Interesting video from Wendy Williams show aired recently about how a woman wants to trick her husband into having another baby when he's stated he does not want another one.
http://ift.tt/1ioc7fH
Notice that Wendy Williams indicates to go ahead and trick him -- that it's okay because he said he wanted a second child. Notice the crowd reaction (almost 100% entirely female) when she asks whether they agree that she's completely justified in deceiving her husband. From the crowd's reaction at least 95% enthusiastically agree. I guess HE doesn't have a right to change his mind, but it's a female's prerogative to do so. She has full rights to abort his baby however. He has no say but financially responsible if she decides to keep it.
Folks, this is why men are leaving the plantation and Going Their Own Way. Men have no reproductive rights and yet are financially held accountable even when a woman uses lies and deception to get 'her way'. What do you suppose the female crowd's reaction would be if a man had a vasectomy and never told his wife when she was trying to get pregnant??
And as evidenced by the almost unanimous crowd support, the majority of women support such deception. This is the state of marriage for men -- we are nothing more than a utility for what women want. Another prime example of solipsism. When you combine that with hypergamy and Briffault's Law, no wonder men are opting out of marriage.
Solipsism -- The view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
Briffault's Law -- The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.
There are a few corollaries I would add:
Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.
Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)
A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).
P.S. Notice the man in the pink shirt's reaction at 1:00 -- priceless! I guess he had a glimpse of the Red Pill.
http://ift.tt/1ioc7fH
Notice that Wendy Williams indicates to go ahead and trick him -- that it's okay because he said he wanted a second child. Notice the crowd reaction (almost 100% entirely female) when she asks whether they agree that she's completely justified in deceiving her husband. From the crowd's reaction at least 95% enthusiastically agree. I guess HE doesn't have a right to change his mind, but it's a female's prerogative to do so. She has full rights to abort his baby however. He has no say but financially responsible if she decides to keep it.
Folks, this is why men are leaving the plantation and Going Their Own Way. Men have no reproductive rights and yet are financially held accountable even when a woman uses lies and deception to get 'her way'. What do you suppose the female crowd's reaction would be if a man had a vasectomy and never told his wife when she was trying to get pregnant??
And as evidenced by the almost unanimous crowd support, the majority of women support such deception. This is the state of marriage for men -- we are nothing more than a utility for what women want. Another prime example of solipsism. When you combine that with hypergamy and Briffault's Law, no wonder men are opting out of marriage.
Solipsism -- The view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist.
Briffault's Law -- The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.
There are a few corollaries I would add:
Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.
Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)
A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).
P.S. Notice the man in the pink shirt's reaction at 1:00 -- priceless! I guess he had a glimpse of the Red Pill.
Put the internet to work for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment