STOP GIVING WOMEN THE CHILDREN IN DIVORCE CASES!!

This. Women take every opportunity to spoil children and become worse when they try to gain more points with the kid over the separated dad. This leaves them spoiled and with no guidance in social behavior and self confidence. Women raise babies, men raise children and adults.

I was out of my element with my baby, but was able to start being a better parent than her mom when they hit 2 years old. Kids need authority in larger quantities than treats. It gives them better awareness in social environments of what's wrong and what's right and the ability to stand up for themselves.

Women are the host of what a man created inside of her. Similar to a cocoon. SJW's have infected the legal system to the point that MALE rights have been all but abolished.

I'd be for this if you can kill a cheating spouse and lover with no consequence.

Except that the study doesn't compare single mothers to single fathers, only to a full family. You're asking to replace a problem with another problem, it's the rampant promiscuity in our society what is fucking up people's ability to stay commited to one person and thus causing so many divorces nationwide because they're already conditioned to breed like niggers.

Worst korea used to have this, and I think China still does…

Remove niggers from all these statistics and these numbers dont look so bad. If you shit would fucking stop D&C and focus on the main issues maybe shit would get done.

Shut up Achmed.

Hate to be a naysayer but you need to consider since men only get custody in 20% of the cases: you can pretty much bet that the men who are getting custody are super upstanding citizens compared to the mothers. This creates a selection bias in the data becaue single fathers will be better by virtue of having gained custody. Without randomized controlled study you can't guarantee that fathers will outpreform mothers in general.

However the poor performance of single mothers is a strong case to equalize custody rights at minimum.

Single fathers marrie some whore and leave you with her and her kids. She then treats you like shit and you end up with a major mommy complex that fucks up your life until you marry some fat chick out of a desperate need for love.

Meanwhile your mother goes insane from the pain and when you finally visit her she breaks your heart

Kids belong with their mom. Unless their mom is Angelina Jolie

No we wouldn't.
It's not the sheer numbers, but also the LIKELIHOOD of children being fucked up by single mothers and mothers in general, which is more… Women are factually worse parents in every regard

Absolutely. Divorce is a feminist thing and should never be allowed except in very severe circumstances (such as husband being the wife's brother)

The tradition of taking the man's last name is many thousands of years old. The woman's last name changes, but that of the man remains the same. Now it has been scientifically proven that the Y-DNA is passed down unchanged from generation to generation, while female DNA quickly changes.
At least the sons should never leave the custody of the father. Ideally, even women belong to men.

Agreed. Women don't just spoil children, they are brainless children learn defective ways of living. And the fact that women are more likely to abuse children compounds the severity of the situation.

Huge portion of the problem of fatherless homes rests with men being dirtbags. We need to shame mansluts as part of the solution.

FUCK OFF MGTOW
FUCK OFF MGTOW
FUCK OFF MGTOW
FUCK OFF MGTOW

Muh Statistics

Fuck off MGTOW kike. You're all more irrational women

see

Holla Forums has really helped me in a lot of areas, but I'll never achieve my true potential thanks to that handicap that my parents gave me by splitting up when I was 4. We really need to fix the family unit as it is the foundation of any good civilization. Otherwise you get what you have now

It's simple, in cases of divorce, euthanize all the children under 12. They're going to be ruined anyway, regardless of what parent neglects them for the rest of their formative years, so it's best to just put them our of their misery. Both parents care more about themselves anyway, or they wouldn't be divorcing.

grew up lacking confidence

This is what MGTOW does to young impressionable men. Fucking baseball of all things, haha

Man up and stop blaming mommy for your weakness

#animus

You're more Semitic than any Jew I've ever read. Congratulations

Women are probably deathly afraid of the general public realizing that men are better at raising kids too, making women entirely worthless apart from their uteruses.

Men aren't meant to raise kids you massive fat titty MGTOW faggot.

Men are meant to work, learn, achieve and fucking MAGA

Children are for women

If you don't think I was affected by this then you're delusional to the effects being raised by a single mother has. I just said Holla Forums has helped, and that means lifting, studying, general self improvement, and knowledge of why the world is going to shit. But if I had a father figure maybe I would ba e done those things growing up instead of in my 20s, and my life would be different

My father left me and mother in the snow to starve to death at a fire Department trailer in the woods of California when I was 4yrs old. I don't feel sorry for you pussy.

