In which case men need to step up and provide a better alternative or...men need to just shut up and deal with the consequences of them demanding free and easy sex from women. You guys get to pick. Us women are at the mercy of what you demand from us. That is why the majority of women don't value themselves anymore (bang on with that one by the way). They are told that they are worthless. They are told they don't deserve to be even taken on a date. They are told that the only thing of value they have is sex. You said it yourself. So if you guys believe this, cool, but expect to pay for the consequences of such selfish and short-sighted beliefs. And expect for the few women left who do value themselves to call you out on your bullshit. I'm so tired of hearing men shit on women for not being traditional good wife material when they are out there sticking their dick in anything that moves. A lot of young guys feel entitled to the 50s housewife but they don't want to or can't go out there and earn one. So instead they project their feelings of inadequacy onto young women and call us inadequate, when they are the ones asking girls they don't know for nudes and playing minecraft instead of making something of themselves. Obviously you're a hard worker so maybe this is why it's hard for you to understand that a hard-working young man is not the norm of what is on offer to your typical female. Of any quality. I don't want you thinking those personal anecdotes were the doings of some raging ugly fat girl and using that as an a reason why I do not see many good options. I'm a decently attractive, young, girl, and even I see this.

Why do men sleep with women they wouldn't marry? Because humans kind of like sex, that's why. You never answered my question about your own history with girls. So I'm going to assume that no, you wouldn't have married every woman you've slept with if something went wrong (YOU impregnated her). Unless maybe you've designed a cool new unbreakable condom that's about to hit the market and have some new information the rest of the world doesn't, accidental pregnancies are definitely possible. If you hold women to the standard that they should not sleep with a man unless he is father material, you should hold yourself and all men to the same standard. That saying..."put your money where your mouth is"... Sexual reproduction requires two parties, they're in it together, and both are equally responsible for the result. Maybe men used to get more privileges and women used to be responsible for controlling sex. Men EARNED that by providing for women. You have vestiges of this outdated dynamic show up in the form of sugar daddy's and sugar babies, but outside of that, men don't earn the privilege to be advantaged over women anymore. You are not getting that not only is this argument of yours hypocritical, it is not relevant in modern society because of the different framework we now have where expectations of both sexes are fairly similar. It's kinda like comparing the feudal system to the social housing system. Before the masters HAD TO house the serfs. Or their assets would die. Now we all collectively house them and pay for it. That's the consequences of eradicating slavery. This is the consequence of rising equality. When we grow some stuff gets messed up, we can fix it, but reverting to the old system of exchange without any tweaks would not be called progress.

Quinton Figueroa: You're obviously not an idiot
@Vanessa (view comment)

You're obviously not an idiot and you know what you're talking about. I'd put you in the minority of women. It's rare to have a woman, or man, bring up any of the coherent points you bring up. I don't disagree with what you're saying. You're right, the economy is much harder right now, women have been pushed into the workforce and all these other things have happened which have changed the dynamic of society. I would argue most of these have been planned out by design decades ago in order to break apart the family and in order to more easily control people. Men and women have both been used as cannon fodder to achieve this goal, women more than men I would argue. This is a liberal agenda and women vote more liberal than men.

And that's an undertone of this article, women are selling themselves out to the state. The state comes to women and says, "Hey ladies, vote for this and you'll get some free resources!". This is very similar to coming up to a guy and being like, "Hey guys, vote for this and we'll give you some free prostitutes". They're appealing to a biological construct of women and exploiting it to their advantage. Women are selling other women out by voting for more government policies which grow the state, rather than decrease it. And women by far vote more liberal than men, which increases the size and control of the state.

For example, we hear that women are paid less than men. This is obvious bullshit to anybody with an IQ above room temperature. But since it sounds good to women they vote for more "equality". Women are used just like other races are used to help deteriorate society. And nobody seems to get what's going on. The stupidity snowballs and gets worse and worse.

This is a big topic. It sounds as though you would blame Capitalism and globalization for this problem where I would blame government and even deeper than that I would blame Socialism and the very people who engineered such systems for this very purpose. But that is a topic for another time :) But I agree, something is causing this degradation, no doubt.

I know very little about you so I'm sorry if I assume things incorrectly. It sounds as though you got your shit together. You're obviously an exception to the generality of what I'm talking about. And you know you are... I'm sure when you talk to all your old friends you knew growing up you think, damn, they just don't get it. They're oblivious to everything and just sit around and do nothing with their life.

