Spearheader: Put single moms in whorehouses so they can “pay their debts to society.”
Evil single mom neglecting her kids
I haven’t been keeping up with The Spearhead of late, but a commenter here drew my attention to the sort of timeless wisdom I’ve been missing from the Spearhead gang.
In this comment, DW3 offered his thoughts on how to combat the evils of single motherhood. The solution involves putting single moms in workhouses. To be more specific, in sex-workhouses — that is, whorehouses.
I think there should be whorehouses for single mothers to work at, to pay their debts to society. Such a system would kill several birds with one stone.
There would be safe and legal access to prostitution, presumably reducing the drugs and violence associated with the way the trade is currently practiced.
It would allow single mothers to learn the value of getting up and getting to work on time, so that they might aspire to a different career.
It would assist traditional families in steering their daughters and nieces and sisters in a different direction, with a very visible and well-known consequence to ignoring the families’ advice.
It would allow single mothers to give back for all the resources they consume, and ideally it could replace child support on some sort of sliding scale of pay for the workers. Perhaps starting at $50 paid per client, less $20 per child more than 1. That way, a single mother with 3 kids could still get $10, and more than that would be inclined to try to hide off the grid the way divorced and separated fathers now have to.
I have my own opinions about whether choice single mothers cause more harm than divorcees, but for this proposal I suppose that they should be treated differently. Divorced women would surrender their children to the father and have to pay half their whorehouse earnings to support the family, however they would get the full $50 regardless of the number of kids.
Perhaps the whorehouses could charge $80 for providing their services, with a modest 20% discount for married men who proved they had a family to support.
DW3 prefaced this comment with a line in which he notes that this idea might be a bit much even for the regular denizens of The Spearhead. But no one actually took issue with his proposals. Indeed, Lyn87 (a Spearhead regular I’ve written about before) noted that he’d had similar thoughts on the matter himself.
Since men are responsible to pay for the children that women they have sex with choose to bear (that is the stark legal reality – every child that is born is born due to the SOLE choice of the mother), then it stands to reason that:
Money paid to support a child = the obligation a man incurs by having sex with the mother.
Since having sex is enough to legally entitle a woman to a man’s money if a pregnancy ensues and she elects to give birth, shouldn’t taking a man’s money legally entitle him to have sex with the mother if he has not already done so?
Fair is fair, right?
My Modest Proposal: a single-mother-by-choice who takes public assistance should be required by law (as men’s financial obligations are), to have sex with any man who can produce a 1040 showing that he paid taxes in the past 12 months (at least once for each child).
The Spearhead: As reliably awful as stomach flu.
Like this:
Posted on January 23, 2013, in a woman is always to blame, creepy, evil single moms, evil women, lazy women eating bon bons, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, only men pay taxes apparently, rape, the spearhead, whores and tagged men's rights, misogyny, single mothers. Bookmark the permalink. 313 Comments.
*Damn it, Falconer (and damn you, typos!)
I can’t believe no one has posted this yet…
Cthulhu for president! http://www.cthulhu.org/cthulhu/index.html
@kitteh’s
someday I’ll have to post pics of my real kitties, I’m sure you’d love them =^.^=
Thank you, I didn’t make the pic, I just found it somewhere a long time ago
I got nothing Cthulhu related, but I do have an Anatomy/Physiology test in an hour, so I could totally use a zinger… *looks meaningfully at whoever’s got the booze*
All’s I got is this slice of lemon and large gold brick.
OK, Falconer, I am officially fangirling you
Titian: Fascinating article!
Does anyone remember that one former Twitter handle called DrunkLovecraft? It’s unfortunately defunct now, but it was really funny. The story was that Lovecraft got re-animated and still thinks like he did in the past, but became addicted to alcohol. The entire Twitter was basically short drunken rants written in Lovecraft’s style. Some quotes include:
And probably my favorite:
Not that it’s relevant to this thread, but I concede that I chose my words poorly in that case.
Aww, that cat is very fluffy.
@ Sgt Gormless, you went on at length, it wasn’t one badly phrased sentence. Besides, you’ve never made any substantive or friendly or funny comments here, they’re always off.
@titianblue, thanks for that link, the article was fascinating! (memo to self, check height of stepson’s heels, he still manages to look taller’n me and I’m 5′ 4″ …)
That shoe at the top gives a whole new meaning to a “fuck me!” shoe, ’cause that’s what I said when I saw that humungous heel.
@doomkitt3n, yes, I’ve seen that tea party kitteh before.
And yes, I’d love to see pics of your kitties!
I thought I was saying something substantial, but I guess I wasn’t communicating it properly. Kristine said that no man goes to a prostitute for the sex, which is not only a blanket generalization, but she’s also presuming to know the intentions of men better than men themselves, basically womansplaining. I guess if it were sex a man wanted, he’d just go up to someone at a bar and ask her out; only a raging misogynist would have any problem doing just that.
