Karen Straughan wants to know how to create a society that is forced to care about men. I have some ideas…..

12 Mar

Updated to add: my Facebook feed shows that the video is from that crazy RazorBladeCandy guy who dedicated five hours of his life to describing how much I hate men and wish to enslave them. Apparently he is obsessed with Karen, too. 

Karen’s comments are still gold and worth reading. 






Someone posted a link on my Facebook page to comments the fabulous Karen Straughan made on a video on YouTube. I didn’t watch the video, so I don’t specifically know what she was responding to, but I found her comments to be very interesting. I’m going to reprint them at length and then try to answer her question.

This is Karen talking:

Here’s why I attack feminism: feminism bills itself as a progressive movement, yet it employs traditional conservative tropes in order to achieve its ends, and characterizes its appeals to the traditional as “progressive”.

 Actual conservatism (whether you agree with it or not) is more honest. It says “women are incapable of X, therefore women need protection from Y, and men must provide that protection”. Feminism says “women are every bit as capable of X as men, but men are monsters whose agenda is to keep women subordinate, therefore women need protection from Y”.

 Traditionalism says that sex is something men do to women, therefore rape is something men do to women. Feminism says that sex is something that men and women do to each other, but because of the malicious and malfeasant “Patriarchy” and all the men in charge of it and benefitting from it, rape is not just something men do to women, but a conscious process by which all men keep all women in a state of fear. Also, because of the political context, yada yada, it’s just not the same when a woman forces a man to have sex. Yes, we think men and women are equal, but it’s still different, because reasons, most of which have to do with how men created a system that oppresses women for the benefit of men.”

 Conservatism said “women are temptresses, and it is a man’s responsibility to not succumb to the seductive nature of women, and if he does, then he’s at fault for defiling his own purity, oh and we’ll probably make him marry her.”

 Feminism says “women are helpless victims with no sexual agency even though they should be allowed to climb random guys like fire poles and grind on them because how dare you shame her for expressing her sexuality, and it’s a man’s responsibility to not succumb to his own predatory and rapey nature, and if he does, then he’s a rapist and needs to rot in prison.”

 Both ideologies hold men more to account than women. Both ruthlessly exploit conservative ideas about men and women. But only feminism says that it’s about treating both genders equally.

 When we are fighting feminism, we’re often also fighting conservatism. But I’m sorry, a shotgun wedding is less bad than 20 years in prison. The acknowledgement that women are “temptresses” (that is: women have sexual agency) is better than the assertion that a woman in an abbreviated latex dress and stripper heels shouldn’t have to endure the “male gaze”. The claim that women are dependent on men and should be appreciative and respectful of the men they’re dependent on is better than the claim that women are independent and need men like fish need bicycles, while women rake in 75%+ of available government benefits that are funded disproportionately by men.

 Marriage, even to a harpy, is better than being impoverished paying child support to a harpy who accused you of DV and got you jailed for it and who won’t let  you see your kids, and who has you thrown in prison for non-payment because your DV record got you fired from your job, and then claims that she’s all about “equality” between the sexes. I’m sorry, but it is.

 Feminism is traditionalism dialed up to 11. When we fight feminism, we’re fighting extreme traditionalism. Moderate traditionalism can wait.

She gets attacked pretty harshly by commenters who feel one must address feminism and traditionalism as mutually complicit in a culture that refuses to care about men. Karen goes on the explain her position a little more clearly:

I think perhaps my biggest beef with feminism is that it has convinced society in general that society hates women and has always hated women, when in reality all societies have largely served women. And they’ve essentially said that men created these societies that hate women for their own benefit and privilege.

 This is a smear on the characters of men that I have a great deal of trouble tolerating, and even more so because it is not remotely true, and I doubt it has ever been true.

 During the suffragette era, there were political cartoons that showed a sweating, distressed male politician sitting between two pretty young women, one wearing a sash that said “suffragette” and another wearing one that said “anti-suffragette”. Back when universal male suffrage was enduring its birthing pains, the UK put the question to women: do you want the vote? 70% of women said no. Yet Cenk Uygur acted in our interview as if there was no way male politicians would have given women the vote were it not for the suffragettes committing acts of domestic terrorism. He ignored the fact that women themselves opposed women’s suffrage, and that this was a major reason why women got the vote later than men. So literally, a government listening to women was a government that was oppressing them.

 I guess what I’m getting at is that both traditionalism and feminism require that men provide for, protect, and sacrifice for women. Traditionalists call that loving women. Feminists call that hating women. This is why I oppose feminism first and foremost–all feminist roads lead to misogyny.

 As for going back to traditionalism, I don’t think it’s possible. The toothpaste is out of the tube. As George RR Martin wrote once, the cow’s been milked, there’s no squirting the cream back up her udder.

Then Karen goes on to ask the million dollar question:

I never said traditionalists accept an individual man for what they are. I said “do X, Y and Z and you’ll get respect.”

 The difference between traditionalists and feminists is that they both demand you do X, Y and Z. Traditionalists will respect you for it. Feminists will spit on you for it.