You put yourself in a challenging position because very few guys are interested in women who are more financially successful than they. Look at women like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and the likes. These women never get married because they're not really marriage material. They've essentially taken themselves out of the marriage market because most guys don't want this. It's an unfortunate reality. And of course there are exceptions and I'm talking in generalities. Most guys would rather a supportive, nurturing woman than a successful breadwinner. Again, a lot of this stuff is different today since the whole dynamic has changed. Who freaking even knows anymore? I don't even think people even know what they want anymore, they just aimlessly float around through life and where they end up they end up.

But yeah, I can understand your points with finding a great man. I get the type of guy you're looking for and they are rare. Most men these days live with the parents until they're 30 and then once they've sobered up a little maybe they'll become assistant manager at Jiffy Lube. I get it, most men have no ambition and don't do anything with their life. Add to this a women who has her shit together with decent income and it's going to be hard to find a decent guy. This is why you're going for older guys. And this is why in the past women generally went for older guys too. Because the young guys don't have their shit together. Men mature slower than women and men these days don't really mature. I get it.

You want my take on men? They're losers and pieces of shit too. I agree with you about men. Men these days are pussies and have no ambition. It's not just women, it's people.

But anywho...

This article is about women living on the tit of the state. As for sleeping around I don't care. But why should I have to pay for your consequences? I'm not making your decision for you, why do I have to pay for the results of it? This is the fundamental point of this article. It's literally theft for people to bring me in to pay for their bad decisions that they make. That's criminal to force somebody, through the state, to pay for your bad decisions. It's criminal to force somebody to pay for your good decisions. It's criminal to use the state to force other people to do something to your advantage. That's why I'm not okay with it. Have all the sex you want. Have all the children you want. Just don't make me pay for it.

Why do men sleep with women they wouldn't marry you ask? Because men will fuck anything they can. They have absolutely nothing to lose, women have a lot to lose. So the better question is why do women sleep with men they wouldn't marry? You're taking a risk by doing so. Yes, I completely agree that guys are pieces of shit who go around having sex with anyone they can. But women don't have to have sex with them. Only the low quality women do anyway. The high quality women understand this.

Accidental pregnancies can happen, but most pregnancies aren't "accidental". They're people just being stupid. With proper birth control it's pretty hard to get pregnant. And I most certainly do hold men to the same standard as women that they shouldn't sleep around unless they are in a serious relationship. But most people don't think this way and that's fine. Just don't make me pay for you when you have a child that you cant' afford. Don't make me pay for your abortion. Don't bring me into your bad situation. You wanted it, so now you have it. I didn't want it and I didn't ask for it. I'm over here minding my own business. I got stuff to do, pay your own damn tab.

I actually think you're in a more similar situation to me where you may be the in the 20% of people who know what they want while the rest of the 80% just keep jumping around from shitty relationship to shitty relationship. So you and me are much different than most people. Most people aren't like us.

And to answer your question...

I never slept around when I was dating. I find people incredibly easy to read and can tell immediately what they're about. I have always looked for and cared about who the person is on the inside first as opposed to bullshit physical stuff that majority of people blindly follow. I never wanted to just sleep around when I was dating. I view it as a waste of time. I knew what I wanted and if the woman didn't have that fundamental core I was looking for I would move on. As a result, I am now with the best woman in the world and we are going on 6 years together. As the years go on our relationship grows and gets better, not worse like the vast majority of relationships. We live much closer to a 50s style dynamic because we both understand the value we bring to the relationship. We understand that we're not the same and that's what makes it awesome. At the core we both believe the same fundamental things but we have our own individual preferences. I'm living the dream, the same dream anybody else can live when they decide to grow up.

I get that this article makes me seem like I hate women and like men more than women. That's the unfortunate part about writing an article like this and taking a very firm side. I'm making generalities. I understand that there is give and take on all things. I understand nothing is ever clear cut. I take a firm side to get my point across. I do that on most of the articles I write on this site. So in the case of this article it doesn't at all mean I hate women and it especially doesn't mean I glorify men. I could just as easily, and probably should, write articles about the negative side of men. At the end of the day it's not a male/female thing, it's a people thing. Most people are stupid and predictable. There are a lot of really great women that I respect greatly. Same with men. But then there are a bunch of complete hacks on both sides.

Thanks for the comments and good points.

Ad Honorem: Need to see the bigger picture

First of all, I understand what you're saying about hypocrisy and personal responsibility. Suppose though, a woman does get pregnant- despite her best efforts to take the necessary precautions. Suppose also, she is in no financial position to raise a child. If she goes through with the pregnancy and depends on welfare payments to raise her child (or if the child becomes a ward of the state), then, long-term, she is going to be costing taxpayers a lot more money than if she'd just had a state-funded abortion. If we looked at the issue as one of simple accounting in such a scenario, then abortion would be the obviously preferable option.

