https://bit.ly/3Nstx2B

https://bit.ly/3Nwempq

https://bit.ly/3T0sTKZ

https://bit.ly/3DQVY7m

https://bit.ly/3STkn09

https://bit.ly/3STkKrz

https://bit.ly/3zybPFe

https://bit.ly/3zBUjzM

 

Let’s take an average American married couple with two young children as an example. The husband is a clueless beta who sucks up to his wife, thereby making her as dry as sandpaper. He has zero knowledge of female sexuality but he is a dutiful provider who brings home the bacon. The wife is repelled, bored and frustrated. She feels this is not what she signed up for and therefore wants a divorce. Would feminists support her decision? Obviously yes. Would anyone who puts the interests of the two children first do that as well? No. Children are emotionally hurt by divorce and a stable two-parent household is the best environment for them to grow up in. If the wife REALLY put her children’s interests first, she would not file for divorce just because she is destined to be sexually unfulfilled and is repulsed by her loser beta husband. She would suck it up and never let her children know that she is unhappy since they need a financially stable two-parent household. Wife and husband would just pretend that everything is fine = the young kids grow up happy.

 

(Needless to say, this doesn’t apply if the husband is an unemployed abusive alcoholic/drug user. But such husbands are the minority. Most wives who file for divorce do not do so for such reasons.)

 

So wifey files for divorce, wants legal and physical custody of the children, expects big sums of child support and tries to strip the father of visitation rights. She has a good chance of getting all these things. Would your average feminist support her? Of course. And what is the reasoning? ‘The interests of the child have to come first’ – which is a blatant lie. In fact, the interests of the vengeful, merciless WIFE come first.

 

Feminists are very good at propaganda. The talk about the interests of the child WHEN that benefits the wife who just wants the family court to punish her beta husband. When said wife files for divorce in the first place, they talk about a woman’s right to exit an unfulfilling relationship where she feels neglected, her right to decide her fate etc.

 

Let’s cut through the BS. Feminists don’t give a damn about children. They probably know well that children of divorced single mothers are more prone to crime, depression, suicide and other forms of deviant behavior. The stats are available. They only care about women’s completely unrestrained, unchecked freedom. They talk about the ‘interests of the child’ as an appeal to emotion, which is probably the oldest and most effective propaganda tactic:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

 

After all, who would dare to publicly oppose someone who talks about putting the interests of the child first? What bastard doesn’t care about children?!…

 

I’ve been thinking about the whole PUA vs. Lover question, and how complicated it is for men to get this balance right. Athlone expressed how overwhelming and completely impossible advice like this feels:

 

The balancing act called for must be duplicated at every level and at every moment: always a genuine passion, and always a compensating restraint.