You're a massive fucking faggot trying to help MGTOW (cultural marxists) switch gender roles on us.

Whatever Holla Forums did for you, it's not enough because you're not redpilled #animus

what are the stats of kids that come from motherless homes?

Women can't raise boys into men. Which explains you.

It would be sexist not to give women greater priority, silly goyim.

You lack basic reading comprehension. Once again, in my first post I emphasized the need to rebuild the family unit as it is the foundation of civilization, so other children can grow up in healthy environments. I can't tell if you're trolling or retarded, but this is your last (you)

I'm like a chemotherapy enema to most feminist cunts because they know a man when they see one and it's toxic to them.

Men are molded by greatness, not daddddddy.

Women raise children. Men MAGA
Men teach, provide and strengthen, you gender role switching faggot

You lack emotional stability because you have an animus possession. The subject matter isn't changed by your platitudes faggot. The subject matter is if men should raise the children.

#Animus

You gender role switch Commie

A patriarchy is a society in which the father is the head of the family unit; if the family unit breaks down, he thus receives custody of the children. This used to be the case in the Western world, but one of the first feminist campaigns destroyed this social norm. In the early 19th century, Caroline Norton, a prominent British feminist, campaigned for the right of women to have custody of their children. Norton had undergone a divorce and the custody of the children had been awarded to their father. She worked with the politicians of the time and eventually was able to convince the British Parliament to enact legislation to give mothers rights over fathers.
The result was the Custody of Infants Act 1839, which established a presumption of maternal custody for children under the age of seven. In 1873, Parliament extended the presumption of maternal custody until a child reached 16. The doctrine spread, then, to the majority of the other nations, as England was controlling a global empire. Mothers are now considered the de facto head of the family unit. During marital breakdown, they receive custody of the children and the family home.
Western society is a matriarchy.

...

being a good father is incredibly important, and since you bring up MAGA why don't you ask yourself what kind of father is Trump? Listen to the stories his children have of him. They have benefited hugely from his hand in raising them.
In fact this post is so bad I have trouble believing it's not satire or maybe you're just some sort of jew faggot. Maybe even this poster is some butt hurt numale that never had a strong male figure growing up and just assumes that fathers should have nothing to do with children to cover the shame that he wasn't worth the trouble to his dad.

Or do what you can to smooth the lumps out of your marriage instead of deciding a divorce is necessary. My grandmother and grandfather loathed one another but stayed together for the sake of my mother. Both sides of the family, grandpa and grandma on dad's side were in a constant state of war as well, but they stayed together because of their son.

When you make a vow to remain with someone the rest of your life you're not supposed to make that vow lightly. Get married, have children and live for the good moments. Nothing is perfect, but there will always be good sprinkled in with the bad. Divorce leaves two people, possibly one of them with a child to muddy the dating market even more. If you can't fix your bad marriage yourself you're making it even harder for the men and women who've been unable to find a partner yet to find one without baggage. Don't be a cunt, fix your marriage. Avoid divorce.

Single Mothers: Emotionally unstable, very likely to have low IQs to begin with, massive amounts of psychological problems from their inability to handle stress and social pressure which they will ALL dump on their kids one way or another

Single Fathers: Emotionally stable/harndened enough to keep their problems away from their kids, more likely to be successfully employed or at least smart with money, less prone to social pressure to "raise your kid like x or y or z" and so forth

You get the picture.

Women decide whether there will be a divorce or not and the state rewards them. You won't fix the problem without removing the rewards (and of course the cultural glorification of divorce).

Was that what your mom told you?

This

I think the smell of vagina has rotted the brains of white nationalists. Anything that is spoken negatively of their women they will tip their crosses, yell MGTOW at the naysayers then just show pictures of whatever atheist neckbeard they can assign because they think women can do no wrong. Women back then couldn't do a whole lot of wrong since they didn't have that freedom (rightfully so.), but now they have that freedom, they should face the fact that they can do wrong, much worse than men.

Alot of men seem to forget how feral women can be in general.

A whopping 40% of child abuse is committed by mothers alone. Meanwhile only 17% is done by the father alone.
>Source: US Department of Health and Human Services Child Maltreatment Report 2001 acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm01/index.htm
Even if children are 50% more likely to have a mother around than a father (which they are not, not even close in 2001), the fact would still remain that mothers are more likely to abuse children.

