(A discussion for another time. Yes, I’m fully aware that language “evolves”. In my opinion however, there are shifts that enrich, and there are those that impoverish.)

They magically “get themselves pregnant.” Without the help or assistance of a man.

Often by lying about being on the pill or IUD etc.

There are damn few unmarried men who want kids outside of marriage or at least a committed cohabiting relationships.

Further if the woman doesn’t want kids as a single mother she doesn’t have to have them, unlike the man. She has Plan B, abortion and adoption available to herself, unlike him.

There should be Roe for men as well. Any man who doesn’t want to be a father should be able to disavow any paternity rights, and with that any child support obligations.

Aside from basic fairness, that would send the single parenthood rate, which was in the single digits in 1960, at 12% in 1972, but has now due to feminist law changes reached 40%, down quick.

On another note, a lot of people note that population control is a good idea(we don’t need any more people, etc, etc).

I’d be wary of that argument for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, population decline has a price economically. Too many older people and too few young taxpayers will create drastically lower living standards for everyone as the cost of living skyrockets along with tax rates.

And secondly, only a few developed nations(most notably Europe and a few Asian nations) are taking this strategy seriously.
So we could look at comment 31(z) and assume that scenario is put forth, where Europe and the US contract their populations.

What would that accomplish? They will gain lower living standards as the nations get older and fewer taxpayers can support their elders. Additionally, the world’s population will not decline. Folks in many parts of the developing world(southeast asia, the middle east, parts of latin america, etc) will not share these sentiments, and will more than make up any difference. That fact alone makes any environmental benefit argument moot as well.

The US and Europe will have essentially cut down their degree of economic power, wiped out much of their gene pool and slashed their living standards for no real benefit at all.

Just something to think about.

Its interesting that you mention an Italian woman as an example when contemplating the future of humanity.

Thats just it Roosh, the future is demographically much -smaller- than the present. The birthrate in Italy is pitifully below replacement and has been since the 1980’s. It got down close to 1.37 children per female for a while (that means only 137 kids for every 200 adults of breeding age). If the generations keep damn-near cutting themselves in half size-wise, when the boomers begin to retire en masse, the taxes will have to go through the roof to pay for the geezers pensions.

Roosh,
Im all for a ‘controlled’, intentional population contraction to an America with 200 (instead of 300) million people, and a Europe with 200 (instead of close-to-400) million people. But at the rate the West is depopulating due to a de-facto natal genocide, its gonna be “off the cliff” in 30 more years in terms of a population free-fall without simply massive third-world immigration to literally replace the populace’s that were formerly in those countries. Russia, despite the state literally paying women and families to have three or more kids, faces dwindling population each and every year. A “responsible” birthrate to diminish population over a century would be about 1.8-1.9 children per female so that the ensuing generations were not so financially up against it paying for so many more retirees (assuming technological progress keeps increasing general wealth).

S.Korea saw its birthrate get to be .98 for a while. Japan’s, Iran’s, Australia’s, New Zeland’s, and even Brazil’s have all been at or below replacement levels. So this phenomena is not merely a Western happenstance. I think its something more fundamental in the terms of free-selection amongst females coupled with our present family-legal procedures and rules. Simply put, not enough women will settle for the “men they can actually have” until they are too damn old to have more than one kid. Men aren’t eager to settle for desperate 34 year-old females who have “babies-rabies” either with the full knowledge of the lousy marriages in store for them, so we have what we have…………..a shortfall in births.

I *really* dont think unmarried women deserve child support unless they can get a man to sign off that he *supports* her giving birth to his child before she actually does so, also agreeing to generous visitiation rights for the man (and a paternity test proving fatherhood). We are subsidizing births by single mothers as it stands, and anything we subsidize we should expect to keep getting more of.

When the U.S. baby boomers are “half-retired”, and foreign governments really start slacking off buying our treasury bills, I expect we will have to raise taxes to almost European levels here across the board, generally lessening wealth for everyone here. Too many tax-’eaters’, but not enough tax-payers will leave us no other viable choice.

BTW——Many of your recent blog posts have very enlightening and engaging.

beta fathers can be just as bad as absent fathers. a man who cannot control his backtalking wife and mother of his kids is setting a bad example, especially for his sons.

roissy’s last blog post: Everything She Does Is Cute.

alliemarien’s last blog post: Orange Chile Glazed Chicken.

I’ve never seen my father(divorced just after I was born after he left my mom) and my ability with females has been correspondingly bad.

As far as beating someone in the face…football taught me that. Getting into sports early helped. Never had a problem with self confidence aside from women.
I’m beta when it comes to girls, but as far as the rest of life goes my mentality has been Alpha. I think I owe that to my mother-nothing says that a woman cannot teach a son determination.

chuck Look at how much emphasis is placed on their hairstyles

the hairstyles of blk has nothing to do with blk women as a group. Some blk women like locks, most like Caesar aka “a regular”.

chuck and fashion sense

Yes women like a well groomed man. look to Paris, Sweden, and Italy for European examples. Mainstream American men have forgotten that part of the seduction for women is visual.

Make her want to rip your clothes off with just your appearance before you open your mouth and a huge part of your job is done. Just watch what you say aka don’t say anything stupid.

chic noir’s last blog post: covers 9.

“Roosh, youâ??re correct that not having a father can make a boy into a pussy, but the opposite can also occur â?? the boy overcompensates and becomes a violent criminal. See: the ghetto.”

T aka Ricky Raw had a piece up a year or so ago about how thuggish black males are a product of black women. Given that there are more black women in a given community than black men (high death and incarceration rates plus lower sex ratios from birth), black men are products of black female gender norms. Look at how much emphasis is placed on their hairstyles and fashion sense. Also, to be honest, lots of ghetto black dudes argue irrationally, like women. Their natural masculinity can’t come to grips with their socialized femininity. They have no male guidance and are all over the place psychologically.

Chuck’s last blog post: Committing to Your Woman Will Cause Her Libido to Wane.

After all… don’t you think the boy who is most likely to grow up to be alpha (indepent,agressive,dominant)is also most likely to have a rocky relationship with dad.