Ceausescu Wikipedia commons 750 x 420

A bachelor tax – not so unlikely

There is a lot of discussion, particularly in MGTOW circles, but also in the wider MRM, about the likelihood that the State could introduce a bachelor tax in case too many men decide to go full MGTOW and opt out of family life. Whenever this topic is brought up, many think that an outright bachelor tax is unlikely given that it hasn’t happened for quite some time now… or so you might think. Of course, it depends on how one defines “quite some time” but a European country had such a tax that was abolished in the last days of 1989.

Now, a form of “bachelor tax” is existent today in many countries in the form of tax credits or deductions awarded to those who are married or who have children in their care. But Communist Romania went one step further and levied a tax on all the individuals who were still childless by the age of 25.

Context

Under Nicolae Ceaușescu, the Romanian Communist Party decided to increase the birthrate in the country – being dissatisfied with how the population recovered numerically following the World War II.

The first measure came in 1966 when Romania shifted from a country with some of the most liberal legislation with respect to contraception and abortion, to a country closer to a theocracy.

The decree number 770/1966 banned abortion almost entirely except for rape and incest victims, those whose pregnancy threatened their lives, those who already had 4 children, those who were over the age of 45 and those who were at a high risk of transmitting serious genetic diseases to the child.[1] The decree also specified that in those cases where abortion should be allowed, that decision ought to be taken by a special commission on case-by-case basis.

This decree led to a spectacular increase in birthrates in the next few years, but then it started falling again – mainly because the population started to find workarounds but also due to back alley abortions.

The second measure occurred in late 1970s when already scarce contraceptives started to slowly disappear from socialist commerce. The contraceptives were never outright banned but by the early 1980s huge areas of the country were de facto contraceptive-free (especially the towns and villages). The only way you could get contraceptives was from the black market (and only in the big cities) or, in some rare occasions, through special allowance from a regulated drug store (but it would take at least 2 months just to get 10 condoms or a 30 day supply of oral contraceptives for women).

The de facto ban on contraceptives also produced minor increases in birthrates and then more drops. Therefore, in 1980 Decree 770 was amended and restricted abortion even further to only those who had 5 children in their care.

It should also be noted that in 1981, the Communist regime decided to pay the entire national debt (which it did by May 1, 1989) which led to a draconian ration program on everything – and that means literally everything, including the most basic goods such as butter, oil, bread, potatoes, electric energy – you name it.

The celibacy tax

In this context, of absurd desire of the supreme leader to increase birthrates and to pay off national debt by quite literally starving the population gave birth to the so-called celibacy tax of 1986.[2]

The celibacy tax was not per se a tax on those who were celibate – but a tax on the individuals who were still childless by the time they were 25. The goal of the State was to increase the population (in order to have more workers available to build the Communist dream – even though it was already a nightmare of North Korean proportions). Consequently, getting married was not enough. Getting married was recommended because you could request a bigger apartment from the Party (virtually all apartments and most of the houses were owned by the State) but in order to avoid the celibacy tax, one had to have at least one child.

The cost of the tax varied between 150 and 350 lei[3] per month and it was levied from one’s salary using the model of social security taxes widely used today virtually everywhere in Europe. In other words, you could not avoid paying it since the money was deducted from the salary in advance.

At an exchange rate of 12 lei to the dollar, the maximum tax was 30 1986 dollars – which is roughly $63 in today’s money.[4] That may not seem a lot until you take into consideration that salaries rarely exceeded $250 per month (a minister had a salary of 3060 lei/month – which is 255 1986 dollars) – it’s more than clear that the celibacy tax was a serious burden representing 12-13% of salary on top of already existant taxes — no small amount given the collectivist nature of that regime.

In theory, the tax applied to both men and women (regardless of their marital status) but in practicality, the tax was paid overwhelmingly by men. This is also clear due to the fact that everyone – men and women – referred to this tax in the common lexicon as taxa pe sulă (literally the tax on the dick).

The reasons for this had a lot to do with biology and with inherent gynocentrism. A woman could get a certificate of infertility fairly easy (even if she was fertile) and that certificate would exempt her from being subjected to this tax. Like in all communist countries, the doctors were State functionaries and were as corrupt as any other functionary in that era so for a few hundred lei or for a few packs of Kent (that cigarette brand was a common currency for many bribes) a doctor would write almost anything you needed on a certificate, as long as it was likely to be true. And given the poor state of the general health following the draconic rationalization plan implemented in 1981, it was quite likely for a woman to be infertile for a certain period of time. Also, due to gynocentrism, a doctor was more likely to accept to lie in a certificate when a woman requested it than when a man did the same.

The tax was levied independent of marital status. Fertile men married to infertile women would routinely be subjected to the celibacy tax. Divorce was, in theory, an option, but there were disincentives for divorce – like the danger of being relegated to a lower paid job for no longer being “morally reliable”.[5]

For some people (mainly men) this tax was just the tip of the iceberg because the official propaganda pandering to the pre-existent gynocentrism fed in to a system of peer-pressure on the childless, a pressure even worse in some ways than the tax. Ana Pop, former employee in a Chemical Plant in Baia Mare during that time said[6]:

The worst part was that there was a sort of shame induced on those who were childless. It was a genuine psychological drama which affected those individuals more than the material taxation.

Again, there only a minority of women were subjected to this tax. The most famous woman who was subjected to this was Olympic gymnast Nadia Comăneci,[7] who turned 25 just when the tax was introduced in 1986. Some speculated that she was specifically required to pay (despite the common practice of exempting sportsmen and sportswomen from some of the ridiculous laws) as a punishment for her attempt to defect in 1981[8], though Comăneci only mentions increased monitoring upon her return in 1981[9]. No mention of increased taxation as punishment.

Forgetting

As is the case with many tragedies that happened during the Communist era, the culture nowadays is experiencing a willful period of forgetting; a serious concern given that those who forget their history are bound to repeat it.

Many of the people who have been subjected to this tax, or had people in their families who were, are unwilling to talk about it and would rather just simply to forget everything. There are very few articles in the press talking about it – despite the fact that everyone in Romania over the age of 30 knows it existed or knows someone who was subjected to it.

Although there are still people around who have known men who eventually committed suicide because they couldn’t “man up” and fulfill their duty to the Party and have children, nobody wishes to study this. There are a few dozens of studies about how communism impacted women in Romania – but no study whatsoever about, for instance, how many men committed suicide as a direct result of communist family policies.

It is often claimed that communism affected women more due to the harsh restrictions on abortions which lead to the death of a few thousands of women from back alley abortions. That’s true. The harsh enforcement of the Decree 770 led to a lot of deaths and even more imprisonments of both women (for attempting to have an abortion) and men (for trying to help) – but in the same time, virtually 100% of political prisoners who were tortured and killed were men. And the memory of that tragedy is also fading away.

In 1946, the average life expectancy at birth for men in Romania was slightly over 65 years and for women it was 72. In 1989, the life expectancy for men was 65 (lower than in 1946) and for women it was slightly over 74.[10] Yet somehow this fact also goes unmentioned – just like the celibacy tax. But that’s a story for another day…

References:

[1] http://www.legex.ro/Decretul-770-1966-363.aspx – Decree no.770 Issued by the State Council of the Socialist Republic of Romania. Published in the Official State Bulletin no.60/October 1st, 1966 (full text – in Romanian)

[2] http://jurnalul.ro/scinteia/special/celula-de-baza-a-societatii-oficial-indivizibila-319713.html – Celula de bază a societății – oficial indivizibilă, published in Jurnalul Național, March 13, 2009

[3] http://www.glasul.ro/view_article_numar.php?show=26054&name=Celibatul_si_lipsa_copiilor_taxate_aspru_in_comunism&numar=2010-12-15 – Ionuț Horoba – Celibatul şi lipsa copiilor – taxate aspru în comunism (Celibacy and the lack of children – harshly taxed under communism), published in Glaslul Maramureșului, December 14, 2010.

[4] http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi – Inflation calculator: What cost $30 in 1986 would cost $62.76 in 2013.

[5] ibidem 2

[6] ibidem 3

[7] http://www.historia.ro/exclusiv_web/general/articol/iubirile-nadiei-epoca-aur – Marian Burlacu – Iubirile Nadiei în Epoca de Aur, published in Historia

[8] Ryan, Joan – Little Girls in Pretty Boxes – 1995, Doubleday, p. 201

[9] Comăneci, Nadia – Letters to a Young Gymnast – 2004, Basic Books. p. 121

[10] http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/03/16/ije.dyr061/F1.expansion.html

About Lucian Vâlsan

Hated by the local feminists, despised by most ideologues and appreciated by high profile debate societies, Lucian Vâlsan is the Romanian guy that will tell you unapologetically that misandry has no language barrier. He is also the European News Director for AVfM, the host of The Voice of Europe radio program, and can be reached at lucian@avoiceformen.com .

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Bewildered

    Despite all this, there are many useful idiots for communism in the West.

    “You’ll never know what you have until you lose it”

    • Dagda Mór

      Yes. And this is what western democracies are slowly being marched towards, as far as I can see. Feminism is just one group of many pushing towards the Marxist version of equality, which is conformity and uniformity, something all too familiar to those who have actually lived under Communist regimes.

      This push comes from many directions, but international bodies are especially culpable. People may laugh at how toothless the UN is, but back in the 70s it oversaw and brokered a set of international treaties and commitments which laid the foundations for the feminist movement in many countries.

      Womens groups were consolidated and given government support, indeed a permanent shadow seat in many governmental beaurocracies without ever being elected. Their brief was simple: promote equality for womens’ rights. Except we now know what equality means to feminists, and it’s sure as hell not the dictionary definition.

      It’s not clear whether the feminist-marxist lunatics were there from the start or moved in shortly afterwards, but they’re firmly entrenched in power all over the world due to the efforts of this supposedly toothless UN.

      The EU is also acting in a similar fashion, as is the WHO, probably a lot of other international bodies too. We need to map out exactly who was and is responsible for the sequestration of these organisations, I’d wager there aren’t many but they are in influential positions. Still a gargantuan task but we can’t tackle them until we know who to tackle.

  • Daniel Freeman

    Regarding the sidebar, Dear Nice Guy, I Wasn’t Ready For You Before — But I Am Now, umm, thanks but no thanks. I’m quite happy being by myself, which I’ve had lots of time to learn how to do. So, now will you. Good luck! :D

    • Grant

      Read that yesterday… the same class of woman who’s complaining that she wants to die early because nobody taught her/took care of her finances.

      Not sure where she gets off thinking all the nice guys of her past are waiting their turn politely (though sadly some probably are). Unless the intent of the article is to attract new nice guys… not sure. It just came off as vapid chatter to me.

    • Magnus

      Had a read through off that one. And girls like her is the reason I slowly faded into MGTOW.
      Not because she dated Bad Boys, to each their own. But because of how blindly self sentered they are.
      Notice how all she wrote was how the Nice Guy could take care of HER? And very little about how she would change in order to deserve a “nice” guy.

      Hell if she thinks the world is divided into Nice Guys and Bad Boys she will be in for quite a shock when she figures out that men are complex and can be both good and bad.

    • ForTheLulz

      That one still reads like she’s full of herself and won’t accept any blame. She “learned” from them and grew? Still a self centered moron.

    • ForTheLulz

      Totally just noticed her bio says she’s 21. That explains everything.

      • Daniel Freeman

        Totally just noticed her bio says she’s 21. That explains everything.

        That actually confuses me. I assumed she had to be hitting The Wall and having a WEC moment. What’s the point in announcing a change in personal preference at 21? It’s not like anyone will care that you’re doing things differently than the day before. You’re *supposed* to be changeable at that age.

    • MisterAbsurd

      I’ve summarized the article in case anyone doesn’t feel like reading it all:

      Dear Nice Guy,

      I don’t know… I’m so ready… Seriously, I am… I dated… I was… I guess I dated… I liked… I fed off… provided me. I saw… I … accepted. Let me… I’ve dated… I ended up… I always had… I clearly knew… I don’t regret…

      I learned… I learned… my house party… I guess I never let… I realized… never me… I was born… I was never too bothered… a jerk to me… I was smart enough… I never actually wanted… I wanted…

      … I’m ready… I’ve learned… the lessons I need… I now have… I know… I’ll let you… I know… I know… I can see… my life… time for me… I want…

      … It’s time for me… when I feel… time for me… the fear that I’ll be emotionally shamed… time for me… I want… my body… look at me… my mind, body and soul.

      I want… make time for me… always respect me. I want… I will be safe… I know I can learn…

      I don’t want… I hate… I don’t hate… I’m just done… I have to thank… taught me… depend on myself… my broken pieces… allowed me…

      I understand myself… I know what I’m like… I’m ready… what I’m like…

      [some platitudes]

      So, I guess all there is left to say is…

      I…

  • ForTheLulz

    At least in the U.S. we can fight this stuff in courts as being unconstitutional. Though that’s still a bargain bag of utter randomness.

    • uranioradioattivo

      It is uncustitutional almoste everywhere, but who cares?

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      This „stuff” was unconstitutional even by the Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Romania. That did not really help.

      One should not forget that the Constitution of North Korea has the article 67 which says:

      „Citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, demonstration and association.

      The State shall guarantee conditions for the free activity of democratic political parties and social organizations.”

      … and that does not help too much either.

    • feeriker

      At least in the U.S. we can fight this stuff in courts as being unconstitutional.

      Seriously? SERIOUSLY? How well has that worked in the past? Yeah… thought so.

  • uranioradioattivo

    It is already in place in Italy. Company have a tax benefit (IRAP) when they employ a woman. Also women (only women) with a children have a tax benefit. Men can share this benefit, only if they are married to a woman who is beneficiary of such tax deduction. In other words we already have increassed taxation for being male to discourage men’s employment and a bachelor taxation. Noo, misandry is not real.

    • Dagda Mór

      Yeah lower taxes for married couples are already a de facto bachelor tax in many places.

    • YeahNope

      Essentially it’s in place already through Obamacare. While it does not target single men specifically, between increasing men’s premiums to equal women’s, and relying primarily on young men to subsidize the premiums of others, Obamacare acts much like a bachelor tax.

      • Daniel Freeman

        I hadn’t really thought of it like that. Good point.

      • Correctrix

        No, you’ve overextended the parallel.

  • donzaloog

    If men start going their own way in larger numbers and women start complaining about being denied access to those men’s resources, the government will definitely try to implement such a tax.

    • Stu

      They will definitely find a way to financially punish and extract resources for transfer from MGTOW to women, one way or another, once MGTOW reach a certain population level. That will result in men further winding back their productivity because of less reward for working hard.

      • Crimson Viceroy

        I sincerely hope that we don’t keep receding into lower and lower levels of quality of life in order to hurt the establishment but at a certain critical mass, we unify and take decisive action…whatever form that action may be.

  • TarnishedSophia

    The fact that married couples have a significantly lower tax placed on them is already unfair to us bachelors. The fact that our government might see fit one day to push further taxation on those who (wisely) choose to remain single is a frightening thought indeed.

  • fathers4fairness

    Wow. Lucian, this is much appreciated. It is remarkable to finally read an honest account of what it was really like behind the Iron Curtain – especially under the most totalitarian Soviet era Dictator – Nicolae Ceausescu.

    Recently I read a series of articles about the consequences of those dark social experiments. During 1990-91 a tsunami of childless Canadian couples traveled to Romania to adopt many children abandoned in (formerly state-run) orphanages. Many had been neglected as the State apparatus disintegrated. It fact it was so common and concerns so high that the Canadian government enrolled 600 of these Romanian adoptees into a long-term Health Study. With these children now young adults – results are starting to be released and they are sobering indeed.

    “The research so far has reaffirmed — in the extreme — that the scars of early neglect run deep.”

    “The most recent survey, published in 2007, found that about 40 per cent of Romanian adoptees had been diagnosed with a mental disorder, compared with 15 per cent among the general youth population in Canada.”

    And so, we shall be reaping the sad consequences of our sympathetic altruism for decades.

    http://www.thestar.com/life/parent/2013/07/26/isolation_neglect_and_nicolae_ceausescus_canadian_children.html

    http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/02/27/trauma_runs_deep_for_romanias_lost_children_in_canada.html

  • fathers4fairness

    Wow. Lucian, this is much appreciated. It is remarkable to finally read an honest account of what it was really like behind the Iron Curtain – especially under the most totalitarian Soviet era Dictator – Nicolae Ceausescu.

    Recently I read a series of articles about the consequences of those dark social experiments. During 1990-91 a tsunami of childless Canadian couples traveled to Romania to adopt many children abandoned in (formerly state-run) orphanages. Many had been neglected as the State apparatus disintegrated. It fact it was so common and concerns so high that the Canadian government enrolled 600 of these Romanian adoptees into a long-term Health Study. With these children now young adults – results are starting to be released and they are sobering indeed.

    “The research so far has reaffirmed — in the extreme — that the scars of early neglect run deep.”

    “The most recent survey, published in 2007, found that about 40 per cent of Romanian adoptees had been diagnosed with a mental disorder, compared with 15 per cent among the general youth population in Canada.”

    And so, we shall be reaping the sad consequences of our sympathetic altruism for decades.

    http://www.thestar.com/life/pa

    http://www.thestar.com/news/ca

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      „40 per cent of Romanian adoptees had been diagnosed with a mental disorder” – If they had been adopted from Cighid or other facilities where children with supposed disorders (as decided by incompetent State-doctors in late 1980s) – then that figure is fine.

      However, if those kids were adopted from a standard orphanage – that 40% number is a bit too high. Something does not add up. Hmmm… I need to look more into that.

      • Daniel Freeman

        I’ve heard about this. Romanian orphanages weren’t giving the kids any normal interaction with human adults. At all. Might as well have been ferals raised by wolves. They were being sent over the Atlantic Ocean effectively unsocialized, and too old to fix. We actually banned them here in the U.S. IIRC.

  • Pvblivs

    When you say “an outright bachelor tax,” I think of something presented by the government explicitly AS a bachelor tax. But you go on to describe disguised bachelor taxes. I agree that a disguised bachelor tax is very likely. I just don’t believe that the government will be open about its motives.

    • Peter Wright

      There have been numerous “bachelor taxes” over centuries, that were explicitly called that. I love living the MGTOW life but I’m not naive enough to believe MGTOW are going to bring the world to a halt before legal and financial penalties are brought against them by those in power (who have too much to lose with MGTOW).

      Bachelor taxes have consistently arisen throughout history as a was of controlling the spread of free agents, along with shaming and marginalising them. In some ways the optimism saying MGTOW will defeat the

      When overstated, MGTOW optimism reminds of the old chinese parable of Monkey Mountain by Chuang tzu:

      Monkey Mountain:

      The Prince of Wu took a boat to Monkey Mountain. As soon as the monkeys saw him they all fled in panic and hid in the treetops. One monkey, however, remained, completely unconcerned, swinging from branch to branch – an extraordinary display! The Prince shot an arrow at the monkey, but the monkey dexterously caught the arrow in mid-flight. At this the Prince ordered his attendants to make a concerted attack. In an instant the monkey was shot full of arrows and fell dead.

      Then the King turned to his companion Yen Pu’i: `You see what happened?’ he said. `This animal advertised his cleverness. He trusted in his own skill. He thought no one could touch him. Remember that! Do not rely on distinction and talent when you deal with men!’

      When they returned home, Yen Pu’i became the disciple of a sage to get rid of everything that made him outstanding. He renounced every pleasure. He learned to hide every `distinction’.

      Soon, no one in the Kingdom knew what to make of him. Thus they held him in awe.

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      „When you say “an outright bachelor tax,” I think of something presented
      by the government explicitly AS a bachelor tax. But you go on to
      describe disguised bachelor taxes.”

      No. The celibacy tax was explicitly called like that and it was a tax on those who chose not to have children and those who could not have children. It was as explicit as it gets.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ David King

    This is not the first time you’ve made a reference to some war with only the vaguest suggestions of what you think men should do about it. Would you like to clarify? I remind you that we strictly forbid even the ideation of violence.

    As for some of your other comments, eg

    Male hatred is at the root of all female behavior.

    you can knock that shit off right now.

    • Crimson Viceroy

      I wouldn’t go so far as to completely throw out the baby with the bath water in saying that it is all complete rubbish in specific regards to his comment about male hatred ie, misandry. In the modern, popular context, misandry has become the root of female behavior. It may not be a naturally occurring trait, but it has been instilled to the point where it is subconscious and very difficult to unlearn. We mustn’t ignore reality for what it is. Until they are fully unplugged from this bigotry, they will continue to function under its false and heinous directives. The fact of the matter is that MOST females will never truly be able to embrace the full depth of the misandry from within as the current form of popular misandry is HIGHLY advantageous for their own agendas, regardless of who is placed on the altar of sacrifice, since it won’t be them specifically, even though it may be a close family or friend. As for the ideation of violence, I completely agree. We can’t endorse such a motive and course of action.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ David King

        I’d say that there is as much variation among women as there is among men in terms of attitude etc, and that it’s equally true to say that as men, we can’t fully appreciate women’s experience of misogyny (which is real enough, even if nothing like as widespread as feminists would have us believe.) I prefer to take people on a case-by-case basis.

        What makes GC Cooper’s quoted remark problematic is the ‘all’ bit. If prejudice against men is wrong, so is prejudice against women.

        • Crimson Viceroy

          I just want to go out on a limb here and say that the entire NAWALT argument is already assumed amongst most of the audience here on AVFM. I don’t think we need any more drills on NAWALT as it is a rather old and rehashed argument. As for misogyny…well enough hyperbole has been spewed that it lacks a good measure of credibility in the modern context to anyone who might be using such an argument in conjunction with NAWALT to dispute the very legitimate claims of misandry and its widespread and very subtle influence amongst the vast majority of females out there.

          • ManEscaping

            “I just want to go out on a limb here and say that the entire NAWALT argument is already assumed amongst most of the audience here on AVFM. I don’t think we need any more drills on NAWALT as it is a rather old and rehashed argument.”

            You’re assuming that you and your friends represent “the audience”. You know – as if you’re the only audience that matters? You carry yourself as a privileged sort. You’re a member of the InCrowd, are you not? Gosh darn those outsiders rehashing things I’ve already learned! What a bunch of repeats!

            Many come here with a fresh perspective and a newly destroyed soul. That you might be far wiser than them doesn’t mean that you are the only reader/writer of all that has been written. Instead, it means you have much to share.

            All that has been written by you has been written previously.

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ David King

            The existence of misandry is not in doubt, but nor is it mutually exclusive with the existence of misogyny. Misogyny has no more place here than misandry.

            What you say about NAWALT (assuming I interpreted you correctly — that most readers here understand that, indeed, not all women are like that) is true, however we have a wider audience than well-seasoned MHRAs here who certainly will not have the background understanding that you are assuming.

            That’s why statements like Cooper’s are not okay: the casual blue-pill reader — the very audience we’re trying most to reach — won’t have that background, and will very likely take “all women are..” statements at face value.

    • ManEscaping

      You’re an anti-feminist, aren’t you? Or – you’re a plain old feminist. Does it matter? Nope. Feminists and anti-feminists are two sides of the same coin.

      Someone called you out on your game and it pissed you off, did it not? That you ignore the stark, honest truth of his statements is a tell.

      Then – you pulled the male violence card. We all know how that works. He intimated that women were purposefully denigrating men – so you projected that back upon him.

      Wonderful projection! Brilliant!

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ David King

        Feminists and anti-feminists are two sides of the same coin.

        No, the complement of feminism would be masculism or ‘male supremacy’. Anti-feminism is nothing more than a rejection of feminist ideology and misandrist theory, and it says nothing at all about what philosophies one holds instead. eg PUAs can be anti-feminist, but they share little in common with MHRAs.

        Someone called you out on your game and it pissed you off, did it
        not? That you ignore the stark, honest truth of his statements is a
        tell.

        Then – you pulled the male violence card. We all know how
        that works. He intimated that women were purposefully denigrating men –
        so you projected that back upon him.

        Wonderful projection! Brilliant!

        The rest of this is as incoherent as the drivel you posted a few months back, when you went by the alias ‘FullyAwake’.

    • Matthew Lane

      “I remind you that we strictly forbid even the ideation of violence.”
      You might, but I most certainly don’t. You attack me & I’m going to put you down…. I don’t care if you are male, female or a purple bipedal humanoid alien from an alternate reality, with laser beams for eyes.

      This pretence of utter non-violence doesn’t work in the real world & the sooner we drop it the better.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ David King

        Self-defence is quite a different matter from the ‘ideation of violence’ I was talking about, and you surely know it.

        Whatever the case, there is no possibility of you being physically harmed in the online world and therefore no possible need for self-defence (“violent” or otherwise), and therefore no need for articulations of same, here.

        That’s not to say that threats of violence can’t or aren’t made online; we delete those comments and ban their posters when indicated, and recommend to any MHRA who receives a threat of violence that is credible [eg the person making the threat indicates s/he knows where you live or work] the same as we recommend to feminists who claim to receive threats of violence — to get in touch with the police.

        The point is that AVfM’s policy on violence and ideation of violence is clear: Not on our pages, you don’t (not even jokingly), whatever your personal views may be.

        • Matthew Lane

          Violence is “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.”
          That would include self defence.

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ David King

            Strictly speaking you’re quite correct, many or most forms of self defence involve violence, but the key difference is who initiated it. “Self defence” makes it clear that what violence there must be is reactive and proportionate to the provocation.

            A few MRAs seem to thing that violent resistance or uprising is a warranted response to widespread misandry, but all reputable MHRM organisations reject that and AVfM is no exception. Those guys need to button their lip while here or find somewhere else to do their thing.

      • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ David King

        Ah, my fan club. Still with a fake email address. Buh-bye…

        • Matthew Lane

          What the heck was that? Does this happen to you a lot?

          • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ David King

            First time I’ve seen that particular incarnation, but my fan club has been around for a month or so. He has a long list of proxies and disposable email addresses, and goes to some lengths to avoid domain bans etc.

            It’s just some dude throwing an extended tantrum because I refuse to play silly buggers with him over ideological purity. Eventually he got banned from here for making a threat elsewhere, and now he’s got a gnawing grudge and goes around telling anybody who’ll listen that — gasp — AVfM (and specifically me) actually give a shit about equality. Y’know, only what the MHRM is theoretically supposed to be all about.

            Idiots like that think that ‘equity feminist’, ‘white knight’ and ‘mangina’ are the worst things he can call me, like it bothers me in the slightest. But on the bright side: he’s advertising AVfM while going to all this bother over me and, presumably, therefore not doing any actual damage.

  • http://francisdroy.wordpress.com Francis Roy

    “In this context, of absurd desire of the supreme leader to increase
    birthrates and to pay off national debt by quite literally starving the
    population gave birth to the so-called celibacy tax of 1986.”

    To be honest, were this to happen in North America, I would consider this a good thing: it would be a solid legal reason to bring up issues of men’s lack of reproductive rights. You want to tax us as incitement to have children? Provide us the same sort of rights and protections that women are allowed. Were this to be the case, I suspect that you’d see “marriage” or at least some form of pairing up regain popularity. Something like this is a series of milestone lawsuits waiting to happen.

    But for today’s environment, I’m convinced that the best means is still the pressure of withdrawing the benefits of free/cheap dick to women, the withholding of children (making great efforts to not create them, that is), of provision and of protection.

  • http://francisdroy.wordpress.com Francis Roy

    Huston: we have a solution.
    https://francisdroy.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/one-solution-to-many-woes-make-sperm-scarce/

    It seems that the state was punishing men for not giving away sperm, when in fact, were they smart, they would have paid for it, and made the overall payment include reproductive rights for men.

    • ManEscaping

      Good one!

  • Porquemada
  • thatdogguy

    Wouldn’t surprise me if the U.S. finds a way to implement this kind of a tax. After all, the government needs money to pay for all it’s programs that benefit women and especially the latest icon of the 21st century: The Single Mother. UGH!

    • politicalcynic

      We did. It’s called the ACA. I am a single gay male with no children-whose insurance premium doubled last year-for a massive benefits increase that included maternity care, pediatric care, free mammograms, free (women’s only) reproductive care (did you know she can get a no co-pay tubal ligation but a man has to pay for a vasectomy?), free wellness visits, free mammograms, kids on insurance until age 25.

      And of course the law mandated that women cannot be charged more than men for health insurance.

      Funny how I pay “the same rate” but don’t actually “benefit” from any of that, isn’t it?

      Government mandated massive payment increase to benefit women and children without equivalent benefit to men

      Sounds more or less like a form of bachelor tax to me.

      • thatdogguy

        I am aware of this facts. Just like the government has a council for women and girls health, but not for men and boys. Funny how it’s discrimination to charge a female more for health insurance, despite the fact they use it more. Whereas, men are typically charged more for auto insurance.

  • Usagi Yojimbo

    What would be worse than a bachelor tax?

    -Listening to some self-entitiled woman trying to drive me to the poorhouse.

    -Being forced to house a fat, whiny, and “empowered” radical feminist with her 5 children from 5 different fathers, all ripping my nice house apart because they have teh discipline of starving hyenas.

    -The fear that I would be killed in my sleep n the name of “self-defense” because of some bunk abuse charge, giving access to my assets.

    -Being ass-raped in court to give her something she had no part in creating, i.e. my value as a working, productive human, like a common-law divorce.

    What is the old saying regarding prostitutes? “You don’t pay them to stay, you pay them to go away.”

    Hell I would be fine with the tax just to keep them away from me.

    • ManEscaping

      You had me at “Being ass-raped in court to give her something she had no part in creating”.

      Listen to this man! He knows! Don’t be deceived by feminists or anti-feminists (two sides of the same coin). Here’s how the anti-feminist game works:

      “I promise you this, Nice Guy: I don’t know you yet, but I will be a nice girl to you in return. I will show you what you’re like at you’re best. I will treat you with the respect you deserve and will always answer your call when you need me. I will show you what all those bitchy girls couldn’t. So, I guess all there is left to say is…I’m ready whenever you are.”

      Too funny. Sell it somewhere else, hun. Not buying it.

      Then – 1, 5, 10, 20, 40 years later comes…

      I’m bored.
      What affair? Who? What? He’s just a good friend.
      I no longer love you.
      I never really loved you.
      You’re such a nice, great guy, but, but…
      Sorry to break your heart.
      You deserve better.
      You yelled at me. It’s your fault you’re in jail, not mine.
      I’m just not happy.
      The court order says you can’t come back home. It’s not my fault you yelled.
      We’ve grown apart.
      They’re my kids. I will get custody and you’ll get visitation.
      I need to find myself.
      I’ll be meeting with my attorney on Tuesday.

      Then comes family court (AKA – the place where nice, good men go in divorce to be fleeced and destroyed by reformed, nice girls who have learned their lesson).

      Yeah – right!

      The two basics of a good con:

      1. Show them what they want to see.
      2. Tell them what they want to hear.

      Sadly – this works on a lot of folks (says me – the former white knight – captain save a ho).

      • ManEscaping

        Then…THEN!…while you’re desperately trying to save enough money to live in the worst part of town, in your car, or on your friend’s couch…you go to pick up “her kids” for “visitation”. Her current boyfriend(s) answers the door (to what used to be your home) and asks about the late alimony and child support payment. Just imagine how good you’ll fell in that moment! Talk about a life high! Just what you’d always dreamed of, right!? Ya gotta love nice girls!

        But it get’s better! Behind the scenes, your now deeply hated X wife (aka: anti-feminist, nice girl) will be laughing hysterically at your pitiful, fully emasculated, loser self! You’ll be the big ole, naive funny loser! Hilarious – right!

  • ManEscaping

    The bachelor tax will come, but not in the way one might think. It’ll be hidden. Wealthy white knights (the patriarchy) and women (both feminist and anti feminist) will see to it. It will come through ever more anti-male components of the Affordable Care Act (men paying for abortion, birth control and pregnancy is just the start), forced marriage of cohabiting couples (http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/b-c-s-new-family-law-means-big-changes-for-cohabitating-couples-1.1200126), far more onerous, misandric policies and laws with regard to employment (affirmative action on steroids), the lessening or elimination of punishments for equal crimes where women are involved, increasing male suicide rates (i.e., increased social security receipts transfer from men to women), a huge generation of men raised by single mothers brainwashed to respect without question all women, a new world war to wipe out the current generation of beta-males (i.e., the nice, good guys), and a general, overall denigration of men and boys (see false rape, false domestic violence, drugging of boys, media portrayal of men as idiots, feminization of boys, unequal opportunity in employment, etc.).

    Good Cop Feminist: A woman that openly castigates feminism, but covertly hopes to hold on the the aspects of the patriarchy that benefits them the most (alimony, no-fault divorce, child support, freedom from laborious tasks and wealth redistribution from men to women, special programs for women, affirmative action, etc, etc, etc). All the while, they eschew the aspects of the patriarchy that benefits them the least (having any responsibility for anything). We naively call these women NAWALTs. We also naively call them anti-feminists. A NAWALT instantaneously becomes an AWALT at the exact moment they decide to devalue and discard their husbands. These newly self-aware AWALTs will brag to their fellow anti-feminist friends over how much they were able to steal (with the help of naive white knights and the misandric courts) from their former, disposable, now indentured, male slaves.

    Bad Cop Feminist: A good cop feminist (aka: anti-feminist) that doesn’t hide her hatred for men and boys.

    MGTOW

    More interesting reading:

    http://www.reddit.com/r/MGTOW/comments/23oadu/this_reddits_thoughts_on_theredpill_and/

    • ManEscaping

      MGTOW exists to counter male disposability. Why? Cause our system is set up to reward the gynocracy and punish the supposed patriarchy (i.e., if wealthy men exist – all men are privileged and need to be punished). It’s really that simple. The vast majority of men have suffered horrendously (i.e., like media created, brainwashed, disposable pit bulls) under the patriarchy – while women have mostly profited.

      You can see examples of misandry all over the place. It’s all over our laws. Women file the vast majority of divorces, collect the vast majority of alimony and child support and almost always get custody of “their kids”. Men pay the vast majority of taxes, commit suicide at many times the rate of women, experience the vast majority of workplace deaths, suffer the greatest losses through divorce, and suffer the vast majority of deaths and dismemberments in war – YET MEN ARE SECOND CLASS CITIZENS. How does this happen? HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN!? Gynocentrism and white knightery (learn to hate white knights – they are your enemy).

      The bottom line is that MGTOW exists to teach the current generation of men that gynocentrism, white knightery and pu$$y begging (AKA: PUAs) have destroyed tens upon tens of millions of men before them. Count the number of men you know at work, in your family and friends that have been duped into marriage and destroyed by the subsequent divorce.

      Visit gynocentrism.com for a better understanding. Or – OR! – Get married, have kids, have your home, car(s), at least half your current assets and at least half your future income stolen from you – while your now deeply hated X wife is sleeping with other men – with your state stolen, indentured slave financial support (best keep making those payments or you go to jail).

      Guys – the system is deeply, deeply rigged against you. Reject the life script that others present to you as a panacea. Why? The script is a gigantic lie to transfer wealth from men (the creators of modern civilization) to women (the consumers/destroyers of modern civilization). Men build it – women destroy it.

      There’s a huge money making industry behind gynocentrism, feminism and marriage. The judges, lawyers and the state make a killing off of destroyed men. The more guys that go through divorce, kill themselves through suicide or die in war – the more money there is for lawyers, judges, white knights, prisons and women through transfer of wealth (think social security payments from dead men going to women). This in turn frees up more money for programs that promote marriage, divorce and welfare payments to single moms for the next generation of men to be destroyed at the altar of gynocentrism. White knight alphas (male feminists and the rich) love dead, destroyed betas (i.e., good guys). Why? More pu$$y for them!

      Think! It’s a huge, rigged con game in which you, as the man, are the rube! The majority of men have had their lives destroyed by following the marriage/family, feminist, gynocentric, white knight inspired, pi$$-on-the-beta male life plan. Don’t become one of the tens upon tens of millions of naïve, now destroyed good men (betas) that thought it couldn’t happen to them.

      DO NOT take advice from women on getting married or on relationships. It is in their best interests to present themselves in the best possible light and to hide any gold digging ways. The majority of women actively seek out the highest earning males in society, only to later financially rape these men. The divorce can happen 1, 5, 10, 20, or 40 years down the line. Divorce, despite what others might say has been increasing for decades. In 2012, there were 2.4 million divorces. 2.4 million in a single year. That’s insane! “Grey Divorce” is the fastest growing sector of divorce.

      Divorced men are your best source of information on marriage and relationships. Why? They have way more experience than women on the pitfalls of marriage and relationships for men and have lived through the disastrous consequences. They have learned the hard way, as have the many tens upon tens of millions of divorced/destroyed men before them, that marriage and intimate relationships with women are the surest and quickest ways for a man to destroy his future. For this reason, women will label divorced men as bitter and misogynistic. You can find blogs by women online that warn women not to engage in relationships with divorced men. Why? These men already know the deal and aren’t as easily manipulated.

      The majority of women want a better educated and much wealthier man. At the same time, they demand equality in every way. How far does this hypocrisy go? It’s endless.

      Thanks to feminism and no-fault divorce, marriage and relationships for men have become a nonstarter and the easiest path to financial and psychological doom. Men today are nothing more than disposable, easily replaceable utilities and walking ATMs to the majority of women. Married men know all too well that no-fault divorce hangs over their heads from the moment they say “I do.”

      Most married men are terrified of the consequences of no-fault divorce and live in fear of their wives as a result. Why? The state will, in the vast majority of cases, award the X-wife the kids, the house, the car, half the guys pension and live savings, alimony and child support and at least half of the man’s future earnings – even if the wife has an affair, files for the divorce and is responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. What does this all mean? Marriage, through no-fault divorce has become a contract that can be unilaterally broken. In any other contract, the breaker of the contract would face civil liabilities. In the case of no-fault divorce, the breaker of the contract can simultaneously be the filer, the instigator of the divorce and get financially rewarded for being so. To many women, no-fault divorce has become the path to financial independence and easy street, albeit through the destruction of men’s lives.

      In many cases, the man will be expected to work as many hours as possible to continue his indentured servitude payments to his now x wife (and her boyfriends). In most cases, the man’s standard of living, financial, psychological and physical health as a result of this indentured servitude will be completely ignored. These men, if they fail to continue to make their indentured slave payments (even through illness, job loss, market circumstances) will be thrown in jail.

      There have been many documented cases of women having consensual sex with a man and then later filing false rape and/or domestic violence charges. The only time we find out when a man is falsely charged is when the woman admits to false claims. This kind of “honor system” and removal of a man’s constitutional rights leads to disastrous consequences for men in all intimate relationships. In these cases, you are considered guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. In the majority of cases, you will be unable to do so (as that will be impossible), the court will side with the woman based on her word alone and you will go to prison (your life now permanently destroyed).

      A lot of women will vehemently deny what I’ve written. Regardless of what they say, this is the hard, cold truth. All that I’ve written can be verified through Google searches.

      A young man asked me, not too long ago, to explain the benefits of remaining a single guy. My response: Ask the next woman you meet if she’d have breast augmentation if there was a 50% chance she could lose 75% of her breasts.

      Marriage for men is the quickest path to financial and psychological doom. Through marriage, you will not know what a naive, ignorant chump you were until you go through the family courts. There, you will discover just how disposable and hated you are as a man. There, you will, for the first time, discover who your soon to be X wife really is. You will not be happy.

      Your only value to women is in what you can provide financially to them. Women know that, through divorce, you will be ordered by the court to continue to provide for her and “her kids” while she sleeps with other men. Conversely, all support for you as a father and husband will be withdrawn. You don’t want to know what this is like.

      The divorce could happen 1, 5, 10, 20 or 40+ years down the line. Women file the majority of divorces, collect the vast majority of alimony and child support and almost always get custody of “her kids”. “Grey divorce” is the fastest growing sector of divorce.

      Do not become one of the tens upon tens of millions of now destroyed men that thought it couldn’t happen to them.

      Do not become the next naive, ignorant chump now sleeping in his car or on a friends couch with little hope for a better future (see garnished wages, poverty stats and suicide rates for divorced men). If you, for whatever reason (unemployment, layoff, market circumstances, injury, illness) fail to keep paying your alimony and child support, off to jail you go. For most men, this means working as many jobs as necessary to continue their indentured slave payments to their now X wife and her boyfriend(s).

      We Don’t Need Feminism:

      http:/why-we-dont-need-feminism.tumblr.com/

      Exposing Feminism:

      https://www.facebook.com/ExposingFeminism

      All Things Gynocentrism Explained:

      http://gynocentrism.com/

      Feminist Response to Men’s Right’s Speakers:

      The Disposable Male, by spetsnaz:

      MGTOW – Dangerous Waters, by spetsnaz:

    • Daniel Freeman

      I predict that forced marriage is going to be the tipping point that brings the pot to a boil. Right now, men are going along quietly with the system that they created, accepting the consequences of the contracts that they signed. When they’re taken to the cleaners by an ex without having ever signed a contract, that’s a different experience, and I think that the reactions will be cumulatively different. Someone got greedy and made a huge miscalculation with that one.

      • ManEscaping

        Didn’t Rome fall for the very same reasons? You know – the gynocracy and what what? Everywhere the gynocracy goes – nations crumble!

        Before AVfM and MGTOW, women were a mystery to me. Now? I understand most women better than most women understand themselves.

        Lets hear it for girl power! YA-HOO!

        MGTOW

      • fathers4fairness

        Yes – I agree. We already have a model for that in the recent changes to the Family Law Act in British Columbia. Division of property (accumulated during the relationship) if you live with your girlfriend for 2yrs. That will mean alot of guys moving out on day 729 or you are defacto “married” for property purposes.

        Not sure what happens when 4 guys rent a house for University.

        • Daniel Freeman

          Yeah, they’re going to have to choose between institutionalizing heteronormativity, normalizing prurient curiosity, or destroying the housing market. Whatever their horrible choice, I hope their opponents make them own it.

        • Daniel Freeman

          Umm, sorry about that. Different things happen at different phases of drinking, and at one phase my words get bigger for no particular reason.

          What I meant to say is that now that same-sex marriage is a thing, they can either declare that everyone is 100% straight until proven otherwise (which would totally piss off the liberals), ask everyone if they’re sleeping with their same-sex housemates (which would totally piss off the conservatives), or just assume that “living together = marriage” and make everyone scared of living with non-relatives in general (which would totally piss off the landlords).

          • HeraSentMe

            Common law marriage exists in a number of American states. A holdover from frontier days when men and women coupled off in places that seldom saw a preacher or judge. Saying “we’re married” was seen as good enough, considering the circumstances. Sometimes it still can be adjudicated to exist without a formal “we’re married” statement, if it is established the couple “acted” married enough to satisfy a court.
            It’s a fascinating scenario I hadn’t considered, the possibility of a same-sex couple declaring themselves, or being adjudicated to be, common law married is something that is bound to come up in a court case somewhere.

  • Peter Wright
  • Fatherless

    If a direct bachelor tax threatens to dig too deep a hole in my pocket, I’ll look for a MGHOW to marry, and we can harness the full force of the LGTBQI (!?!?!?!?!?!?) lobby to fight it.

    • ManEscaping

      Hilarious!

  • HeraSentMe

    If “it happened someplace once” means it can happen here, then you’ve got much worse possibilities to worry about than a surtax on bachelors.

    • Daniel Freeman

      If “it happened someplace once” means it can happen here, then you’ve got much worse possibilities to worry about than a surtax on bachelors.

      EDIT: An argument can be made that there was a long standing tax on bachelors – the “you get to go to war first, son” tax. Too bad there’s no draft anymore, so it’s an historical grievance. In keeping with the penchant for unsubstantiated hyperbole so popular on this site: EVERYBODY has historical grievances, so that one isn’t special.

      First, you are fully capable of addressing more than one thing at a time; indeed, it would be crippling if you couldn’t, since life isn’t polite and doesn’t line up issues in a queue.

      Second, I had to register for Selective Service back in the day, and American men still do. There’s nothing ‘historical’ about the draft, unless you’re naive enough to think that they’re just making us register for kicks and giggles.

      • HeraSentMe

        Sorry. I don’t know what you’re getting at in your first sentence.
        The draft ended in 1973. Your typical MRA’s dad wasn’t born yet. Registering for a non-existent draft isn’t much of a burden. Anyway, I think young women should be liable to be drafted if young men are. Maybe politicians would think harder before getting the country into a war if their daughters were at risk.