Women initiate divorce 91% of the time (see amazon.com/91-Factor-Women-initiate-Divorce/dp/0963179926 ) and therefore the blame for causing severe emotional/mental damage to children rests on them.
Women are joy killers. They cause distress, make the environment gloomy and cause an UNTOLD amount of suffering.

You're absolutely right. But it's not their fault. They're totally brainwashed with the feminist agenda. They've been indoctrinated from their very childhood.
But thankfully they are waking up, just like all other men are too. The nature of women has always been known to mankind, and necessary steps have been taken to keep them in check!!

Men don't have a choice

stats don't actually show that, but your concern is noted

This. Divorce should be made more difficult just for the sake of a conservative society, but stopping the government gibs and daddy-checks to women will end this problem immediately.

Those people in the system don't mind, they still got their money and got to punish you for a while. congrats on a partial victory at least

Tell your mom [citation needed]

Are you that guy who threatens to fight people over the internet? That people need bad parents to not end up SJWs?

/thread

Often we identify the introduction of No-Fault Divorce laws in the 1970’s as the beginning of the divorce epidemic, but is not entirely accurate. The divorce craze actually began back in the 1860’s and 1870’s when the Suffragettes undermined father-custody with the Tender Year’s Doctrine and mother-custody became the norm, thus voiding one of the core tenets of marriage in the first place - which was bringing men into the reproduction process in a meaningful way so that their higher provisioning abilities could be utilized for the greater good of both families and society.

It’s not like No-Fault Divorce had no impact on divorce rates – it certainly did! But it more or less streamlined a process that had been well under way for over a century. Contrary to popular belief, obtaining a divorce before the 1970’s was not that difficult. (((Marilyn Monroe))) divorced three times between 1942 and 1961 while (((Elizabeth Taylor))) had four divorces under her belt and was working on her fifth when No-Fault Divorce became law. Before No-Fault Divorce was enacted there were just a few more hoops to jump through, in an effort to “find fault.” But let’s make no mistake, if a woman wanted a divorce she could get one. Of course, with “fault” divorce, it extends that one must prove that an actual “fault” had occurred. There were many things which constituted “fault,” including adultery, alcoholism, insanity, abandonment, and a host of others. But the most pernicious to the institution was the fault called “cruelty.”

The word cruelty was an undefined term that much resembles the word “abuse” today because almost anything could be construed as cruelty. An argument that made her cry could be deemed cruel. Not paying enough attention to her could be deemed cruel. Well, you get the idea. Just look at how many things today are classified as “abuse” which really wouldn’t be claimed as abuse anywhere else in society except in male-female relationships. Take that meaning of abuse and simply replace it with the word “cruelty” and you’ve pretty much got the spirit behind the system. Over years of having a relationship with someone else, it is pretty easy to find something that can be considered abuse or cruelty in one way or another. So, what happened in divorce cases before No-Fault Divorce was that a trial occurred to prove the husband was “cruel” and therefore, a divorce ought to be granted. This caused much dragging out of people’s dirty laundry and it was pretty much a joke. Belfort Bax referred to the “cruelty” argument for divorce as a complete sham over a century ago already, indicating that it was all about taking normal human interactions and having a lawyer twist things around to portray the husband as some heinous monster when the reality was far from it. No-Fault Divorce was really more about not making lawyers and judges into hypocrites for orchestrating such a charade and simply saying, “Give her the damn divorce already and let’s just get it over with.” Women have always gotten what they wanted from the courts when her adversary was a man. Dropping the need to prove “cruelty” simply streamlined the process and stopped making the courts look like such hypocrites.

“Prior to 1970, the law usually justified its wrecking of families on the grounds either of adultery or of “extreme cruelty.” The sexual revolution has now made adultery a right for women (“a woman’s sacred right to control her own body”); extreme cruelty was usually understood to be a legal fiction meaning no more than that one of the spouses, usually the wife, wanted out. The pretense that the husband was an extremely cruel man was in most cases sufficiently absurd that it embarrassed even judges and lawyers and it was felt necessary to “reform” divorce by perpetuating the same destruction of families under a new terminology. This is called No Fault divorce. There were label switchings. Divorce was renamed Dissolution of Marriage. The Plaintiff was renamed the Petitioner. The Defendant was renamed the Respondent. Alimony was renamed Spousal Support (the ex-wife was no longer a spouse, but calling her one “justifies” taking the man’s money). The real core of the change is that it was no longer necessary to “prove” extreme cruelty to inflict upon the husband a more severe penalty than is imposed on most low-income black male felons.'” – Daniel Amneus, The Case for Father Custody, p.215''

As you can see, while the introduction of No-Fault Divorce certainly helped to fuel the divorce craze by streamlining the process, it was definitely not the sole cause of the break-down of the family… So, what other factors were involved?

One of those answers can be found in the present day, as our great altruistic feminist sisters attempt to "help" the women of the third world. There is a feminist propaganda advertisement that appears here in Canada on a regular basis which particularly irks me because of its blatant lying right off the bat. The feminist organization CARE put on the ad which starts off by saying something along the lines of "No-one can understand a woman's life in the third world better than another woman anywhere in the world." It's such an obvious slap in the face to not only men in general, but also to bloody common-sense. They mean to tell us that a woman working at her NGO job and living in a high-rise condo in downtown Vancouver has a better ability to understand the life of an impoverished woman in the third world collecting and burning camel-dung over an open fire in her mud-hut better than her husband, sons and fellow countrymen do? It's just bloody absurd on the face of it, so I once perused their site and here is what I found: "When a girl in the developing world receives seven years of education, she marries four years later and has 2.2 fewer children." Now, don't get me wrong. I don't particularly have a problem with girls receiving an education, but what I am pointing out is that feminists know that what they are doing is altering the conditions of the nuclear family by pushing women into the workforce where they will be directly competing with men. Of course, the same website claims that women put 90% of their income back into their families but makes no mention of the percentage of income the men put back into their families (Do the men spend 50% of their income at the local tavern and the other 50% wagering on cock-fighting in the alleyway?) Nor does it indicate what kind of families they are talking about. Do they mean husband-wife & children families, or are they discussing female & children families?

You only have to look at our recent economic crisis of 2008/09 to see what feminists consider "family." While men lost their jobs in significantly larger numbers than women, when job recovery began to occur, feminists started complaining that men were getting re-hired in larger numbers than women. (Kinda makes sense, eh? If three times as many men lost jobs as women, a similar ratio of men ought to be re-hired during a recovery - except in femi-supremacist 50/50 land). Then, feminists tried to claim that men were receiving hiring preference because they had families to care for and complained because women had families they were providing for too! Yes indeed, but the difference is what kind of families we are talking about. A man providing for his family generally means that the man, his wife, and their children all get food put on the table whereas for the most part, when a woman provides for her family, they mean there is food on the table for the single/divorced mom and her children. There is no man being provided for in this equation. Women don't care for men - they care for themselves and their children. A single mom "family" leaves the male out of the equation, where he starves on the street corner alone - it certainly does not lead to general economic improvement if the male gender is left to suffer in poverty separately from families. In the traditional nuclear family, men, women and children receive the benefits of the man's labour but in the new single-mother "family," only women and children receive benefits. The men just magically vanish to… who knows where?

The radical feminists of the Second Wave understood this as well:

"How will the family unit be destroyed? … the demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare." – From Female Liberation by Roxanne Dunbar

A significant factor in our culture which led to the destruction of the family was women entering the workforce en-masse in the 1970's and 1980's. Whereas Briffault's Law was undermined by the Suffragettes transferring presumed Father-Custody into Mother-Custody with the Tender Years Doctrine in the 19th Century, Second Wave feminists undermined hypergamy by encouraging women to abandon their traditional roles and compete directly with men in the workplace. Previously, a woman's standard of living significantly improved upon marriage as men were socially conditioned to work like mules to provide for their families. After the second wave arrived, women were encouraged to "have it all" and be both high-earning career chicks and brave single-mother-victims at the same time. Of course, there is nothing wrong with women aspiring to do something more than live up to traditional sex-roles, but overall in our culture, women have merely cooked the Golden Goose by insisting on pursuing their dreams and aspirations. Yes, they want a high-flying career so they have money, but they also want their work to be socially beneficial (who doesn't?) and they also want their careers to be flexible enough to allow them plenty of time to spend with their families - not necessarily hers and her husband's family. They had all of that in spades before Second Wave feminism appeared on the scene, but were convinced by feminists that it wasn't good enough for them. Like greedy children, they had to have it all!

"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." – Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18

"If even 10 percent of American women remain full-time homemakers, this will reinforce traditional views of what women ought to do and encourage other women to become full-time homemakers at least while their children are young… This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about childcare and housework, the movement as a whole [has] reasons to discourage full-time homemaking." – Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ERA, p.100

Second Wave feminism made no bones about their goals to destroy marriage, believing that true equality for women could not be achieved in the nuclear family. They pushed women into the workforce en-masse because they knew doing so would undermine one of the major reasons women entered into the institution of marriage in the first place - access to the husband's paycheck along with the higher standard of living he provided. This massive entry of women into the workforce where they began directly competing with men for their traditional roles likely had far more to do with undermining marriage than the introduction of No-Fault Divorce laws, which merely streamlined a trend that had been happening for a century already.

Also, the Second Wave did everything they could to destroy "the mating dance" between men and women. Men are the designated initiators in sexual relations. Women attract and men pursue. That's just the way it is. However, just because men are the designated overt initiators does not mean that women are innocent little darlings, simply fending off multitudes of horny men at every corner. They are just as complicit in the mating dance as males.

“Women chat happily, send sexually explicit signals and encourage the man’s attention, even if they have absolutely no interest in him. This gives a woman time to assess a man, says [Karl Grammer of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Urban Ethology in Vienna, who studied 45 male-female pairs of strangers in their teens and early twenties]… Importantly, the women also seemed to control the encounter – what the women did had a direct effect on what the men did next. ‘You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour but not the other way around,’ says Grammer” – New Scientist Magazine (London), February 14, 2001

Cary (1976) discovered that the woman, through eye contact, controlled the course of interaction with a male stranger, both in the laboratory and in singles' bars. Perper (1985) gave a detailed description of courtship, stressing an escalation-response process in which women play a key role in escalation or deescalation. The steps in this process are approach, turn, first touch, and steady development of body synchronization. (Note: This is similar to mating behaviour in other mammals, like rats).

Although these reports are clearly valuable, most researchers addressed courtship very generally, and some failed to recognize the importance of the female role in the courtship process .What was needed was a more complete ethogram of women's nonverbal courtship signals. To compile such a catalog of flirting behavior exhibited by women involved in initial heterosexual interaction, more than 200 adults were observed (Moore, 1985) in field settings such as singles' bars, restaurants, and parties.

Research has shown, therefore, that the cultural myth that the man is always the sexual aggressor, pressing himself on a reluctant woman, is incorrect. – Courtship Signaling and Adolescents: "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun"? Monica M. Moore, Ph.D.Department of behavioral and Social Sciences, Webster University

Thus, the old saying, "He chases her until she catches him." Kinda makes you wonder what the whole feminist campaign about "No Means No!" was about in the 1990's, doesn't it? Some studies have indicated that in a typical male-female sexual encounter, the woman will give off up to 150 rejections, either verbally, physically, with eye gestures, and so on, until finally saying "yes" to sexually accepting the man as a mate. Quite obviously, "no" only means no when a man says it. These types of campaigns were designed to drive to the sexes apart by monkeying with the basics of the mating dance - which women insist on perpetuating, no matter how much men get criminalized for doing what she desires in the process.

A similar thing has happened in the workplace where women once often found a husband. Today, after a plethora of sexual harassment laws being introduced into the workplace, anyone in a position of power could get into no end of trouble for trying to woo a woman who is subordinate to him - yet, women in the past often married their bosses. Remember, women are hypergamous and seek out men who are more powerful and wealthier than they are, thus, it is natural for a woman herself to be attracted to someone in a position of authority over her. But, since men are the designated initiators in the mating dance while women always hide behind plausible deniability, it is the male's part of the dance that had to be outlawed in order to drive the sexes apart.
When desiring women is outlawed, only outlaws will desire women.

Since that won't happen anytime soon, bring back the social stigma for single mothers, for raising monsters. In fact, start punishing the parents for their failed children.

Feminazi mythology is sickening. Just wanted to add that
- 40% of rapists outside prisons are women
- Over 90% of rapes in juvenile facilities are committed by women
- The rate of inmate-inmate sexual victimization in female prisons is more than 3 times higher than male prisons
- Rapes in male prisons are mostly in gay and bisexual circles, not among straight men (gays are like women in the head)
And if anyone wants sources I'll gladly provide them. Also it's no surprise that women abuse children more because they even commit the majority of partner violence. There are hundreds of studies, but I'll just mention here that Harvard found women commit 70% of one-sided DV and also initiate the majority of reciprocal DV

You are either a single mother, jew or faggot. Get out of here with you purple pill shit, the ovens are waiting.

