"In the pagan Greco-Roman world, it was taken for granted that men had
the right to expose a newborn baby for any reason, or even no reason."
Like today, women were mute, incapable of speaking. They couldn't argue against infanticide or in any way petition their husband.
They were also, like today, incapable of asking a man not to infanticide before they married him. Because, as above, women are mute.
Incapable of speaking.
Restricted to animal grunts, like beasts. Worse than beasts.
It's perfectly logical, see?
America respects women. It gets it from Christianity.
P.S. The man pays for the baby and therefore the baby is the man's property, end of story. Anything else is irresponsible.
I was in another thread on another site and a womans response to the idea that abortion should be considered a criminal act (as in infanticide) was that the man who got the prosecuted woman pregnant in the first place should be hanged by default. It's clearly a hot button issue!
(lol.. don't wanna be pregnant? Don't have sex??????)
"Part of the reason early Christianity was popular among women was asserting that things like casual infanticide was, well… wrong"
So they get to decide who they mate with and also if they're allowed to murder the infant. Why wouldn't they be all for it?
From the comment that succeeds it :
"Legal abortion, as Hefner knew enabled men to squirt and scram and avoid supporting any children they didn’t want."
You see, this is the attitude that a cuck would have. Cui bono. What percentage of men get sexual access to this level? The very top few. But I disagree this was his motivation. The commenter is just a "Defender of wahmen", so of course, it has to be an ebil MAN who did the ebil thing.
Of course Hef was pro "what women wanted". He loved women and was surrounded by them constantly. And they did what he wanted. And so.... of course he would shill for their benefit.
At the time Roe vs Wade was pushed through for the most part child support agreements were relatively non existent. So... explain how men in general would have benefited from abortion?
Abortion is as you imply. An issue that puts the ownership of the child into the mothers hands. It's necessary to destroy marriage.
Consider - Roe V Wade is 1973, very close to when the divorce rate started to increase. They only really started to argue for joint custody around the late 70's / early 80s but previously women tended to get awarded the children.
Note that anyone who tries to argue for a male "financial abortion" is shouted down. Infanticide = ok if mum chooses. Not paying if mum wants baby = NOT ALLOW.
Easy way to solve the abortion debate.
Before sex you agree to terms. (OH WAIT WE HAD THAT.)
"My position is that I will likely abort any babies that come from this, but I expect you to pay if one comes"
"My position is that I am against the abortion of any babies that come from this, but I refuse to pay if one comes"
"Oh lol we're incompatible bye".
The default legal position, ie, if you don't explicitly state it, is no abortion, man must pay. Simple. No whining, you didn't specify.
But I also agree very strongly with you - whoever pays, gets custody. Like we used to do it!
Women can't not have sex. They're like electrical sockets, passively accepting whatever cock is offered to them. At best the existing cock will fight off other cocks.
America respects women.
This is ...matriarchy...
Yeah there used to be a system where sex was preceded by agreeing to terms, but you were only allowed to agree to one set of terms, and you weren't allowed to have sex at all if there wasn't an explicit agreement.
Earlier there were two sets of terms - one for prostitutes. Then they criminalized prostitution.
Turns out tyranny leads to tyranny. Specifically, tyranny leads to worse tyranny.
Shouldn't have let the church and state meddle in your business in the first place.
>They're like electrical sockets, passively accepting whatever cock is offered to them
Tell me you're Chad without telling me you're Chad, Al. Teach me ur sekrits sempai.
This is a pretty big segue, but there are three genders; men, women, and unattractive men. Consider feminist arguments from this perspective.
>Earlier there were two sets of terms - one for prostitutes. Then they criminalized prostitution.
I wonder, does the criminalisation of prostitution around the world coincide with the breakdown of marriage?
Certainly when society started to argue about the "unfairness" that men could get a divorce if his wife cheated, but not vice-versa, that was a nail in the coffin of marriage. And probably prostitution. Hmm.
If no one pays for a baby, the baby is dead. I'm with you so far.
I want to know if anyone else is willing to support the baby if the dad is unwilling to support the baby.
Thinking about the problem of unwanted pregnancies further.. just mandate IUDs.
There will be pregnancies only if willingness to have children is present.
