Every man in the Western world is aware that his family, his career, and possibly his freedom can be taken away on the unsupported word of almost any woman. Wife, ex-wife, coworker, random woman he comes within twenty feet of, doesn’t matter. All she has to do is tell the right people that he was emotionally abusive and he can be fired or kicked out of school without even having a chance to deny the accusation. Family and friends and neighbors might cut all contact if she spins a convincing enough tale. He can be hauled off to jail if she attacks him, he calls the police, and the police by policy assume he’s the aggressor and the criminal.*
If any of this happens, it’s likely that the man’s relationships, career, criminal record, and bank account will never recover. The legal fees to bring his accuser to court to justify her claims are out of reach of most men, especially if they’ve lost their jobs. (I’ve seen estimates that Johnny Depp has spent over $7M in suing Amber Turd for defamation. Dream on, Bob Working Stiff.)
On the woman’s side, there’s no cost to making the accusation and spreading her sob story. Even if she’s found out to have lied, there’s very seldom any real cost. It makes the news when a woman is jailed after being found guilty of making a false rape accusation. It’s rare for a woman to be ordered to pay compensation to a man whom she got fired by a false accusation and exceedingly rare for her to pay it.
Women in the Western world know this. It’s not uncommon for a woman to threaten a man with a call to the police or his employer if he doesn’t do what she wants.
Look at it from the man’s perspective. If he just walks away or insists on seeing his kid during the court-ordered visitation weekend or whatever else inspired her to threaten him, he’s almost certain to lose, financially or legally. But if he stops her from calling the police or writing out a sob story on Facebook or making a complaint to HR… Well, it depends on circumstances, but a one-off murder is unlikely to be solved.
I’m not actually advising men to kill their wives or girlfriends or female coworkers. Instead, I’m wondering if the feminists, female bullies, and assorted delusional women have really thought through their words and actions. When they make their own murder a better option than allowing them to use the lopsided legal and social systems to attack a man, then an objective viewer might think that they are not acting in their own best interests.
* I’m not bothering to provide links for any of this. If you can’t think of half a dozen examples off the top of your head, either you’ve been living under a rock or you’re a historian reading this blog post a century from now, after the societal backlash has put an end to this nonsense.
My only advice to any young man that would like a companion. Look deeply and make sure you get a real woman. I can only imagine that being far more difficult today than when I was young. If you are in a large metropolitan area, I’d suggest getting out. Go to the small towns were people are more genuine.
I got lucky. Real lucky.
I did not, though I suspect it’s more accurate to say “I’m a dumbass” than “I was unlucky”.
I was a dumbass as well, but was not planning to marry due to my expectation I wouldn’t survive past 30 due to activities. Then I met my wife and that was just luck.
Yeah, the country definitely makes more sense than the city. Especially these days.
You could also try outside the US. The rot hasn’t spread AS far in many other countries. Yet, at least. Sadly, they’re working on catching up, but at least they are less-awful.
It’s not that long since I heard the following advice from a friend who heard me lament that I was without a woman (this was when I was “between wives”): “If you want sex, go to a prostitute. If you want love, get a dog.”
I’ve heard much worse “advice to the lovelorn” than that.
Stephen Baskerville, 2001:
“A presumption of guilt pervades the courts themselves, where “the burden of proof may be shifted to the defendant” according to a legal analysis by the National Council of State Legislatures. In clear violation of the Constitution,…”
“Forcing fathers to “finance the filching of their own children,” as attorney and author Jed Abraham puts it, is a prescription for social and political destruction. Yet this is the experiment on which we are now embarked.”
Societal destruction is the agenda.
Article here: http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0106/wd010616.htm
If you meet her in a bar you get what you pay for. If you like her tattoos and the stuff that hangs out of her tank top you again get what you pay for.
Have to ask as the title is unusual:
Is “reap” in this context meant in it’s dictionary meaning – to cut down?
Cheaper to cut down than divorce?
Asking for a friend…
There’s the old saying (and line from a song) “Cheaper to keep her”. “Reap” isn’t great but it was the best I could come up with the meaning of, you got it, “kill the lying bitch”.
OK. Got it. I was getting it confused with the old saying “Cheaper to rent her” and couldn’t reconcile that with reap.