Pretty much nobody agrees with Hugo Schwyzer. It is telling that the few that do are either young females who’d like to keep open the option of committing paternity fraud or older men who have likely been cuckolded and whose rationalization hamsters are of marathon caliber.
Besides Amanda Marcotte’s singular Tweet on the subject, no gynocentrist bloggers have rallied to defend Schwyzer’s posts – the crux of which were that women have the right to choose whether to inform a man that the child he is raising is not his biological offspring. The fact that nobody of supposed substance is supporting Schwyzer during this blow-up shows that he is on the wrong side of both feminists and anti-feminists. A weird spot to be.
Underlying any of my frustration over this issue is the ultimate Marxist goal of all of this “biology is irrelevant” talk. If biology is irrelevant then paternity is arbitrary and if paternity is arbitrary then we suffer from the Tragedy of the Commons and the attendant lack of decision rights that eventually destabilize such a system. Basically, children become the domain of the many. Insofar as someone has to be responsible for children, the old axiom applies: when everybody owns something then it is owned by none.
This is one step away from a full-on Daddy State scenario whereby the government provides all parental services for mothers. This is Schwyzer’s Utopian ideal, which he has laid out before:
Strong public institutions of the sort we associate with healthy social democracies make the promise of feminism available to those of all social classes. The welfare state recognizes what feminism recognizes: that dependence on family and spouse may be lovely if one’s family and spouse are kind and congenial, but all too often, families are prisons. We speak of our relationships as “ties that bind” for a reason; women from traditional families in particular are likely to be raised with a strong sense of both duty and guilt. Charles Murray can wax eloquent about the marvelous qualities of the traditional family, but I suspect he’s not scrubbing floors or putting on another meal for a truculent and incommunicative husband with a sense of entitlement. [GLP: One wonders if Schwyzer’s household operates this way. If not, then I’ll call strawman.] Strong public institutions are not, as Murray would have us believe, “traps of dependency”; rather, they are agents of liberation. Excellent day care, good hospitals, inexpensive education and a strong social safety net give the traditionally underprivileged, men and women alike, the chance to do something vitally important: form and maintain relationships based on desire and mutual respect rather than on need and vulnerability.
Feminist theory posits that the family is hegemonic and must be eradicated. The State must step in to perform the family role in order to free women of their bondage. Even when they do choose to have sex and not use a condom, not get an abortion, or not give an unwanted child up for adoption, mothers must be encouraged to seek out relationships unfettered by full responsibility for their decisions. Thomas Sowell called this idealism the unconstrained vision. Resources are infinite; possibilities are unlimited. Everyone can have it all if only the trappings of society were eliminated.
It is one thing to teach young men and young women about the myriad of ways to express their masculinity and femininity, but it is a completely different thing to force one subset of the population to serve the whim of another. And that’s exactly what would happen. A Provider State shifts the responsibility of parentage onto another group of people. But when the care of children becomes the responsibility of society this diminishes the strongest social connection of all: the biological relationship.
As Charles Murray is famous for saying: the social democracy (the European model which Schwyzer lauds) ”drains too much of the life out of life.” We are not responsible for our losses or gains, our ups or our downs. The good is not offset by the potential for bad – we are lulled into passivity, and the spark is gone. Following this model, Hugo Schwyzer prefers to take the parent out of parenting.
For more reading: Crime and Federalism and Toy Soldiers have posted on Schwyzer.
Like this:
Like Loading...
The left? out to destroy the family? for a “new and better world”?
A moron like K(yle) (who doesn’t even know of the tradition of Korean grocers in black neighborhoods, all the while blacks complaining Korean grocers assume they are thieves) is probably salivating on his little fascist hands.
Even though 2nd Wave feminism was basically a cultural Marxist front for it’s early and most prominent voices these ideas actually greatly pre-date Marxism, and no doubt those earlier ideas inspired Marx himself.
