Dedicated to exposing all the women who complain about wanting a "good man", to show women's poor dating behavior and unreasonable standards while offering little to no value themselves.
- Main Forums
- What's Hot
- TRP.RED
- Tribe Forums
- TheRedPill
- Tribe Management
- Create New Tribe
- Manage My Tribes
- Find New Tribes
- Recent News
-
-
mustangfrank1 Sr. Hamster Analyst 3w ago
Where have I seen this before? I messed up my life fucking bad boys, Chads and other low life, now I need a bail out i.e. nice guy (Who I never would have looked at if I didn't need his money, insurance, and stability.
itsandrewbuck 3w ago
Single mama, fertile af, you can be her second baby daddy. Oh, and can you provide for my other 3 kids because I don't think Chad(s) gave me the correct details to pursue him for support?
NotaBene Sr. Hamster Analyst 4w ago
PRESS 1 TO DOUBT
mustangfrank1 Sr. Hamster Analyst 3w ago
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
No-Stress-Cat Jr. Hamster Analyst 4w ago
I'm sure she is interested in fishing...for that wallet...
WTF she taking her panties off in the picture? No wonder she's a single mom of 3 at 21...
SALUT!!!
(Not the French word)
TJMS 3w ago
She's not taking her panties off, it's the beveling of the mirror.
Nonetheless, a chaste and modest virgin, no doubt.
[deleted]
hhhhdmt 4w ago
I know women don't listen to men but are they at least capable of listening to each other? Do women not advise other women to use birth control? How can you end up with 3 babies if you are properly using the pill?
Land_of_the_losers the-niceguy.com 3w ago
WHO has the TIME to take a pill nowadays?
WHO, I ask you?! There aren't enough hours in the day!
I'm already grilling fried eggs on the bus each morning on the way to work. I'm supposed to push a white tablet out of a little numbered plastic wheel, too? Pshft. It's hard enough to not mistake it for a Pez dispenser.
Who do I look like? Captain SchedTastic, Master of Calendars?
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 4w ago
Ahem, as a man with a few decades under my belt, (it astonishes me how time flies), I often muse about how times are different. One that amuses me is that back in the 1970’s, a young woman getting knocked up could be understandable if it didn’t happen relatively often and they were inexperienced with birth control. All of this “sexual revolution” was new back then.
2, even 3, generations later, one would think that women would have gotten the “hang of” it by now except, maybe they don’t want to?
One expression I often hear from women is how they want men to “lead” and “plan dates” meaning she just wants to “show up” and have the man make all the pesky decisions. They don’t want autonomy so if a man PUA’s them into sex in a car or something like that, she wants to “surrender” to the moment. It’s like the 1950’s, in a sense, never came to an end.
I get the impression that women think it’s “uncool” to be responsible about sex. To have condoms, to ask for them, to make decisions, and so on. They are viewed as “losers” if they do so. For as much as men suffer from shaming ploys, women push them onto each other in ways almost as bad.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 4w ago
Bingo. If women wanted to be responsible for the usage of their gonads, they wouldn't end up as single moms (translation: fobbing the cost off onto the taxpayer) or begging for abortion to be legal once they realize that their keep-a-Chad baby isn't going to work as planned.
And that insistence on irresponsibility is why I think any elective abortion should come with a mandatory sterilization. And why welfare bennies should be capped at two dependents.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 3w ago
Why at two? Shouldn't it be one?
Also, welfare should come with these conditions: “free” daycare for the babies and the mother has to go to work in the fields, meat packing plants, wherever illegal immigrants are working today. Businesses import indentured servants and then dump them on the taxpayer and general public.
Also, back in the 1980’s, I was amazed when Chads got baby trapped but I think it happens less often now. Men need to learn something after a few generations too. Nonetheless, clueless star athletes tend to still get baby trapped as I read about NBA/NFL stars paying out millions to baby mommas.
I think normal women’s desire for legalized abortion is due to the “traditional dating” paradigm they now view as essential: Men need to ask them out out paid dinner dates which is a form of pseudo prostitution as (men with self-esteem) demand sexual favors after 3 to 6 “dates” or so. This means normal women now have double-digit body counts by their mid-20’s and likely will get pregnant from some man she doesn’t want to marry or bear children for. There’s a solution to this, of course: They can abandon paid dates and engage in abstinence and dating for marriage.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 3w ago
Replacement rate is 2.1 and I am willing to cut a nuclear family that has a bread winner that has unexpected but temporary employment issues some slack.
But if you are expanding farther than that, you really need to have your shit together first.
And it would hardly be the only restriction on welfare I would implement. I'd be putting on some total time restrictions as well- there is no fucking good reason any able bodied adult should be making it a lifestyle. Once the benefits time limit is used up, if they still can't fulfill their parental responsibilities, then off to foster care the kids go.
I'd also revoke all forms of EBT in favor of gov issued food and clothing, and rent and utility bills have to be submitted for approval and payment. At no point is fungible currency from the taxpayer to be put in the hands of a welfare recipient.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 3w ago
Understood. I would say that the one child limit I suggest is for someone already on welfare. In the case of a nuclear family with employment issues, the two child limit shouldn’t apply. Note that with myself, I’ve been on unemployment insurance for about a total of 3 years of my life over the years due to the nature of my industry and the later practice of replacing Americans with foreign migrants.
That brings up two interesting conundrums: Over the years, welfare recipients developed a culture of getting around limits such as having additional children when their benefits with their current set of children ran out. Some might get a temporary job to appear to the system as if they’re just “down on their luck” enough to get benefits restarted.
Also, note that (I believe?) it was Governor Ronald Reagan in 1970 or so who came up with the idea of welfare reform to only give welfare to single mothers because the father was expected to work and then even expanded benefits. Great idea, huh? We all see what happened with that.
Overkill_Engine WAATGM Endorsed 3w ago
Thus why I brought up total time limits. As in, by default you only get so many years worth of welfare bennies for up to two kids ever for your entire life. I'd start with around 6 years x 2 kids and dial in from there. Why start at those numbers? It's enough time for the kids to get old enough from birth until kindergarten enrollment, at which point even a single mom should have enough free time to get at least a part time job. And the cap in time and kids is based on the mother. So no matter how many (37? In a row?) baby daddies she has, she's only ever getting 6 years x2 kids, ever, for her entire life. Period.
If you got knocked up twice and still can't figure out how to afford the kids by the time they are in school, I have no pity left for any wailing and moaning when they get taken and put into the foster systems. They'll clearly be better off rolling the dice with adoptive parents there.
polishknight WAATGM Endorsed 3w ago
Again, I don’t see the logic for a 2 child limit. You mentioned replacement rate, but this begs the question: Do we want a replacement rate met for welfare recipients (even temporary ones?)
I chucked when entitled women/feminists would say: “Society owes us for having children!” as if doctors and engineers plopped out of them in the maternity ward and started contributing.
Perhaps what you mean is a parent-child-year system: 12 total years of benefits so 2 children X 6 years = 12 or 3 kids for 4 years and so on.
Also, I’m all for eliminating their cheap excuses: There are already many public “head start” programs and low income daycare in place. Quite frankly, I’m even for the foster care systems in that when a father is evaluated for custody in the family courts, he has to demonstrate personal integrity (watch “Mrs. Doubtfire” so why not apply this to mothers who are wards of the state?
I don't think there will be many adoptive parents willing to take these kids if they are mass introduced into the system. Adoption availability is tight now due to the funding of the welfare system.