Given the above hypothetical, would you agree that in certain situations women should have tax-payer funded abortions available to them, or do you have a deeper moral objection to abortions in general? Or, rather do you just dislike the overall hypocrisy and disingenuousness of the feminist-oriented 'pro-choice' arguments. The latter would be a more logically consistent reason for your article.

As demonstrated, the 'they shouldn't make the taxpayers fund their choices' argument against state-funded abortion is illogical for two reasons: firstly, pregnancy isn't necessarily a choice or due to a lack of planning- no (non-abortion) birth-control measure is 100 percent reliable. Secondly, the alternative may end up costing taxpayers much more in the long-run.

Quinton Figueroa: The vast majority of women
@Ad Honorem (view comment)

The vast majority of women getting pregnant are not rare cases of rape or something outside of their control. They're just bad decisions. It's not my responsibility, or anyone else's, to subsidize the bad decisions of others, especially when they are claiming it's their body and their choice.

I'm not just talking about abortion either. I'm talking about women in general and the way they think it is respectable to be single moms who have sex with loser men and then run to the state to subsidize their bad decisions.

Anne: Perhaps you are right about

Perhaps you are right about that statistic (though I would like to see some proof), but it shouldn't matter!! Even if there were only a few women in positions where pregnancy was an accident or a result of rape, it simply isn't fair to take these resources away from them. Also, you are generalizing an entire gender, and I don't think that's quite right. Yes, I'm sure there are women who make bad decisions, but there are also women who make good decisions. There are men who make bad decisions and men who make good decisions. But when a man has unprotected sex, he does not have to deal with the same physical and emotional stresses that women do when they carry a child for 9 months, push it out, breastfeed, and pay for the child and themselves. Men are affected by unwanted pregnancies as well! They (if they are the good sort of guy) have to help and pay money and be responsible. The right to choose affects everyone, and everyone (except for a few) pays taxes!! One last thing: even if you are a woman who decided to get pregnant, are financially stable, and have a partner with you, many women need an abortion because of a life-threatening medical situation (please look it up I promise you will find stories and statistics).

Ad Honorem: Sorry, I left that comment

Sorry, I left that comment before I had properly read your article. I now see you weren't specifically critiquing taxpayer funded abortion like I assumed you would be. Yes I largely agree with you about the hypocrisy of the 'empowered woman' rhetoric and wish the feminists would tone it down (although of course that's never going to happen- it's like asking a fish not to swim).

I also hate the way abortion has become a feminist issue. Their argument (it's my body so my choice) is one of the most selfish things I've ever heard. Personally I don't have a problem with abortion because I don't think something aware or conscious is being killed (to me it's not really different to any other form of birth control) and the only people it effects (aside from the taxpayers) are the women having it done (and potentially the men who got them pregnant). However, if I were to accept the arguments of the pro-life camp i.e. that abortion is murder and morally equivalent to murdering a baby that had already been born, then I would say it's irrelevant whether the woman has 'sovereignty' over her body. Her right to bodily autonomy does not give her the right to commit murder. Obviously some rights are conditional and are trumped by other rights- and that is what the pro-lifers are saying.

The fact that 'bodily autonomy' is frequently used as an argument in favour abortion without addressing the opposing arguments shows how shallow and self-centered a lot of feminists are.

Anne: I really hope I can change
@Ad Honorem (view comment)

I really hope I can change your mind here. Someone is not selfish for caring what happens to their body!! Pregnancy can be an extremely damaging thing for a woman's body. Especially if, perhaps she or the baby develop some kind of life-threatening medical condition. This happens so please just google it, and I promise you will find any number of stories that involve women who were put in life-threatening situations because they couldn't get an abortion. To sum up, any woman or man should have control over what happens to their body. This is the only body we get, and some of these situations end up costing lives.

Ad Honorem: One other thing that I think

One other thing that I think should be addressed in the spirit of fairness. Most of these women themselves will pay taxes in one form or another. Does this not mean they are collectively (involuntarily) buying into a public safety-net for when they do make mistakes etc. There are a lot of things taxes go towards that will only benefit a small segment of the population (including you, potentially in certain situations). Is this piece a more general critique on taxes and public vs private healthcare?