Marx’s only unique contribution to philosophy and the general cultural zeitgeist was his materialist diaelectic, which was basically the nascent form of Homo Economicus. Something shared from doctrinaire Marxists to many hardcore Anarcho-Capitalists strains of thought.
The ideas explicit in modern feminism and the implicit blank slate mainstream ideology isn’t particular Marxist though. It’s secularized Neoplatonism, which is something probably born during the Reformation as a rejection of the, at the time, more Aristotlean Catholic Church.
The associated ideas related to equality and egalitarianism are likewise evidenced as far back as the Enlightenment at least. Read up on the “Norman Yoke” literature in England and the American colonies leading up to the Commonwealth Era and the American Revolution. It’s boilerplate post-colonial theory and institutional racism.
The Norman’s and their descendants only ruled and prospered due to insitutionalized systems of oppression against the Anglo-Saxon to ensure inequal outcomes of obviously equal people. Institutions that are invisible but are known to exist because of the inequality of society. On the surface things are fair, but if they were fair in reality then surely the Anglo-Saxon’s would have a better lot in life a better social standing in Europe at broad.
Feminism, right up to the Kibbutz-esque collective child-rearing is something that is baked in to our culture. It’s why Russia was able to culturally recover after decades of Soviet rule and we’re spiraling down the drain without it.
come on man, K(yle) doesn’t sympathize with leftism that way. he’s anti-corporatist, not anti-capitalist.
you can’t invoke K(yle) into every comment because virtually none of my posts are about him. basically, there are better targets to focus on than Kyle.
@Chuck:
he’s anti-corporatist, not anti-capitalist.
—Please, chuck, he’s definitely anti-capitalist. He’s in favor of a progressive tax structure and refuses to even listen to logic. He denies that security issues from black theft play a huge role in costs for businesses in the black ghetto.
K(yle)’s a complete ignoramus who reflexively blames capitalism while extolling how “da gov’ment” should be enlarged and enriched to protect us from them….all the while ignoring the massive corporatist corruption that occurs in large governments, nor how every complaint of his about capitalism is rooted in large government corruption.
Ask K(yle) if he thinks the solution to a corruption is a government-run monopoly. in the area, or if the “rich” should have their money taken from them, whatever the reason they have it.
Now I take shots at mangina morons like K(yle) and Dr. Shit-for-brains because they’re just concern troll plants. They are feminist pussies, hoping to push us all into their little fascist dream worlds.
And my slaps at those little bitches isn’t that bad. C’mon, a moron like K(yle) deserves it.
I doubt that feminists are refusing to speak up for H.S. because they fundamentally disagree with him. Feminists may not say that they support the separation of biological parenthood from responsibility for the child. But their actions say that they do. It is the consistent pattern of the social changes they push for. They support or at least condone most actions by women to pregnant by the fun alphas, stick it to the betas through various means (cuckolding, post-natal marriage followed by divorce court, government as daddy, etc). Feminism is precisely for a woman’s right to choose what man or men will be responsible for children independent of the woman’s choice of biological father, regardless of the morality of the choices with respect to the view of the beta.
whorefinder,
something just crossed my mind here. what is more important to me is whether or not someone is a blank slatist versus someone who thinks that biology plays a role in human differences.
there are leftist-blank slatists and rightist-blank slatists, and there are leftist-biological determinists and rightist-biological determinists. the lowest form is the leftist-blank slatist – which Hugo Schwyzer and almost every gender feminist is.
K(yle), however, is not. and personally, i think you have more to offer to the discussion than when you focus on and ad hom K(yle).
This was an eloquent rebuttal. Hugo relies on ‘love’ to push his agenda. If you oppose him, you are incapable of ‘love’ and are therefore a beast.
In a way, it is incredible to me. I am witnessing the Scandinavianization of the USA. It’s truly bizarre. Thankfully, guys like Hugo are miniscule in numbers.
I wonder if whorefinder isn’t a right-blank-slatist.
“Hugo relies on ‘love’ to push his agenda. If you oppose him, you are incapable of ‘love’ and are therefore a beast.”