        • Daniel Freeman

          Sorry, I don’t know what you’re getting at in your first sentence.

          Well, you said we had much worse possibilities to worry about. That’s actually true, but irrelevant, since we can (of necessity) deal with more than one at a time.

          • HeraSentMe

            I get it now. I just meant that, say, if somebody built Auschwitz once somewhere, therefore it can happen here, means maybe you should worry about that before a bachelor tax.

          • Daniel Freeman

            I get it now. I just meant that, say, if somebody built Auschwitz once somewhere, therefore it can happen here, means maybe you should worry about that before a bachelor tax.

            Well that’s an interesting question, isn’t it? More than one historical atrocity (attempted or completed) started with little things like saying that you are no longer allowed to teach your kids in your own language.

            I have Finns on one side of my family, and Germans from the Russian steppes on the other side. Finland was conquered by Sweden for awhile, and my understanding is that the proclamation against teaching their kids in Finnish was defeated by mass civil disobedience; what were they going to do, jail everyone? Because that’s what they would’ve had to do to enforce it.

            The wise Germans left Russia when the three privileges granted by Katherine the Great were revoked, one of which was the right to teach their kids in German. The ones that remained were sent to Siberia so that their farms could be collectivized, resulting in one of the worst famines in human history, since the Russians didn’t know what the fuck they were doing farming wheat on high plains.

            Historically, tyrants started small and worked their way up. So, maybe we should worry quite a lot about little things like a bachelor tax.

          • HeraSentMe

            Just as a hypothetical – Doesn’t the tax code discriminate among taxpayers in all sorts of ways already? What would make the mythical Bachelor Tax, if imposed, inherently more unfair than say, making people who work for a living pay a higher tax rate than some cake eater who deposits dividend checks for a living? Is it axiomatically wrong for the tax code to discriminate based of gender, but just sound economic policy for it to do so based on class?

            Funny, my family is Irish, they resisted the attempt by the state to compel them to learn to speak and write in their native tongue. I guess it’s the compulsion that rankles either way.

          • Daniel Freeman

            What would make the mythical Bachelor Tax, if imposed, inherently more unfair than say, making people who work for a living pay a higher tax rate than some cake eater who deposits dividend checks for a living?

            I’m honestly not sure how to address that question, since I’m strongly opposed to the current system of taxing investment income less than wages, but for a different reason. I think it’s rubbing our noses in the fact that our erstwhile democracy has been bought and paid for, and not by us.

            Actually… thinking about it that way gives me an answer. A hypothetical bachelor tax would not be the end of the world, but it would be a sign that the government is hopelessly captured by gynocentrism (whether of the feminist or traditionalist flavors). The real problem isn’t the tax itself; it’s the signal that it gives.

            I guess it’s the compulsion that rankles either way.

            You make an excellent point.

          • HeraSentMe

            I’m strongly opposed to the current tax system, too. And I agree that the government is coming close to being nothing more than an appendage of oligarchy.

            I agree that a tax singling out certain men could not be described as other than unfair and likely a sign of anti-male sentiment. Much as I think that taxing income at different rates based on its source is unfair and a sign of anti-worker sentiment. The latter is fact, the former speculative, and unlikely to become real. In fact the latter is today disadvantaging all men who work for a living, a much larger group than single men.

            Thanks. I find many of your posts to be thoughtful and thought provoking.

          • Daniel Freeman

            Thanks. I find many of your posts to be thoughtful and thought provoking.

            Likewise. I enjoy some sporting pushback. Keeps me sharp.

  • lazlo underhill

    While the notion of a bachelor tax actually makes me nauseous with anger, no amount of tax could compel me to participate in the farce that is state sanctioned marriage. If I wake up one day and find myself to be a serf, I will take no small comfort in remaining a single serf – I’ll hold precious that tiny amount of autonomy.

    • HeraSentMe
      • lazlo underhill

        If that insinuation makes you feel better about what I’ve said, by all means indulge yourself. It means absolutely nothing to me. You have no power of shame over me.

        • HeraSentMe

          .

          • lazlo underhill

            . . . said the lonely, sensitive troll.

        • HeraSentMe

          .

  • Lucian Vâlsan

    > Implying that I want the State to pay my pension
    > Implying that any State on this planet will ever pay MY pension
    > Implying that all people MUST serve “teh (sic!) common good” and if they choose not to, they ought to be forced to do so under the threat of violence

    “Like it or not, children are required to keep our species going, and
    those who raise children sacrifice a large part of their life and money
    to do so.”

    > Implying that’s somehow my problem or anyone else’ problem except those individuals themselves

    Newsflash: The best parents are exactly those who chose to be parents. Those who are forced to be parents generally tend to grow the next generation of psychopaths, welfare recipients and criminals.

    • Toretto

      Well, if you don’t care about anything but yourself than I guess you have a point, but why do you pay any taxes at all than? You could just go to a cabin in the woods and live out the rest of your life in perfect freedom.

      Just like you pay taxes to keep the roads intact that you drive on, the children that other people raise will create the goods and services you need and build the new roads you will use decades from now. Those children will carry the world when your generation is too old to do so. Without them economies will depress and your private pension won’t be enough to buy food. Other people’s children will make your life livable in the long run by allowing our economy to continue existing.

      Another example. If there’s a war and a bunch of people sign up to defend the country while you stay home, you would be required to pay much more for the war effort than those who volunteered to be sent to battle. It would be a weird excuse on your part to say that the volunteers should also pay for the war effort ’cause they were the ones who wanted to join it.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ David King

    If you carefully re-read my comment to GC Cooper, you will see that I invited him to clarify what he meant by ‘war’ and what sorts of actions he thinks are warranted precisely because he didn’t specify. I made no extrapolations or assumptions of the sort. I did remind him of our comment policy, which is clear that even the ideation of violence is not permitted here.

    That said, Matthew seems to think violence is the answer, and you seem to agree with him. Which is it?

    This is AVfM and whatever Barbarossa thinks on the subject, sweeping generalisations are not okay. Besides, that particular statement is obviously not true given the female MHRAs involved with AVfM management, the editorial team, contributors and conference organisers.

    If you disagree with these policies, take it up with the man who imposed them (Paul).

    [NB: it was only because your comment ended up in the spam queue that I saw it. If you want to attract my attention, you need to reply directly to a comment I've posted (or send me an email).]