 You can do what you want. I can understand why you’re upset with me. But I’m not going to lie to you. I’m not going to say there’s some world where you won’t be required to do X, Y and Z. I’m only saying that if you manage to do that, you should be respected rather than shit on.

 Like I said to some in this thread, show me an alternative. The alternative depends on convincing society to care about men as much as they care about women. So show me how to make society do that. Show me it’s possible. Show me a society in the boonies in Nepal that made that work, even on a small scale. Show me that it can happen, on a visceral, emotional level.

 Traditionalism is bad for men. Feminism is worse. If you were forced to choose between them, which would you pick?

Show me the alternative. How do we make society care about men as much as they care about women? Both Karen and another commenter mention the possibility of artificial wombs – remove women’s reproductive powers and suddenly the playing field gets a whole lot more level. There is something Matrix-like and creepy about the idea of gestating babies in machines, and obviously, that requires a massive amount of technology.


Instead of eradicating women’s reproductive powers, perhaps we should be considering making men’s reproductive powers equal to women’s? Birth control technology for men would go a long way towards achieving this, but we could affect this change tomorrow by changing two laws: 

  1. Reproductive rights for men
  2. Legal presumption of shared custody

I’ve written before about legal parental surrender and allowing men to walk away from children they have contributed genetic material to, just as women may do, but having given the issue more thought, I am convinced that will only lead to increased hatred of men, not less. For a law surrounding reproductive rights to create a society that genuinely cares about men, the law needs more bite. It needs as much bite as the reproductive rights women currently enjoy.

No human child may be born without the on going and affirmative consent of the adults involved.

Gender neutral and perfectly clear. To give birth to a child without the explicit consent of everyone who contributed genetic material should be a felony and the child should immediately be seized and placed for adoption by the state. In the beginning, to be sure, we are going to end up seizing a lot of babies under equal reproductive rights, but it will not take long for reality to sink in: make this choice and you will suffer for it.

And note that no one will be forced into abortions they do not want. If a woman falls pregnant with a child the father does not consent to, she will not be forced to abort that child. She is free to follow her conscience and give birth to that child. She will not be allowed to keep it, but she may give birth to it. Marital status will make no difference. If you do not have the consent of the father, the infant will be seized.

The most immediate effect of a law like this is that a market for male reproductive services emerges. A 35-year-old woman that no man on the planet has consented to reproduce with has a choice: she can pay a man to consent to parenthood. His consent means that he is obliged to support the resulting child so his fee will be:

Child support + ongoing expenses over 18 years + premium for looks, intelligence, height, etc.

That could be a very sweet deal, and men will suddenly be rather valued by women who choose to forgo any efforts towards attracting men into a mutually beneficial pair-bond.


Wanna be a bitch? Have at it. If you want kids, you will pay for it.

There’s step one in creating a society that values men: bring their reproductive value up to the same value as women’s by prohibiting the use of their genetic material without explicit consent.  Now on to step two: the presumption of shared parenting. Just as men and women are afforded equal reproductive rights, so too shall they be accorded equal parenting rights.

The genetic offspring of two individuals is the rightful custodial responsibility of both equally. 

Wanna break up your relationship? Have at it. But you will not take the children with you.

This also creates a market. Let’s say a woman whom no man has consented to have a child with desperately wants children. She will have to prove her worth to the man by parenting his existing children brilliantly. This is gender neutral, of course. A man who wishes to have more children will also have to parent a woman’s existing children very well to prove his worth.

Both of these laws instantly provide men with something they currently lack under feminist acknowledgements: worth. Of course, men are inherently worthwhile as human beings – I am simply highlighting the fact that feminists ascribe them no worth, and describing that truth, as Karen notes, is not endorsing it.

Women have gotten away with shit from time immemorial because we have the babies. No society can live without us. It is the sole source of our value and always will be. A society in which all women are brilliant engineers and not one of them will have children is a dead society.

Let’s give men the same value.


No human child may be born without the express and on-going consent of the adults involved.

The genetic offspring of two individuals is the rightful custodial responsibility of both equally. 

Well, what do you think?

Reproductive equality is the key to making a society that cares about men as much as women. Equality leads to more equality?


Lots of women ain’t gonna like that. Tough shit.

Lots of love,






54 Responses to “Karen Straughan wants to know how to create a society that is forced to care about men. I have some ideas…..”

  1. that1susan March 12, 2015 at 18:56 #

    Janet, your concern about men having equal rights to parental surrender is based on the idea that it will cause even greater misandry? But you think snatching babies at birth on the biological fathers’ say so won’t have a negative impact on the male image?

    My view is that if fathers have truly equal parental rights, the vast majority would never walk away from their biological child. Along with the right to surrender their rights, shared custody needs to also be the default anytime both parents DO want to raise the child but the parents won’t be living together in the same home. If one parent has a significantly higher income than the other, then that parent should probably cover more of the costs, but rather than that money going to the other parent in a check, maybe they’ll be contributing some money to a shared EBT card that the parents take turns using during the days of the week when their child is with them, buying more of the child’s clothes, etcetera.

    Fathers are perfectly capable of learning to buy clothes for their children, and there are lots of helpful shop assistants out there, which my husband has experienced when handling some of our girls’ clothing and shoe needs. 🙂


  2. JudgyBitch March 12, 2015 at 19:06 #

    It’s not on the biological father’s say, though, Susan, and that is the point. It will be the LAW. You must be able to prove consent.

    Yes means yes.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. that1susan March 12, 2015 at 20:56 #

    Right — but this would mean that if a father didn’t want to provide any evidence of his enthusiastic consent to becoming a parent, he would essentially be giving his say-so (by not saying-so) for the baby to be taken from the mother at birth.

    I can sort of understand the tit-for-tat spirit of this, because I know that even though it’s technically illegal for a baby to be placed for adoption without the father’s consent, some mothers do find ways to get around this, such as by claiming that they have no idea who fathered their child — and sometimes this is probably true.

    Some very good friends of mine adopted a baby who was the product of a one-night stand. The mother said she had no idea how to contact him. So they followed the laws regarding this in the state where they adopted, and posted a personal ad stating that a man going by such-and-such nickname with such-and-such personal characteristics needed to respond to the ad by such-and-such date if he was interested in finding out whether he’d fathered a child, and if so, claiming his parental rights. After it had been posted for the required period of time with no response, they were able to adopt their baby free and clear.

    They’d previously declined the opportunity to adopt a different baby because that mother knew who the father was but refused to tell him, so they would have had to adopt illegally and they weren’t willing to do that. But she seemed not to have any trouble finding a couple that was willing to do it on her terms.

    It sucks that a mother who wants to give up her baby can get around having to inform the father and give him a choice in the matter — but if, for example, this mother chooses to say that she has no idea who she had sex with, or to abandon her baby somewhere and there is no way of knowing who the father is or contacting him, while this is very unfair to the father not to have a choice in the matter, I’m still in favor of just moving on and getting that baby placed in a loving family as quickly as possible.

    BUT I still think that if one parent wants to give the baby up but the other wants to be a parent, the one who wants to be a parent should continue to have the right to raise the baby. I say “continue” because this actually is our current legal reality, and in cases where the mother is honest enough to inform the father and he steps up and says, “No, I won’t sign over my rights; I want to raise my baby,” the baby cannot legally be placed for adoption. The fact that some mothers circumvent this law and give up their babies without the father even knowing doesn’t mean that the law doesn’t exist — it’s just impossible to enforce in certain cases.

    Also, the fact that some mothers circumvent the law doesn’t make it right for a mother who WAS honest with the father to have her baby taken from her just because he doesn’t want to be a dad. Of course, it’s also wrong for him not to have the choice to walk away — so I say, give him the right to sign away his rights and responsibilities, and also, make shared custody the norm so that he’s not just walking away because he knows he’ll be drained of all his resources while receiving little to no access to his child.


  4. that1susan March 12, 2015 at 21:01 #

    P.S. I thought you didn’t like big government. 🙂


  5. JudgyBitch March 12, 2015 at 21:04 #

    Lol. I don’t. But if the goal is to create a world in which men are as valuable as women, I don’t see another way. Men must have to same ability to devastate a woman’s reproductive plans and women have to devastate men’s.

    No forcible termination, but if you give birth a child with stolen genetic material you have proven yourself to be an unfit parent and the child will be given to parents who BOTH want a child.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. that1susan March 12, 2015 at 21:57 #

    Speaking of stolen genetic material: theft or loss of one’s valuables is treated differently in different circumstances. If you break into my house, go into my jewelry box, and take my family jewels, that’s a clear case of theft.

    But if I go to visit you and leave my family jewels lying on your bathroom counter, and come back later to get it and it’s nowhere to be found, it’s possible that you stole it but it could be equally possible that, if you had other people — children’s friends and so on — coming in and out of your house, one of those other people could have picked it up and you could be completely innocent. Unless I have clear evidence that you stole it, I should give you the benefit of the doubt.

    Unplanned pregnancy is kind of like the latter scenario. Some women do lie and say they’re using birth control when they aren’t, and some really are telling the truth but their birth control fails them. So some do steal male genetic material, and some got a gift they never asked for but ended up bonding with anyway. Assuming that every woman who got pregnant while saying she was on birth control is a liar and a thief is presuming guilt without requiring any proof.

    Additionally, it seems like an oxymoron to say that she “stole his genetic material” if he was quite enthusiastic while releasing it into her. Again, if she lied about birth control, it was theft — but only if that lie can be proven.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Jacob Woodford March 12, 2015 at 22:18 #

    “Big government” “Small government” Dumb ideas. Government as government is needed.