Hugo’s ‘love’ is clearly motivated by hate and resentment of people he is naturally inferior to.
Hugo has major jealousy issues with other men. He really does.
I’ll say it again because it is so clear to me, men who support feminism do so as a way to keep other men in check.
That’s why all the talk over on Spearhead about men banding together against women is silly. Men are extremely competitive with other men. Women just take advantage of that.
On the macro level they are on the same side. If you read the comments over at GMP and his blog though there are actually some takedowns of his argument that are in a feminist context.
It amazes me when parents are blank slatists. There are so many hereditary personality traits which manifest themselves before a child is capable of mimicry, yet there are myriad examples of parents who overlook this. The blank slate underpinning really is one of the most destructive beliefs in modern politics. So much appropriated cash going toward the fantasy that genes don’t matter.
My high school AP biology teacher, who was a child prodigy and a black woman, and thus probably a fan of big govt dictates and early PC as they had had helped her realize her potential, used to always tell us to care about who we chose for relationships. That person would potentially be the contributor of half our childrens’ DNA. Her favorite expression with regard to this was the old “apples don’t fall far from the tree.”
There is a difference between tearing down artificial barriers and pretending real barriers don’t exist. Some people are just too dumb to achieve much and some are just too naturally insane to fit in proper society.
There is something really attention seeking about a man that actively supports feminism. I know plenty of men that are indifferent to it, but no one that is gung ho on it. Women are perfectly capable of advocating for themselves and we always have been. Also, most women know that the men in their lives care more about them than some random man on the internet.
I’m personally skeptical of female MRAs too for the same reason.
It’s like this with anything. Black people that advocate for black people don’t bother me anywhere near as much as white people that do the same thing. There is just something really annoying about people that take up someone else’s cause.
Really light skinned half white blacks like Halle Berry being all hyped up on black issues is extremely annoying also.
She acts more white than most white women I know from what I’ve read.
This is a very old wet dream from the far left, predating even marxism. Malthus is often misquoted as predicting unchecked population explosion and famine. His point is taken out of context; he was rebutting this same basic idea as put forth by an anarchist of his day named Godwin.
Lesbians or unattractive women advocating feminism makes sense. It really is in their best interest and I can’t really blame them. I don’t say that to be mean to them either I can understand where they are coming from.
@Lara
I’ll say it again because it is so clear to me, men who support feminism do so as a way to keep other men in check.
Exactly.
HS ‘s little gambit is absolutely understandable. Alpha male cuckolds another quietly agrees to choice by female because it serves his interests.
Women and men, mostly of the alpha variety, regularly sell out their lower status brethren and sisters.
Marxist family deconstruction is just a convenience. The alphas would never have gone along.
Elite whites who advocate for horrible policies that make life for blacks even worse – looser crime laws, welfare, etc. – also don’t live with blacks.
This is how it works. Undermine marriage generally, … because your own social system is insulated.
Lara and Gorb pretty much nailed it. This is why Chuck’s rebuttal is so effective. I’ve always said Hugo is probably the most dangerous male feminist alive. He’s slippery. He uses a gnostic approach, which is essentially that because knowledge is uncertain and the truth is difficult to attain, the actions one takes cannot be judged by their moral consequences. Those consequences are left to the ether to decide, because the universe is essentially ambivalent. Hugo is a post-modernist. If a man is cuckolded, he must simply strive to be the best father he can be, because morality is indefinite. Chuck’s response is the only one which works, really. Hugo needs big guns to rebut. The tragedy of the commons is a howitzer, but it’s needed to stop a guy like Hugo. If paternity is just an anecdote, then so are children. So if you want to stop a guy like Hugo, you really need to call in the Luftwaffe and the SS, because you’re going up against the spirit of the times we live in, which is that all truth is relative and experiential.
You are all giving HS way too much credit. He is a boring minor intellectual flake who has figured how to cash in on the need feminists and lefties have to claim that their movements are inclusive to everyone, even white men. He is a stand in who claims to be speaking from a man’s perspective when what comes out of his mouth and keyboard could have easily been written by Gloria Steinem.
His pathetic attempt to explain away paternity fraud is a perfect example. He is ultra careful not to stray into un-politically correct territory by keeping his former paramour out of the dog fight. This is not alpha behavior. He’s just a Stalinist hack that knows that he can get his daily mess of pottage if he keeps writing his usual drivel and avoids offending the gaggle of feminists he is dependent upon.
Dalrock is right; making kids the ward of the state—destroying families—has been the goal of fascists throughout history. Plato’s Republic—describing the ideal state—is nothing more than the fascist wet dream. In the work, Plato explicitly dictates removing children from their parents to be raised by the state so that the state may decide which part of society they will serve; philosopher-king-leaders or serfs. Parents, in Plato’s Republic, are specifically supposed to be separated from offspring as soon as possible, so that they develop no bonds and can’t even recognize them (given this was a more genetically-similar pool of people in Plato’s vision, this was very possible).
What’s more, Plato’s republic details a rule of men, not laws, since some men (philosopher-kinds) are better than others. Another leftist wet dream, where Obama and his ilk can override the Constitution at their whim.
Kyle masturbates to this vision every night.
All feminism from the 60′s onward is the attempt by women who weren’t successful at a long-term mating strategy to remold society so that they could pursue a short-term mating strategy instead.
However, since short-term mating strategies aren’t sustainable, the costs associated with pursuing them must be paid by others.
I’m very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany.
Chuck, you do a good job in general attacking leftists’ positions at first-cause level. It’s hard to pull that off without sounding either juvenile or pedantic, but you do. I’m thinking specifically about your “tragedy of the commons” point re. paternity.
As a dyed-in-the-wool leftist, I’m not going to argue with the larger point here, with which I vehemently disagree—it’s not at all an original critique and that mulberry bush of the Tragedy of the Commons has been run around many times before.
However, the more radical the feminist, the less popular The Hugo. The reason why myself and many other people otherwise inclined to agree with large swathes of Hugo’s ideological stand are not giving Hugo much love on this issue is that, well, it *doesn’t* have the consequences that GLP is ascribing to it. Nothing of the sort. Dislike them you may, but there isn’t a feminist utopia that involves deliberately deceiving people. Jill and Hugo’s behaviour could only have happened in a patriarchal society where women are under duress to choose a more nurturing partner wherever possible.
That’s why Hugo is not getting a big defence on this front.
Mandos:
1.) by what right does a mother or mothers in general have to draw on the resources of perfect strangers to raise their children? society doesn’t owe mothers the right to have it all. if you want to be “free” in the existential sense then don’t have a kid. don’t expect the “state” i.e. taxpayers (mostly men) to fund the rearing of children that aren’t their own. those men will certainly lose the enthusiasm of raising children if those children are far removed from them. the entire system will wind down, poorer overall care will be provided, and society will certainly be worse off than under our current system of parental “ownership” and decision rights as they pertain to their children.
2.) Jill* was under duress to choose a more nurturing partner? is this before or after she had unprotected sex with two men within the span of two days and then got pregnant? or was she using her vagina in order to gain male companionship – a most unfortunate bug of our heteronormative system. you are excusing Jill’s behavior which makes you just as bad as Schwyzer on this.
3.) nowhere in this post did i say that deceiving people over paternity was part of the Marxist plank. but it is of the same spirit. Schwyzer is basically saying “well biology doesn’t matter anyway and patriarchal family structure is a sham so my behavior in ignoring biology and catering to whatever Jill the Downtrodden Woman decides is justified”. yes, ideally, jill wouldn’t even have to worry about the morality of her decision – not that she ever has. but i suppose that that is what you’re most pissed about: that jill has to even worry about such petty moral issues. she should be able to pin paternity on *society* not just poor ol’ Ted.
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Vacations Are Also Good for You Edition
I don’t dispute that the end goal of feminism/leftism is to openly force paternity responsibility on men without the need to lie about it. I just don’t think that’s any more acceptable than doing it via deceit. It is immoral either way. Ultimately it will never work in large swaths of human society for the long term. Societies that do it will fail and be replaced with ones that respect family and respect fatherhood. In some ways fatherhood and motherhood are social constructs. But social constructs are often good and needed.
Forcing men into fatherhood by threat of imprisonment is as immoral as by luring them into it with a falsified contract.
(Agree with PA, I’m totally enjoying this discussion.)
GLP: As I said, the larger philosophical point is not one I’m going to waste time arguing—I used to argue with right-wing libertarians back in the heyday of “Catallarchy” and other places like that, and it was jolly good fun.
But it’s not a debate on which could ever come to some sort of satisfying “victory” for either side. I eventually realized that all these opposing positions make mostly logical sense depending on the preference order of ethical priorities that you start from. If you are evaluating my position on the matter from your own ethical priority ranking or definition of justice, then I am entirely wrong.
My own ethical priority ranking leads me to conclude that the population should tend to equality of outcome, not mere equality of opportunity (which is why I am not a liberal), and this imperative has some level of preference over property rights. That is because property must be enforced by violence over need. That’s morally repugnant to me. To you, the reverse is true. Arguing it any further delves into the philosophical weeds on the origins of moral axioms
I am not excusing Jill’s behaviour; but inexcusable behaviours sometimes still stem from objectively explainable circumstances.
Under the surface of any leftist is a commissar fancying himself among the cadre that runs the “equality of outcome” system. Leftism is power-ambition, little more than that.
As to shared paternity, it’s not just abstract ethical arguments that one fan object with; it’s practical ones too: it us dysgenics.
Yes, dysgenic even under the leftist’s terms, in that women would tend to mate with the sort of men whose temperament would not be supportive of a high-cooperation social arrangement. Any reader of game blogs is familiar with the notion that chicks dig assholes. Which is also dysgenic because assholes tend to carry genes for producing ugly daughters.
Damn typos
“Under the surface of any leftist is a commissar fancying himself among the cadre that runs the “equality of outcome” system. Leftism is power-ambition, little more than that. ”
You do realize that this is neither a new or profound statement, I hope. I could just as well say, “Scratch any propertarian and you’ll find someone who foolishly thinks he’s going to be the Monopoly Man in the True Authentic Catallaxy.” That’s why I long ago decided that serious dialogue on these sorts of points require taking the antagonist at face value.
As for the origin/meaning/intention of the word “dysgenic”, the less said the better.
- “You do realize that this is neither a new or profound statement,”
Who cares, as long as it’s true. And I couldn’t care less about amusing people with novelty or profoundity. I save that for parties. Here my desire us to speak the truth. What is yours?
- ” I could just as well say, “Scratch any propertarian and you’ll find someone who…”
Traditionalist rigties understand man’s nature and capacity for evil, and thus argue for sustainable arrangements.
- “Monopoly Man”
I’ve argued against capitalism unrestrained by other considerations a number of times recently. In my view leftists and rad libertarians are closely related to each other.
“As for the origin/meaning/intention of the word “dysgenic”, the less said the better”
Come on now, dysgenics lies at the heart of equalists’ structural flaw in their mechanism. Don’t run from it with effeminate disdain, confront it.
Well, I at the very least give you top marks for even showing up here and trying to engage, Mandos. Let’s begin: Starting at the top of the ethical hierarchy, do we agree that the individual is supreme, and not the group? In other words, are group rights subordinate to individual rights? If the answer is no, and group rights trump individual rights, then we can proceed with your line of thinking. If a man is cuckolded, then its no big deal, because it furthers the overall objectives of the group. By this I mean, women’s dreams are realized, and equality of outcomes are achieved in a sense, because it is assumed men are privileged. Cuckoldry is therefore an instrument of equality.
Of course, there is a problem with that. Does the end justify the means? And so on. I think you see the predicament. Personally, were I to be cuckolded, I would be like a ship on fire at sea. On the inside I mean. There would be a divorce, and the child would be confused for the rest of his/her life. And I would leave and never return. I suppose that sounds melodramatic, because I think Social Services and the law in general track men down who abandon their families.
I do agree, however, that in a perfect world, men would love any child, regardless of paternity. But one commenter nailed it: it is the deception which is problematic. The con. ,
Equality of outcome (also known as marxism, communism, etc.) requires violence to enforce too. The most compelling case against it is not logical nor ethical, it is empirical.
@Mandos, the fascist extraordinaire:
As I said, the larger philosophical point is not one I’m going to waste time arguing—
—oh ho ho. A typical leftist response: “I’m so far above it all, trying explain my genius to you plebians is not worht my time.”…And then he proceeds to yell at us in lengthy posts for not bowing down to his genius.
Let’s hope some Obama voters go polar bear hunting in his neighborhood soon.
I eventually realized that all these opposing positions make mostly logical sense depending on the preference order of ethical priorities that you start from.
—That is true. As a leftist, you value putting down white men and bowing down before the “oppressed” females and black males over logic, consistency, or dignity.
If you are evaluating my position on the matter from your own ethical priority ranking or definition of justice, then I am entirely wrong.
—lol. A typical leftist argument when they know they have nothing: all arguments are meaningless! There is no truth! There is no right and wrong! I’m really not a moron!
My own ethical priority ranking leads me to conclude that the population should tend to equality of outcome, not mere equality of opportunity (which is why I am not a liberal), and this imperative has some level of preference over property rights.
—No shit you are a fascist. Next talking point.
That is because property must be enforced by violence over need. That’s morally repugnant to me.
—it’s probably also morally repugnant to you that security of individual autonomy must be enforced by violence over need. How dare we resist black people when they attack us!
Note the underlying leftists desire: that no one should ever earn anything themselves, and that no one should defend that they have earned. It would create a paradise if we did this, it would! (/sarcasm),
To you, the reverse is true.
—In other words, rationality is on our side.
Arguing it any further delves into the philosophical weeds on the origins of moral axioms
–Again, the leftist tactic when they know they’re logically incoherent: it’s all about your cultural/social construct! There is no right and wrong! Seig Heil, Mein Obama!
I am not excusing Jill’s behaviour; but inexcusable behaviours sometimes still stem from objectively explainable circumstances.
—that’s called excusing it, numb nuts. but nice try.
You lose, liberal. But Kyle is waiting to lick your nuts.
Rights, freedoms (I would use the term license but I’ll stick the “rights” and “freedom”) come with associated obligations. If a woman chooses to have a child she’s obligated to raise it. She can maintain more personal liberty by not ceding some of it to a dependent. Which is a totally voluntary transaction.
A truly socialist society would be a relatively structured and authoritarian one by default. Where every man and woman has a system of debts and obligations towards every other man and woman. That’s why in practice virtually every socialist regime has been so authoritarian in comparison to our relative liberty.
We have a semblance of a system where we are afforded a great many freedoms including the freedom to not take on certain obligations at our discretion (which is currently crumbling). The libertine spirit of our age is only borne out of living off of our more responsible ancestor’s accumulated wealth, and by virtue of assuming a segment of our population will choose to continue to be responsible so that others can choose to be frivolous. It’s not something that can be extrapolated to society at large unfortunately.
can i quote k richards?? can i can i can i
yes i can! “we are not old men, we are not concerned with petty morals”
anyway-love ur blog-thanks
Yes, some men are better than others. Local examples pop into mind.
Although I do agree that Plato is basically the father of all radical egalitarianism and collectivism, however his Philosopher-King is the least egalitarian and ‘leftist’ of his ideas. The trouncing of that leftist fiction that all men are created equal seems to stick in your craw though.