Why the fuck didn't he call the cops?

Why didn't you just provide them? Such things are useful tools.

Daly & Wilson 1988 report 54% of parent-child murders where the child is under 17 were committed by the mother in Canada between 1974 and 1983, for instance. The Statistical Abstract of the United States 1987 reports that of reported child maltreatment cases between 1980 and 1984 between 57.0% and 61.4% of these were perpetrated by the mother. Nagi 1977 found 53.1% of perpetrators were female, 21% male and 22.6% both.

O’Leary, K. Daniel; Arias, Ilena; (((Rosenbaum))), Alan & Barling, Julian "Premarital Physical Aggression" State University of New York at Stony Brook & Syracuse University Another report on premarital violence (O’Leary, et al) found that 34% of the males and 40% of the females reported engaging in some form of physical aggression against their mates in a year. 17% of women and 7% of men reported engaging in severe physical aggression. 35% of the men and 30% of the women reported having been abused.

better to film everything for evidence, and if you call the cops they're pretty likely to fuck you up, especially when she makes up a story and/or hits herself for bruises and blood. Cops are the biggest white knights in most places.

Unfortunately, even if men call the cops, there's a 50/50 chance that he will get arrested since they make assumption that men initiate the violence in domestic cases unfortunately. Whether or not they will use the video as evidence is unsure. If they do, he's assured innocence. Keep in mind she can reach the cops first and yell crocodile tears unless he manages to make a good case.

Because the cops would probably have got him into trouble? idk.

I know but it's time consuming so I said fuck it unless some feminist retard claims I'm making things up.
Women screaming, raising their voice, creating drama, crying etc. is extremely common and it probably happens in every household.
That's another reason why women should be seen and not heard!!

Here another one:

Here's the source for the last two sentences above: mensrightshalifax.com/international/safer-with-their-fathers-children-2-4x-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-mothers-boys-murdered-more-often/
Children are a whopping 2.4x more likely to be killed by mothers.
In this video, crazy girl won't let her bf leave till he impregnates her

I'm inclined to believe, at this point, that for every rat-bastard who beats his woman for no earthly reason, there are at least five guys who were stretched to their breaking points by cunts like this.

Five too low. I'd say at least twenty if not 50 to over 100.

If there is one thing that's worse than actual MGTOWs, rather than the meme on 8ch that's being chased here, it's autistic Holla Forumsacks who see MGTOW around every corner and cry it, whenever someone doesn't describe women as goddesses who can do no wrong. Walk out of your fucking front door and talk to some people in real life, holy shit. Anime girls are fiction and nothing like women in real life, and certainly nothing like women in the west. And so long as you don't grow some fucking balls and start bringing women under our heel and force them to, they will never improve. And step one of that is openly talking about what they do wrong and how to hold them to account for it.

An individual man is powerless. It's too risky to go outside and do anything. We all know what happens many-a-times if a man even dares to defend himself from an attacking female. If we speak for real equality and men's rights in public we'll be destroyed indirectly. What I mean is that our position at university, our workplace, our friend circle or anything else will be in serious danger. Feminist oppression is pretty terrible. Our best bet is to keep spreading the word anonymously on the internet and waking men up….. and believe me men are waking up to their oppression and 2nd class status in a society that FALSELY claims to support gender equality….. slowly but surely!!

Then again if anyone wants to risk taking things to real life, who am I to stop them? Because eventually we'll have to take to the streets and hijack feminist society.

The answer is clear: as soon as your wife asks for a divorce, it's license for you to eat your young.

...

Wow. Here's hoping Jewish men wake up from their feminist brainwashing too and help us get rid of this evil known as "women"

criminally unchecked

What is this gay hippy shit?

Guy gets "corrected" by his gf for liking another girls picture on facebook

Once again, social media and dating do not mix.

Actually, social media and ANYTHING is a pretty bad idea.

What a betafaggot

WTF?? It was clearly the girl was at fault. Not the guy for using social media. Would you react like this if the genders were reversed?

This (video) is what happens if you're not a betafaggot.

He says he barely raises them you moron. Why don't you take your MGTOW head out of your pussy-ass?

Men don't raise children - women do – men MAGA

Carl Jung faggot. GTFO

There is a reason for it fuckwad. Infidelity and being trapped in a marriage is instant failure of a policy. At least death can discourage infidelity.

Are you seriously demanding white be stuck in a marriage with a cheating spouse? Fuck off nigger.

I was raised by a single-mother because my dad fried his brain with LSD no this is not a psychedelics are bad for you goy post, he did that shit daily and lived on a damn boat for ten years and couldn't string a sentence together let alone provide for his family.
Even though she did her best wasn't much tbh, still love her though because fuck stefan (((defoo))) moneyjew*
Never even contemplated this
Did this numerous times
Probably, no idea what is considered disordered behaviour, I am very polite and don't typically get in fights or arguments
heh
Yep
Yep
Yep unless jail doesn't count, never been to the nuthouse.
Isn't this a "state operated institution" ?

You can complain about "how things are said about things I like!" but you ignore the argument being made. And that's because you're more irrational than a woman.

Gender Roles Switching thread — fuck off back to 4chan MGTOW

Men MAGA
Women rear/raise

...

Hitler was a white supremacist who was right about Jews. He was also right that women belong in the house. But he forgot to mention that women are evil. He couldn't think of saying that because he was born and raised in a feminist society. In case you didn't know, feminism had already taken a hold in the late-19th century. The nature of women has always been known to mankind, but hidden in feminist society. As St. Albert the Great rightly put it:

We don't need to go back to a Nazi Germany society. We need to kill feminism entirely and revive the pre-feminist society. Hitler can be right about certain things, and wrong about others. You're almost deifying him. Hitler should not have been with so many women anywhere unless they were prostitutes. All those women belong in the kitchen.

I'm okay with the rest of it, spreading this stuff online has more influence then in person, except for you friends and family. But

We don't want equality. We want men to be men and women to be women. And we don't 'talk' about men's rights or we're no better then avfm and the like. We have to do more, and push for more. We're extremists, goddamnit.

Why are you associating with women and cucks?

Tell us about your father.

Are you retarded? Divorce has been around FAR longer.

Hell one of our presidents Andrew Jackson had the FIRST divorce in history when he was younger and cucked some dude out of his wife, they ran away together and years later he took her to a court and the court decided that divorce was a thing and legally separated them to allow Andrew to marry her.

He also raised racing horses and someone once brought this up while trying to get out of paying a bet and called his wife a whore so Andrew killed his ass in a duel.

The man had shot Andrew in the chest and when it was his turn Andrew shot an almost instantly fatal blow and when confronted about how he actually landed that shot while injured with an inaccurate old single shot pistol Andrew was quoted saying "I would have hit him if he had shot me in the brain"

Andrew was a giant badass and beat back the banks plus he's the reason WE the American people get to vote today instead of a group of washington elite insiders.

Divorce isn't a bad thing, marrying bad people is.
Abolish alimony because it's the most fucking retarded thing in the world and potentially child support too and see the next generation of females grow up to be considerably more decent.

Race mixing will likely also die down because no dindu is going to raise a child and no self respecting white man (read a white man with money) would touch a girl infected by the jews with a fetish for bestiality

If we can't even ask for real equality in real life, just imagine what the backlash for stating this would be? So best to stay user for your own safety.

And NO we are NOT extremists. What we are talking about is normal. People who support women's liberation are radicals and the real extremists.

We take things to their logical conclusions and stand by our principles, and I for one will show no mercy to my enemies.

There is nothing more extreme anymore.

There is no such thing as equality, and asking to be treated like human beans doesn't work except on already decent people. The ones being shit on.

We need to bring back burning of women. This time the crime won't be practising witchcraft, but instead, being a feminazi. We need to put STRICT RESTRICTIONS on women and start putting them to death if they step out of line too much. But again, this is normal.

You're absolutely right but trust me, asking has its own power.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
beta male with slave morals

...

MGTOW (cultural marxism)

lol we really need a new term for Feminazi :/

Women have always been considered evil by almost every religion and culture since the beginning of history… and they are!

As someone who's fam is going through a divorce I can agree to a certain extent but shouldn't the parent who's more qualified have custody instead? You say that fathers are statistically better I agree but what if the father is abusive to the children shouldn't the child go to the mother or vice versa? I agree from experience being raised by a single mom is dreadful but my mom is the only good single mom I know from first hand experience she has always tried her best for the benefits of her kids. I know that's anecdotal and may not be relevant but I thought it might be worth mentioning. My deadbeat of a dad wanted nothing to do with me and my stepdad wants full custody of my sister despite his history of abusing her and I. But also the idea of divorce is a tricky subject. Yes divorces are happening more often now than the 50s but that's mostly from Jewish degeneracy being pushed into the west. I agree if people don't love eachother anymore or one finds out that their partner cheated on them or abuse of their partner or their children should definitely be causes of divorce. I also agree that divorces are pretty much cash grabs not just for the divorcees but especially for the lawyers make big bank of it. My uncle is still trying to settle custody issues with his bitch of a ex wife because of lawyers want more sheckles when my uncle just wants to end it for good for the better for his kids. Personally for me it's just better who's more qualified to raise kids as is one who isn't abusive towards them and truly seeks their best interest at heart rather than money.

I'd need to see the single father data.

I'm a weekend dad, and… nah. This is best for all parties.
She's doing good with her neutering feminine mother.
An unbroken home would have been ideal, but I knocked up a feminist.

nurturing

Femaoist, femishit, femicunt.

Kid, you need to try a little harder in life.

this, so we won't have Brendan the just in the future.

don't know where I saved the wiki image on my unorganized files

Femaoist is the only one which sounds as serious… but I doubt the average american knows what Mao did. I'm thinking Femstalin? lol idk keep em coming though because wee need to find one sooner or later!!

Oh look, more ad hominem shaming tactics from brainwashed products of feminist society…. Wake up!! The evil nature of women has always been known. Have you even read the things written about women in the pre-feminist world. I swear, the ACCURATELY depict women and their evil nature.

dumb trash tbh

You can start by reading Warren Farrell's book Father and Child Reunion. Also refer to this post

Femicommie

I already use two of those.

If you noticed, there was a point when she said OR WHAT. I myself have had a woman stalk and harass me in an airport… with the authorities letting her do it to her hearts content… and when I said stop following me she said OR WHAT OR WHAT??

Soon we'll show them… OR WHAT!!!

Nice one. I also came up with Fem Jong Un!!

I'm a single dad with two kids. A daughter and a son ages 17 and 8.
My wife died in a car crash. I had to formally indentify her body. It's UK law if there is a sudden death that formal identification is necessary. She was just going shopping. She was with a friend who also died. The car was mangled by a lorry.
It happened in 2012 in October.

I had to move away from our home as it was too painful to be there. I have a gf now and she is lovely and wonderful to my kids. She wants to make children with me.
Being a single parent can be hard at times and also very rewarding.
Without doubt, men are discriminated against in divorces. Courts of law will put the woman first and can deny access to the father.

Children need guidance and a safe environment. A nice warm home, good food, and above all, love.
Things like helping out with schoolwork, showing an interest in their hobbies, reading to them, doing one's best to instill a sense of morality.
Both men and women can do this.

T-That's SEXIST!!
uh.. That's also SEXIST!!

Tradcucks are good for a laugh now and then

fuck no

>being a literal retard

good thread!

The fatal flaw with imageboards is the shilling that I am preforming right now, kampfy.

Maybe you should go back to reddit?

10/10 quality posting. Phyllis Schlafly is smiling down at you, user.

Legalize Burqa … but only for whites.

Judism is matriarchial.

...

FEMINISM IS A CONSPIRACY THEORY

Who in their right mind decides to raise a child for the first years in his life in the US and then bring him """back""" to Europe? I tell you: people are absolutely insane over "here".

Feels good.

This, T.B.H.

Bulldykeshevik.

OUTLAW DIVORCE

user, please stop slandering Jackson as a cucklord. She thought she had already finished legally divorcing her husband by the time she and Jackson were together.

...

softened the edges a bit

wew

A woman is only as strong as the strongest man in her life.
If she is a single mother she may have beta males orbiting her or no regular male figures in her life at all.

The bigger problem is most western women today have lost all feminine instinct. They're not nurturers, caregivers and protectors of families and children. They're worthless, vapid whores who think access to their stank trench is all they have to bring to the table in exchange for you subsidizing their worthless, vapid lives for the entirety of them.