@kitteh If your stepson’s heels aren’t red, I shall be deeply disappointed.
Grumbles, dude, why are you here? Nobody seems to like you very much, you’re not on the same wavelength as any of the other commenters, neither you nor they enjoy the conversations that you have. So what’s the point of it all?
I suspect their entire view of women is something like this.
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-BbpaNXbxg?list=UUVpankR4HtoAVtYnFDUieYA&w=560&h=315%5D
*makes burnt offering to the embed gods that this works*
*shakes fist at embed gods*
Funny anglerfish vid
Only thing is, Grumbles, her statement? Read an awful lot like there was something there.
I mean, sure, to make it an absolute is a little weird. But if what you’re seeking is just an orgasm, your right hand is there for you. And if what you’re seeking is intimacy, there’s tons of ways to look for that. There is a bit of sex-work-negativity in there, but the idea that a man who seeks to control women would get off a little on the ‘owning’ involved in sex work is hardly controversial.
But you don’t want to deal with that. And you can’t just say something the way a person arguing in good faith would, like ‘I can see that in this case, but I think it’s a little sex-work-negative to say men ONLY seek prostitutes for control.’
As is the time every time you comment, you pounced. Because that’s modus operandi. I can’t think of a single thread where you haven’t struck as if you were convinced you had found weakness and needed to chase it down.
It is that combativeness that tells us your nature. And to respond to you at length and with substance is just to invite a quick ‘overanalyze much’ from you as you flit onward.
But you don’t fool us.
“as is the time every time…” As is the case, dammit!
“womansplaining”
Also, this is not a thing.
In all seriousness, is it because you just can’t stand the thought that there’s one place on the internet where people don’t agree with you? Because if so, that’s just sad.
(Also confused. There are lots of places where people don’t agree with you. I guess most of them would have banned you for being tedious by now, though.)
Yeah I thought tedious was grounds for banning, but I guess our trolls get pretty tedious by default and thus have to be extra tedious to be remarkable.
That sentence, it fails, sorry (twitter and #OpThunderbird have my attention currently)
Demarcq: You made an absolute claim. I refuted it. You tried to change the subuject; you then tried to change your argument.
So… Your argument is now, “small countries at risk of war/possessed of hostile neighbors need conscription”.
See my first rebuttal, re Pakistan.
Your knowledge in this area is deficient. So are your attempts at argument.
One must remember the great sheep of the elder gods, Cthulewe
More Cthulhu puns! Excellent!
Demarcq was om nom / Mister No Name and is thus banned, again. So you’re never going to get that debate (not that he would’ve been capable of it if still around)
I wondered how long until he was outed. I was also pretty sure it was someone who has been banned. Funny, all in all, that it was one of the ones I forgot about.
You too huh? He really is quite forgettable, kind of ironic given his original nym.
I also found out that Australia has changed policy to allow women in (some) combat roles, and within a few years there will be no difference between what men and women are allowed to do in the defence forces. Unrelated, but it’s been fine to be gay and in the army for a while now. I went to an officers’ mess with a friend of mine, and one of his fellow officers was a lesbian, and she had her gf there with her too.
Cthulewe, anyone?
@titianblue - LOL oh yes, the heels are red, at least when he’s dressed up. That was a pic of him in his old age in the article you linked to.
Actually I’m wondering now if that’s 5′ 4″ in current inches or in a different French measurement - I’ve seen it mentioned that the whole Napoleon-was-really-short trope comes from French inches being longer than English ones. The Bourbon men are sort of short to middling for the time. My FiL is shorter than my MiL and Mr K’s shorter than his first wife (he’s 5’7″, plus-don’t-forget-half-inch-heels-kthnx).
Kitteh: a crochet blanket suitable for a queen: http://www.e-patternscentral.com/detail.html?code=EC00177&source=CEPOTDE
Kiwi girl - I iz ded of gorgeousness
and dusty rose is SO my favourite pink
That’s all right, I wasn’t using that point of SAN anyway.
“While virtually all feminists I know oppose the draft, most agree that as long as registration is going to be required, it should be required for both men and women.”
Why? That is ridiculous. It is like arguing that men should get paid less to even out the wage gap instead of arguing women should get paid more.
It is like arguing we shouldn’t be trying to make female victims of domestic violence safe we should just try to make male victims less safe.
It is like arguing instead of getting rid of apartheid in South Africa they should have just held white people to the same repressive standards and sent them off to live in the ghettos as well.
This is MRA logic101. If a man is suffering, a woman must suffer too!
The whole everyone should be fucked over because some people are fucked over argument is bunk.
The government pulls it out when they want to take away more rights though. What they do is they first introduce laws into aboriginal communities using racism. Then a few years later they say “oh this is a racist policy, we must apply it to white people as well!”