In the context of the society that Plato lived in, no one should or did rule by merit. They drew lots. Government by raffle. The idea that a wise and noble King should rule is probably something most people would agree upon if the alternative was handing the Presidency to whichever person drew the Ace of Spades from a deck with 300 million cards in it.
Plato also hated the sophists of his day, as they did in fact have written laws as well just like your beloved Constitution. The most powerful people were the ones who could hoodwink the courts into believing their written laws said whatever it is the professional sophists wanted them to. “The Rule of Law” or government by sophistry to put it another way. Long live the Lawyer-Kings?
Yes. Allow me to rhetorically lick his nuts and say that I can commiserate with his total lack of desire in not wanting a debate because he’d have to spend the rest of his life educating his opponents that are calling him a leftist-fascist-communist-nazi that hates white people and dragging the discussion down to such a profoundly dimwitted level that he’d never actually get to a point where he could discuss his disagreement making the entire thing a huge waste of time.
Unfortunately he is correct here. You did in fact excuse Jill’s behavior despite prefacing it as inexcusable. In your counter-factual feminist utopia presumably you’d have a scenario where Jill wouldn’t rely upon Ted’s succor. However that doesn’t address the underlying issue with Jill’s character flaws.
She could have kept the child as a ‘single mother’ with no problems in this scenario and continued her relationship with the edgy, alcoholic Professor Hugo even if the kid turned out to be Ted’s because she doesn’t need Hugo to be ‘father material’ now. She can stick him with an ambush baby without needing to worry about the actual welfare of the child, or her future prospects so much. You haven’t actually improved the situation. Jill’s poor decision making is still a problem in the counter-factual, it’s just not the same problem.
Bad things didn’t happen because Jill was incentivized to make bad choices. Bad things happened because Jill is a bad person that doesn’t value the freedom of other people anywhere within the realm of importance as she values her own, which would be a problem that is only exacerbated in a more socialistic system.
Trying to defend paternity fraud is a losing argument all the way around. It has never been OK. It is the genetic equivalent of rape! This is why it will never be acceptable to 99 % men, ever.
In the past there had to be various legal and social accommodations due to the fact that no one other than possibly the mother, could really be sure who the father was. But that is all over now due to the discovery of DNA. Much of the mewling that we hear from feminists on this topic is just a rhetorical rearguard action trying to cover up their own parasitical behavior.
Pingback: A Feminist Debates « Gucci Little Piggy
“As for the origin/meaning/intention of the word “dysgenic”, the less said the better.”
Why? It’s really the only thing that matters in the long run.
What has changed my views from left wing to right wing isn’t so much idealogical but an observation of the two groups. I want to align myself with a winner, not a loser.
The only vitality in the left comes from people who are genetically very different from me and would never see me as one of them.
Mandos–
Rubbish. Feminists want rape accusers to always be believed, and lie about how large a percentage of rape accusations are false. Feminists lied about Super Bowl Sunday being the most dangerous day of the year for women. NOW made that up out of whole cloth and the feminists media failed to check on the feminist fact for years. Most feminist legislation is build upon lies. Feminists lie about what percentage of women will be raped during their four years in college, claiming it’s one out of four or five, while there’s never been a study by someone other than lying feminist activists which show rates remotely that high. Off by a factor of 500 or more.
No women wish to have the more nurturing, stable, loyal, higher income and higher status man as the provider and bringing up daddy, but the more exciting, more alpha bad boy as the genetic one, as a matter of women’s biological nature. All cultures have naturally restrained that, since it would be had to attract most men to the former role if they didn’t feel confident the kids were biologically their own.
Jill’s withholding the information that the kid might not be Ted’s should be illegal.
Mandos—
I don’t even have equality of outcome as a goal, much less one I’d sacrifice property right to.
Equality of outcome is not the nature of biological systems.
Jill’s behavior was disgusting.
Hugo advocates the system that he does because it allows one like him to compete with other males where in many other cases he couldn’t.
Pingback: Paternity Establishment and the Commons « Gucci Little Piggy
Pingback: In child care, money isn’t everything « Gucci Little Piggy