Quinton Figueroa: This piece is a critique on
@Ad Honorem (view comment)

This piece is a critique on how women think they can be on their own without men but meanwhile use resources provided by the state which are provided mostly by men. This piece is also at how stupid many men are in allowing women to use the state to steal their resources. The whole dynamic between men and women is being destroyed by weak men and entitled women who both believe the BS propaganda perpetuated all day long by our social engineers that men and women are the same. Men and women are not the same. And there are different strengths and weaknesses in both.

Women are hurting themselves more than they are hurting men. Women are unknowingly scaring men away and the more they replace men with the state the worse their lives will become and the poorer they will become. No man wants to marry a woman who can easily take 50% of their net worth if they separate. Woman initiate 70% of divorces for no reason. A woman with a child is much less attractive to a man than a woman without a child. But women would much rather have a child with a loser who would make a terrible husband than have a child with a man that would make a great husband. And then when the man leaves them either because he was shit to begin with or because she scared him away, the single mom goes running to the state to subsidize her selfish, short-sighted, egotistical desires. And then she's confused why she can't find any decent men. You get what you are.

But again, it's not hurting me or most men. Feminism hurts women more than men. It's just sad to see the contradictions and hypocrisy in Feminism. You see this in any group of people that social engineers take hold of and then brand as victims: poor people, black people, women, etc, etc. That's how we do it on planet earth these days. And the people love it.

But pretty soon the men will no longer go along with it and women will be forced to change. When there is no more state welfare to go around, no more men to protect them from violence and rape and no more men to subsidize their bad decisions then women are really going to have a wake up call.

mb: Very interesting thread.

Very interesting thread. Three comments/questions:
1. What I think you are driving at points to the fact that many modern women are willing to accept less contentment/happiness in exchange for freedom, at least when they are young. The enlightenment and it's obsession on individual rights and freedoms made the ability to chose (regardless of the context) almost sacred. For some, men and women alike, it's more important to have a choice than the happiness that choice generates (choice of being a 50s traditional wife, marriage before kids, look for already man with resources or more career oriented, bread winner with ambition). Think of the cereal box isle, we are probably less satisfied by the choice of cereal that we eventually choose bec we regret that there might have been a better choice, but good luck convincing a modern mind that if only given two choices, even ones that seem mediocre, that in the longrun, with less options to regret choosing, they would be happier. I think most "smart" "20%" people know this phenomenon and still prefer choice over happiness.
2. I am more sympathetic to the gov supported pro-choice cause simply from empathy. You are obviously thoughtful and while i might disagree with some of your perspectives, it's obvious you are a critical thinker. Not everyone is. Not everyone is given the same chance to be (genes/environment). While it's unfair that unrelated people to a unwanted pregnancy need to help pay for it, it is also unfair that some people aren't born with the same potential or resources for growth as others, and will probably for that reason make dumb decisions.
3. Since the pill and abortion is already out. I am not sure if making abortions expensive for people who can't pay for it will actually save tax payers money. This might be something that can be empirically extrapolated, but my guess would be that not many people who would otherwise have unwanted children would stop. Remember, either it was a genuine accident (broke condom, and unless you are saying no sex before marriage, this will still happen) or they are not very responsible people, who did not make proper precautions. In this second case, I doubt they will all of a sudden become responsible they realize that if they do become pregnant they will need to pay for an abortion. Secondly, if gov sponsored abortions are eliminated a black market for abortions will be created, along with all the usual side effects (medical deaths, crime, unground trade scenes, violence). Lastly, if gov sponsored abortions are eliminated and the child is actually born it will probably be to a parent who won't treat them well, bec they are unwanted. It will be harder for that child than the child wanted by their parents to avoid crime, contribute to the economy or avoid having an unwanted child of their own. I don't think it's all about fairness or happiness. Choice can be more important to some people than happiness even if they complain and fairness is sometimes not as relevant as wether "fairness" would actually result in better outcomes and whether this fairness is being evaluated for individuals starting from equal opportunities. In my opinion, there is no obvious solution, but those are some thoughts.

Sam: The best phrase about thjs

It's hilarious when people so strongly and boldly tell the world they are self-made, independent and can run their own lives - but are the first ones in line for a handout.

Its like the ignorant young adult who proclaims he is independent because he has his own apartment, own money and own car. Yet they leave out the most crucial part of their situation - his parents gave him the money to be "independent."

When his parents tell him to buy a sensible car or live at home (because he obviously cannot afford to live on his own, hence his parents pay for his life) he proudly proclaims that he is standing firm on what he wants.

But he still needs his parents money to stand his ground.

The best phrase I've heard about this moronic phenomenon is "You can't put your foot down and have your hand out at the same time."

Add new comment