  8. bookooball March 12, 2015 at 22:44 #

    Even with artificial wombs and male birth control, eggs will still hold more value than sperm. They can never be truly equal.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Jason Wexler March 12, 2015 at 22:56 #

    I have to agree with Susan on this point. No matter what happens on this front, if it’s in favor of males having reproductive freedoms, whether it comes for cultural changes, legal changes or technology changes, there will be angry blowback from the feminist extremes. While I don’t object to creating the law to be gender neutral, I don’t think it will help to prevent an angry response of “misogynist” or other angry insults being hurled. I also get why you want to punish women who have babies anyway, but I think that having to be entirely financially responsible for the child without child support would be punishment enough. Single parenthood, may not be the optimal condition but it isn’t impossible and isn’t always the worst option available. After all if Mr. JB should die, would you still be capable of raising your kids? What if you died, would he be? I know that your concern is more with the “theft” idea vis-a-vis genetic material being a man’s property, but that really only plays into the foundational falsehood of the pro-choice movement; that reproductive decisions are the domain of the mother on property grounds.

    This may be an instance of the MRM being a little too much like feminism, if men aren’t respected in society, it’s at least as much a result of men not respecting themselves. It would be wise to let people decide if they are oppressed or not on their own accord, a theme oft repeated on the “Women against feminism” pictures. If most men don’t feel disrespected or oppressed maybe they aren’t.


  10. Jason Wexler March 12, 2015 at 23:05 #

    While I can certainly see where you’re coming from with this point, I am not sure we can be that certain. One avenue of research I follow with a lot of interest in part because it was something once worked on, is the renucleation of healthy ovum as a fertility treatment. It has potential applications for not just helping infertile heterosexual couples create biological children, but for same-sex couples to have biological children as well. The process is already advanced enough that there are three parent children in the experimental stage, and most watchers believe that the technology will be commercially available in the next 20 years. If ovum renucleation is eventually feasible, than artificially grown ovums could exist as well and so could sperm, although both are probably much further in the future. So I am more optimistic.


  11. bookooball March 12, 2015 at 23:14 #

    This Catalina Gene Mixer sounds exciting. Maybe we should build institutions to raise them in as well while we’re at it.


  12. FuzzieWuzzie March 13, 2015 at 01:32 #

    I don’t see it going down this way. To begin with, the law is not going to change significantly until society changes. At present, men aren’t valued very highly by society. I think this will change when men are no longer taken for granted.
    It is almost two years since Helen Smith’s book has been released.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Chris March 13, 2015 at 01:52 #

    I was with her until the part about taking children away if both parents don’t consent. That’s pretty extreme and leaves a lot of room for abuse.


  14. JudgyBitch March 13, 2015 at 01:53 #

    The alternative leaves a lot of room for abuse, too. So pick one. Abuse men, or abuse both, equally.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Jim March 13, 2015 at 05:12 #

    5 hours? Shit. RB is even far more cynical about women than I am. There is no fucking WAY I’m going to create a 5 HOURS worth of video on someone else. lol.

    Razor….come on bud. Janet’s a cool bitch, er, lady. 😛 I don’t always agree with her but not EVERY human with a cunt is a cunt. 🙂

    And Razor, there’s some cool chicks out there. Just not a whole lot of them.

    As for creating a society where people give a shit about men…..

    To be honest some of this is in men’s court. You guys are going to HAVE to stop seeing them as someone worth more than yourselves. How? Enough guys are just going to have to get pissed off enough to stop being women’s fucking slave. Quit letting them play you like some kind of extra sadistic dominatrix. Here, look. All you need to do is one thing. Say this word:


    There. Easy isn’t it? What? You think you won’t get pussy? Saying yes all the time will get you little to no pussy. Oh, and stop thinking about pussy 24 fucking hours a day. A woman’s wet hole is not the only thing in existence. It’s just a warm hole not the second coming.

    Quite being simpering wimps and learn the word “NO”. Yes they’ll stamp their little feet and get mad but so what? Who cares? Everyone gets mad now and then. Big deal. If saying “NO” makes her leave you then just think to yourself that it’s her loss and move on.


  16. Billl Sanders March 13, 2015 at 07:33 #

    I like your ideas. They create a level (equal) playing field. The fact that feminists will be angry changes nothing. They will ALWAYS be angry because that is who they are. They will NEVER care for men. But the cultural feminist will adapt to the new laws in order to get what she wants. Right now, men are adapting by staying away from women, marriage and children in droves. Even though women still have “pussy power,” men have “will power.” And economic power, brain power (logic), many more. We will win and society will lose. Women will lose – even with politicians on their side.

    In the book “His needs, Her needs,” Willard Farley lists the top 5 needs of each sex. Men rank Respect as #1, whereas women rank Affection #1. Until women choose to meet the needs of men, men will refuse to meet the needs of women. Men are on strike. Not all men yet. MGTOW has just started to spread; but spread it will. Like any strike, it will take time before a critical mass of pain is felt. As a man who has taken the Red Pill and is awake to the psyop being run on us, the freedom from being manipulated, used and abused by women and government feel wonderful.


  17. Billl Sanders March 13, 2015 at 08:13 #

    Here is something else to consider. http://alphagameplan.blogspot.jp/2013/07/why-feminized-societies-will-fail.html


  18. S. Chan March 13, 2015 at 14:35 #

    Back when universal male suffrage was enduring its birthing pains, the UK put the question to women: do you want the vote? 70% of women said no.

    What is a reliable reference for that?


  19. JudgyBitch March 13, 2015 at 14:38 #

    Those are Karen’s words, so you would have to ask her. You could post the question on the YouTube video?


  20. Copyleft March 13, 2015 at 15:54 #

    It’s not so complicated. Repressive traditionalism is the enemy, and feminism aspires to become the NEW repressive tradition. Both should be opposed. Equality, of both rights AND responsibilities, is the only path forward… and the fact that traditionalist-conservatives and feminists alike find it offensive is a good indicator that it’s the correct answer.


  21. Mark Waldie March 13, 2015 at 18:51 #

    Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 17:00:08 +0000 To: mark_waldie@hotmail.com


  22. comslave (@comslave) March 13, 2015 at 19:02 #

    Only rarity brings value. once the majority of men go MGTOW, the remaining men interested in fatherhood and marriage will be more valued.


  23. JudgyBitch March 13, 2015 at 19:04 #

    There is nothing rare about women, and yet they are valued more than men.


  24. caprizchka March 13, 2015 at 22:10 #

    I like this idea. I don’t feel that we as a society need more abused and unwanted children suffering from attachment disorder to grow up to be neurotic and diseased adults, despite our prison system, democratic process, and military seeming to have an unending need for them.

    In the case of the “unknown” or deceased father, I would recommend a default state of “non-consent” to dis-incentivize rape and murder, unless the father while alive documented his consent with no ambiguity and his cause of death is also non-ambiguous. I would further recommend mandatory sterilization of repeat offenders.

    I’m not one of those who believes that breeding is “a right.” Overpopulation pressure on resources and diminishing opportunities invariably results in atrocities–with males taking the worst of it, resulting in demographic imbalance, and a surplus of spinsters, shrews, and men aspiring to imitate them.

    I disagree with George RR Martin; see Shakespeare, “The Taming of the Shrew”. Not all feminists are completely hopeless albeit most will have to hit bottom or diminished sexual market value.


  25. magottyk March 14, 2015 at 03:21 #

    “No human child may be born without the express and on-going consent of the adults involved.”
    There’s a logical inconsistency in that statement relating to your comment that a woman can still bear the child but it will then be seized. The statement demands an abortion as the only option, unless we change the definition of born to a later date than birth, in which case it’s not murder to kill these non persons.

    While I understand the sentiment of mutual consent for a legitimate child, and the unilateral child to be illegitimate, the methodology you are considering is an increase in government powers, while the goal is actually to have less government powers over the individual.

    Where a child is born without the consent of the biological father, the state becomes the father for all intents and purposes. A mother who cannot care for that child in an appropriate manner, the father (state) may contest the living conditions of that child and seek redress to afford the child appropriate upbringing. The state is awarded custody if the mother is proven to be an unfit parent. In many ways this is the current state of affairs, however the mother has to do something egregious like ongoing abuse of the child before the state will act. A change to this could include a means test for the mother of a non consensual child, in which they must prove that they can meet minimum standards of responsibility to be able to keep the child. If you’re a drug fucked junkie without a job, you’re not a fit parent.

    A much simpler solution is registration of intent to have a child, this aligns in with LPS, which allows for the fathers consent after the fact. Only parents of registered consensual children can utilise the courts for claims of responsibility (child support), similarly a man can register his non consent to a pregnancy, in which that document takes precedent over all other claims made against him, revocable only by him (he can submit to the claims, but not make any claims himself as he has removed that right). Non registration of the consent, defaults to no consent but the decision to consent and gain full rights and responsibility can be established only by the biological father, and only on his say so at the time of officially being asked. if the courts ask a man if he consented he can say yay or nay if there is no other record of consent.

    The marriage certificate is a consent to have children.
    Cohabiting couples would need to register the consent, however a claim of consent being affirmative may still be made if the cohabitation continues up to and after the birth. In which case it will be assumed as if there was a certificate of consent, shown by the actions of the individual.

    Now doesn’t that fix the issue, without increasing government powers, with registration of consent either before or after the fact for each child in non married situations. Means that the government cannot make judgements on these matters regarding if consent was given. They are powerless to do so.

    Of course some people will complain about their taxes going to support non consensual children, but that happens anyway and in increasing numbers. These measures will curb unilateral decisions based on automatic financing from the unsuspecting fathers, therefore the rate of non consensual children should fall, because there’s no money in it and you could lose your kid if you cannot properly afford its upkeep.

    I strongly reject any measures to make pregnancy illegal in any form. The state as a concerned father is not a very enticing idea, especially if it’s prone to contest should a mother fail to pass minimum standards for mothering. the governments contribution to the child already exists in tax breaks and in many countries child endowments.

    A child born to a mother who makes a unilateral decision, and who can provide for that child unilaterally, is every bit as legitimate as the child of consensual parents. The illegitimacy is in the mother trying to make claims against an unwilling father.


  26. Jason Kaps March 14, 2015 at 07:17 #

    How the hell will any of this do anything to help the non-traditional sort of male to/with whom no woman is interested in marrying/having children? How will it remove the “non-cognitive skills” grading bias in education? How will it alleviate the pressure for men to take dangerous jobs in order to make themselves more desireable to women? How will it stop routine male infant genital mutilation? How will it make men as caregivers more socially acceptable? How will it reduce the alarming rate of male suicide?

    Oh…that’s right. You Honeybadgers and FeMRAs don’t give a fuck about us “beta kitchen bitches”. All you really care about is making sure that Chad Thundercock doesn’t leave the plantation. My mistake, carry on.


  27. S. Chan March 14, 2015 at 08:25 #

    I sent Karen an e-mail, right after you left your reply. She has not replied, so far. I have since searched, though, and found a relevant book Women Against The Vote—Female Anti-Suffragism in Britain, by J. Bush (Oxford, 2007). The book is a highly reliable source and it supports what Karen said.


  28. that1susan March 14, 2015 at 12:05 #

    This comment just came to my memory, and I think this is the crux of the difference between your view and mine. You feel like someone always has to be abused, so you’re just pushing for a more equal distribution of the abuse. You feel like it’s women’s turn now.

    And again, it makes no sense to say that your earlier recommendation — of allowing men the freedom to walk away if they don’t want to be parents — would just create more hatred of men, and then go on to recommend something like this. I think you know that this would create a heck of a lot more hatred and rage.

    But it’s all pretty hypothetical anyhow.


  29. that1susan March 14, 2015 at 14:39 #

    But again, how is all of this any better than just allowing the bio-dad the option of signing away his rights and responsibilities and walking away? This seems way simpler and will certainly nix the problem of some women deceitfully getting pregnant in order to lock a man into paying them child support.


  30. Star Lord (@StarLord1020) March 14, 2015 at 15:13 #

    How about men just get vasectomies en masse and stop having babies.


  31. Jim March 14, 2015 at 23:57 #

    Seems like to me most women are full of hatred and rage no matter what you do. Do the wrong thing, you’re evil. Do the right thing, you’re evil. Yes exceptions, blah blah but on the whole most bitches be crazy.


  32. Jim March 14, 2015 at 23:59 #

    Heh, equality, When has this actually ever been achieved? Nature itself isn’t even equal. Why are we so arrogant to think we can defy it? And no I’m not a Tradcon. I’m MGTOW.


  33. Jim March 15, 2015 at 00:01 #

    Hey, if they’re trying to get the laws changed so that I don’t get fucked fro just being guy what’s wrong with it? I’m a MGTOW and while I don’t buy into everything they say (I can’t think of one single person that I am in complete agreement with everything on) getting these bigoted laws changed would help out hugely!


  34. Jim March 15, 2015 at 00:02 #

    The male pill will be here soon. I’m very curious to see how this changes things. Barring that though yeah, just get a vasectomy and make it easy.


  35. that1susan March 15, 2015 at 00:16 #

    Since the female pill has a failure rate, I imagine the male pill would, too. The question is whether a failure should be treated as a female “stealing male genetic property,” and result in a situation where any female who’d bonded too much with her unborn child to abort, would have that baby taken from her at birth unless the male decided to consent to being a parent, or whether it would be sufficient “punishment” for her to have to raise the baby without any help or support from him, should she decide to keep the baby.


  36. Jim March 15, 2015 at 01:19 #

    We’ll have to see how effective it is. Hopefully the failure rate will be very low. Once it becomes widely available to the masses then we’ll see.

    If the male is taking the pill and doesn’t want the child but the woman insists on keeping it then in my view the child is her problem. If he wants it and the mother doesn’t then she should give birth and he keeps the child. If neither of them want it then abort it.


  37. that1susan March 15, 2015 at 01:46 #

    That’s very reasonable and it’s pretty similar to what I’ve suggested.


  38. Jim March 15, 2015 at 02:37 #

    Yup. It’s completely reasonable which is why it will never happen.


  39. magottyk March 15, 2015 at 08:26 #

    “But again, how is all of this any better than just allowing the bio-dad the option of signing away his rights and responsibilities and walking away?”

    Registered consent is just an extension of Legal Paternal Surrender, if there is no registered consent, the courts don’t get involved unless it’s part of a cohabitation claim. They’d have to prove that the biological father was resident in the household during the pregnancy and post birth as a family unit.
    (If the woman you are living with gets pregnant, you have to walk away, you can’t live in the same house as your biological child and say you’re not the parent, that’s a plain dumb and indefensible argument)

    A registered no consent is a legal dead end for the non married, non cohabiting mother. Don’t play house unless you’re serious.


  40. valerie March 15, 2015 at 11:23 #

    Your proposal is sound. No child should be doomed to a single-parent home.
    Plenty of wage-slave worker dads struggling for unappreciative baby mamas.

    PS Some of the ghetto men I know personally and on sitcoms brag about wanting/having 7+ baby mamas. Whaddaya think, internalized matriarchy?


  41. that1susan March 15, 2015 at 13:46 #

    “Registered consent is just an extension of Legal Paternal Surrender, if there is no registered consent, the courts don’t get involved unless it’s part of a cohabitation claim. They’d have to prove that the biological father was resident in the household during the pregnancy and post birth as a family unit.”

    What J.B. is recommending is that any time a woman has a baby and can’t provide proof that the baby’s biological father has consented to parenting that child, the baby be automatically taken from her at birth and placed with a couple in which both partners want to be parents. She doesn’t want the law to differentiate between married, cohabitating, or non-married and non-cohabitating mothers. In all of these cases, the father has to provide proof of his consent or the mother loses the baby.

    I guess this would even apply to cases where a husband died before he and his wife even realized that they were expecting, unless the husband had the foresight to get something in writing in the event that his wife became pregnant. Some couples might even start consenting to propagating during the marriage vows to cover for this possibility.

    J.B. doesn’t advocate for assuming that a man who marries a woman has automatically consented to caring for any children born of the marriage — probably because married women can get abortions without their husbands’ consent or knowledge, which is one of the most awful things I could imagine a woman doing, even though I did feel for the woman in The Godfather who aborted as soon as she realized she was having a son because she didn’t want his life claimed by the mob.

    I just don’t see a possible way to ever make it completely equal when women are the ones who become pregnant and carry the babies. I think the closest thing to equality that we can create is a situation where mothers can decide whether or not to carry to term and whether they want to keep and raise the baby, and if they do carry to term, fathers can decide whether they want to claim their parental rights and responsibilities for the baby, or whether they want to relinquish them — and in cases where both parents want to be parents but don’t want to marry or cohabitate, shared custody should be the default, and where one parent has a significantly higher income than the other, rather than making payments to the lower-earning parent, that parent can simply be held more responsible for meeting the child’s material needs — and directly pay for these things for the child, except in cases where he or she finds it more convenient to send a check and let the other parent do the shopping.


  42. magottyk March 15, 2015 at 16:42 #

    “the baby be automatically taken from her at birth and placed with a couple in which both partners want to be parents.”
    That is objectionable.

    What that does is to create state sanctioned pregnancies. You cannot have a child unless you follow the states rules.
    The states rules in this instance is natural pregnancies are illegal if there isn’t a consenting man.
    The state used to do exactly this fifty something years ago when births outside of marriage were scandalous.
    Unwed mothers unsuspectingly signing forms that gave consent to adopt

    Lets not repeat that shameful history.

    The biological fact remains that women control reproduction, this is not objectionable, men who want children have to find a willing woman, be that surrogate or partnered.

    Women who want to have children will have to do the same, find a man willing to be a father.

    If a woman doesn’t want to partner, they can get pregnant via sperm donation, LPS allows them to find a willing non consenting man and get pregnant naturally.

    Either way consent is sought, either in the full partnership consent, or in the sole parent consent, to do otherwise is to risk custody claims in court or have a man assert his fathers rights (shared parenting) where she’d prefer him not to.

    There will be plenty of men willing to sign away parental rights to the woman, just as there will be women (albeit fewer) prepared to sign away their parental rights to a man.

    Not gaining consent wont get you a guaranteed pay packet and has a chaos factor associated in that an unsuspecting male may or may not assert his rights and thus ruin the single parent plan of the woman.

    In a world where choices keep getting limited, the last thing we need is the removal of choice for all concerned.

    If a single woman can provide for a child on her own, she should have every right to find a consenting non consenting man to provide the biology required.

    Marriage is a commitment of two people to each other, if a woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the child against the man’s wishes, then he can file for divorce as he puts his no consent form in, or he accept the child as being consensual if he wants the marriage to continue, after all in the marriage he will be part of the provisioning and raising of the child.

    He still gets a say, but he has to take more drastic actions than just filing a no consent form.

    You cannot live with your biological child and deny parenthood, unless of course he’s been cuckolded, but as LPS demands paternity testing at birth, then he should find out if it’s not his.


  43. That_Susan March 15, 2015 at 19:32 #

    LPS as in “Leaky Penis Syndrome?”



  44. Mike Schonewolf March 18, 2015 at 06:23 #

    To me these ideas will only come when men drop out of the game altogether. Reproductive rights for men will be resisted both by feminists and traditionalists. As promising as they are, government won’t implement it for various reasons. So if you want a society that is forced to care about me, you drop the ideology that doesn’t give a shit about men, feminism and the ideology that doesn’t consider you a man unless you care only about women, while ego stroking men and pretending to care about them so they can benefit off of their labor: Traditionalism. The latter of which you have advocated on previous blogs.


  45. Matthew Chiglinsky March 18, 2015 at 10:13 #

    Damn it. This is why modern men are so weak. They want people to “care” about them.

    Real men do not need to be coddled. Real men are the leaders of the world. When an obstacle gets in their way, they plow through it.

    The government is the problem. The government gives women artificial power, more than men can handle. It’s an unfair advantage. If the government collapsed tomorrow, women would soon realize how harsh the world really is, and they would either cling to men for safety or be raped repeatedly. All the feminist pontificating would quickly evaporate.