This is a pretty big segue, but there are three genders; men, women, and unattractive men
Would you mind explaining how "unattractive men" are a *GENDER*? And if they are, why aren't "unattractive women"? Because they definitely exist in droves--of fat and whatever else. Also, if the transgender folk claim they are the opposite sex, they are still saying there are just two genders, I guess. I never had quite thought of it that way, and somehow thought they must mean that transgender was the 3rd gender. All I know is I'm so sick of having to see them, and by now there is a new development: You can't tell what sex they're trying to "reclaim" it is. Just yesterday I saw one in a plaid microskirt and I couldn't tell whether *they* (horrible pronoun for such shit) were deciding to be male or female. Either way it was quite "unattractive" in the extreme.
I could just be out of the loop on this.
I don't know if this is the right place, but it's very important to note that, although necessary to right about "they're like electrical sockets" that there have always been those women who "make it in the world of men", and the best of even these are not feminists, and definitely believe in the superiority of men. Of course, easy for them to say, they're adored by women and men alike, whether by their readers or spectators (as in the Arts), or just because they are so beautiful. These women know "they don't have to worry", and they're always the only ones I am interested in. There's a ballerina who is my *Ideal Woman* who had a magnificent career of 30 years at NYCBallet (yes, that was inarguably great in the late 70s and early 80s, and I still watch YT's from those years--and they are still good, even if not as good, while everything else in NYC begins to fully corrupt--as with winning my court case just by not having done more obviously *wrong things*, so that one could say I corruptly won. Well, I'm glad to have won, even so. Got to cover your own ass, as they say, as even Alrenous says you "can't ruin a Satanist's day in jail"), but also had 2 children and a wonderful husband she does French Cookery with. I'd put the YT with Baryshnikov and McBride (the ballerina), but I made Alrenous look at more of these things than he wanted to especially just over a year ago, and he won't want to see it.
I know this is "the exception that proves the rule" or that other kind of "false exceptionalism" (term escapes me at the moment), but I still think it's important, because it has always been this way throughout history, whereas feminism hasn't.
>Would you mind explaining how "unattractive men" are a *GENDER*? And if they are, why aren't "unattractive women"?
It's just linguistic and conceptual shorthand.
Feminists for example will argue about "men" being overrepresented on the boards of directors, or wealth. However, "men" are not overrepresented in homelessness or suicide statistics, because those are not "men".
(To get a concrete example of what I mean by "third gender males", just look at online dating stats- very much a pareto distribution of male attractiveness, and those who aren't are invisible).
>they must mean that transgender was the 3rd gender
Yes, this is how some cultures have handled unattractive males, making them an explicit third gender with their own social status. It is a very large problem to solve, because they massively outnumber desirable males and are therefore a formidable force. The West absolutely has this problem.
(Consider lions. The birth sex ratio is 50/50, but look at a lion pride. Where are all the males? You have two functional choices for mating. One male per female, which necessarily means the female quality hierarchy follows the male quality hierarchy. Or, you can do it lion style, where the females accept polygyny as a way to mate with the highest quality males.
Note also that the more productive builder insects technically have three genders, ie, the labour classes contribute nothing to the gene pool.)
>there have always been those women who "make it in the world of men", and the best of even these are not feminists, and definitely believe in the superiority of men.
Yes, and as you note, these women are of high quality. They can access the highest quality men and thus, do not need feminism.
Feminism is basically an argument for polygyny. It's the reactionary position against the unfairness of marriage to female sexual interests. If marriage means a mans material and sexual resources are tied to a single female, ie, his wife, that necessarily means women must compete to marry him.
This also means that the average woman has no chance for a top tier male. They get what they are worth. It causes females terrible existential anxiety to imagine their children are not the highest quality (rightly so! It's biologically rational). Just like a human being is aware they will die, they are also aware of the difference between quality and non-quality offpsring.
Ant labour classes feed a queen who passes on their genes for them, and the queen in fact passes on more labour-class genes than queen genes. It's easy to argue that in fact the labour class is parasitic on the queen, rather than the reverse. (The google term is haplodiploidy.) Worker sisters are 3/4 related and their nieces will be 3/8 related instead of having 1/4 related grandchildren.
See also: aristocracy fails not because aristocrats are paid too much, but because they are paid too little and quit, giving it up as a bad job.
Exactly, they solved the problem with gender-bending.
Drones compete for mating rights with the queen but they're not sufficient in population to do any actual social damage if they lose.
Imagine how effective lions would be if they could harness non-mating labour?
Post a Comment