    Liked by 2 people

  46. JudgyBitch March 18, 2015 at 13:58 #

    No, celebrating is not the same as advocating. I celebrate Christmas. Doesn’t mean I think everyone should. I very much resent MGTOWs who call my husband an idiot and me a whore. Don’t believe in marriage? Fine. Don’t get married. But go fuck yourself if you think you get to declare my marriage exploitative and evil just because some marriages are.

    Liked by 2 people

  47. Jim March 18, 2015 at 20:48 #

    Most marriages appear to be this way these days. Leave it to the state to fuck up everything. But I do agree it is way out of bounds to call your husband an idiot and you a whore. That’s just…..odd.


  48. val March 18, 2015 at 22:44 #

    Hey JB, personally, I agree with you, but I advise against sharing those views with anyone you are not extremely close to.
    Even as a woman I cant tell anyone.
    Fascism’s price.



  49. val March 18, 2015 at 23:21 #

    I dont entirely agree…Many good men are unlucky and deserving of compassion when screwed by the system.


  50. Clay March 23, 2015 at 13:21 #

    So??? I guess you would just scrap the entire idea then? Leaving men with ZERO reproductive rights as it is now?


  51. Clay March 23, 2015 at 13:35 #

    Your proposal is spot-on my friend but can never be adapted because there is so much less money available to be stolen. We must always remember, the end game to any question one may ask concerning the corrupt family court, is money. Fathers money more specifically. Virtually nobody is willing to talk about the money end of it, but I will. The movie Divorce Corp did. Money is the sole reason family court exists in the first place. The ‘fair and equitable split’ of all the assets after divorce you were expecting has ALWAYS been a lie; if you have a penis that is. No countering explanation has ever been proffered so it comes down to penis and vagina and which parent has which. The illegal corrupt ‘system machine’ will spend millions (of your tax dollars BTW) in keeping fathers oppressed because that corrupt system also knows there are BILLIONS up for grabs. Each and every year! And that’s in this country alone. So in essence, they steal your money from you in the first place so they are able to spend that money on keeping you continually falsely accused and blatantly oppressed! And you will be paying them for at least 18+ years which is then stolen from you at the end of a gun! Yes my friend, these criminals are very smart indeed.

    ‘Mothers’ divorce’s are ubiquitous now and the blood money available to be stolen from innocent fathers post divorce is on par with the biggest of global corporations. Many, many billions, each and every year. There’s a ton of evilness chasing that amount of money, no reasonable person will ever doubt it. Such evilness as kidnapping innocent children away from their equally innocent fathers JUST to steal his money. The blatant evilness that is family court knows that fathers will spend their last dime to be with their kids. So, by giving the children AUTOMATICALY to the female with almost every divorce in this country, that cash flow from innocent fathers become permanent. With the expanding population, the overall amount of divorces is growing even though it remains roughly around 50-60 percent of the total. More than enough to produce literally billions per annum! Like I said, these criminals are very smart.

    A ‘legal’ kidnapping for money scheme that innocent fathers are forced to pay. And everybody is fine with it. I don’t have a problem with how the government is handling divorce in this country. Do you? I mean, everyone of those thousands upon thousands upon thousands upon thousands upon thousands of fathers year in and year out, I mean ALL must have done something to deserve losing their children. All of them! A judge just doesn’t DO that!”

    Help me people; how is it that there were NEVER any police calls made in 20 years of marriage UNTIL the female files for ‘her’ divorce? Suddenly, the innocent father is ‘a danger to the kids…?

    Really???? You’re telling the truth right now??

    Um, BULL-SHIT!!!

    How can these blatant lies even be ASKED to be believed?!?!?

    “These systems have become very efficient little cash machines, generating profits rather than working for the best interests of children and their families.” C. Jesse Green, interview with attorney Michael E. Tindall, Michigan Lawyers Weekly (http://www.michiganlawyersweekly.com/loty2000/tindall.htm; 1 May 2002).

    “A custody fight is a form of child abuse. Our process is about winners, losers, ownership, possession. We have a divorce system that encourages fighting, bitterness, children being caught in the middle.” Hoftstra University Law School professor Andrew Shepard, quoted in the New York Daily News, 25 September, 1998.

    “We see bizarre cases where abusive and violent mothers are given child custody to ‘save their motherhood. One sees fathers kept from the bedsides of dying children because their presence might upset the mother.” Peter Jensen, “New Laws on Child Custody Should Help Fathers,” Vancouver Sun, 18 December 2002.



  1. Karen Straughan wants to know how to create a society that is forced to care about men. I have some ideas….. | Manosphere.com - March 12, 2015

    […] Karen Straughan wants to know how to create a society that is forced to care about men. I have some … […]


  2. how do we create a society that is forced to care about men? | Honor Dads - March 12, 2015

    […] JudgyBitch: Karen Straughan wants to know how to create a society that is forced to care about men. I have some … […]


  3. How do we create a society that cares about men? It might be easier than you think. - March 16, 2015

    […] note: this post originally appeared here and is reprinted with […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: