Everything evens out

Ever since studying the truth behind feminism, as well as researching into all of human history, I've been more n mrie awayre of how situations n cirvumstances in life kinda reach a cold harmony and even out.

**the wimn receivig 70c to every follar has been proven to be fasle.
**since this is the case, iv startes to ask morw n more quesrions about the woled around me. I've decided to extend this [[__method of__]]] examination/ analysis to all facts and figures.

there is mass hysteria everywhere
**this is my own theory. I've decided to extend this [[__method of__]]] examination/ anlysisnto rp. a careful horough stidy of the situstio demonstrates that rpp is not anywhere near as prevalent___. the genuinely sickenig ones, where a wmn really was just minding her iwn business like walking thorigb the woods n then a sick ahole grabs her n res her, are a small percent. the vast majorry of them, it seems, are night of rwally shtty decisons by both parties, invloving metric shttons of alcohol, snd culminating in an incident rhat both sides really regret. the fem regrets rigt awat, the male regrets in the aftermath.

on the oher side of the coin, are false rape accusations against men actually thst bad? hiw many false ro accus actuslly lead to aman's life being ruined? prbb only s tiny perfcent.

there are perhpas a handful of example wherein a guy si accused; noone knows yet whetehr falsely or not because it is very early in the criminal investigation. ____ the girl's family or other townspeeopke are undestandjly overcome wi rage n fury, rheir emotions take over n they lash out at trhe guy that is accused. n this happens.
this is horrifying. my immediate response to this was shock, nausea, disgust, horror, disbelief— same reaction that most everybody prbb had upon encountering this.

and it looks, I imagine, similae to a female that was brutally rp.

but then eventually my logic strated taking iver; just couldn help it. how often does an attack like this actually teuly happen agaisnt a boy that was accused of rp? I'm hust goig to throw a numver onto the dart board, n guess that it happens wi about the same frequency as rp victims that suffered violent attacks like this.

not to worry; my logic doesnt always [[[prevail]]]. some emotional things stay wi me long after the facts have been reveaed n confirmed. e.g., I hate chris beown n I always wil. ii do not carr that rihanna was hottinf him first or that they were scrwaming at eo. I teuly do not give a sht about the events that led up to the horrific busted face. i dont even like rihanna; she wasnt a particularly rwspectable eprosn to begin wi, n I lost what little repsct I had dor her when she went back to chris brown after the abuse. dont care. still hate chris brown. always will.

I can hear the lot of you piping up, infuriated with me,
(((___look I'm going to be 100% honest wi you, n youre going to get mad because I am am being this honest. i dont have time to look at evey single fewaking individualhuman being' experience in this green earth. alrighta? i raalt dont. loking at the big pictur is satisfctoey to me. I look at the world in large chnks of information, giant snapshots that conveniently summarize eveyrhting______
for my own life n those loved ones who are close ro me, i most defintiely look at detuals,,__ pore over individual conversations ___ because that is my own family and I love them. this is something my saubcins does, it is something my subc has made the decison for my conscis mind, to navigate my life in this mannerr. I dont have the capacity to extend that type of consideration to gant collectives of strangers out there.  nor do I wish to have that capacity; it's roo much work n frankly I dont care.
you're also mad because what I'm telling you is waht your subcoancious does, n your conscious coluntary mind has not yet picked up on the fact that his is whatvyur subc mind soes. a ton of you think you are so enligtened n libaerated n you teuly rhink that you dont se the world in bw. your conscious mind rhinks that you look at individual human beings n jusge people on their own merits n values n traits. ehh, no you dont. I can say this without ever having met you. you maga's n you sjw's, you are all the same. from my seat, there is no diff between you.

hoe many fals rpa ccc have led ro actusl convicton of the female, wher she eas hnaded a sentence by a judge n had to serve time? very few. that means thatbonly a tiny muniscule fraction of a percent were privrn beyong s readonable doubt in a court of law, that she really was making it up.
haonesrly, they are prbb about even. no, it's not the same people but who cares. i care so little that I didnt even go out of my way to out a question mark at the end of that sttm.
since I'm old I felel comf enof that I can say this now;. rp jokes are horrifying sure, so I make false rp acc jokes, which are prbb equally horrifying to som pel. ‘a wm rnp a man, then accused him of rp. if she made him a sandwich afterwards, you'd be fine wi it.'. ‘ehh wv. of it werent for fals r acc, nine of them would be having sess. so maybe we should just be thankful.'
next is not a joke it is an obsv. sparked a lawn-weeds infestation tuft of notallmen.
well whadya jnow, wimen in fact have the exact same rwsponse when men start talking sbt their complaints. men startt totalking about wmn gettingnnpreg by another guy even tho they were supp to be a comitted relationship, getting reamed n child support, getting divorce-raped, being forbidden from seeing their kids. most women respond to that with the extremly sensitive, tender, gentle, understanding, considerate response of ‘well, not all wmn do that.'
n bythe way womn do sezsss harass men also; it's just that men dont have any resaonbale platform upon ehichbthay can complain, meaning noone would lsuten to them of they tried to complain.
wmn also do have se lss wi minirs. it's jsut that women dont need to go on the internet n chat rooms, text messag groups, or any other place where conversations can be documented, and/or a place where undercover fbiis can be is disguise. women tend to work in jobs whre they arensurrounded by children, so they have very easy aceess.

** because of all these fascinsting [[__is there a term for rocky soil like by a volcano erosion or sum dunno,,, whre it all evens out]]] I have begun to look wi great interest at the notion that woman will not dont recev nearly the same criminal punishment for comkitjng the same crime that a man commits.
**there is annoft quoted stat on men's right sthatbwomen also recv a [[crime punishment discount. ]]] but do they really? or is this claim as soecious as the wages one?
are womn truly punished less for the same crime that a man does?
[[__mention stab— how many newtons of force was used in the plunging of the knife jnto thr flesh? how many footpounfs? how many newtons? how far deep into the frlsh did the mnife penetrate? how deep wasthe wound? also how wide was the wound? let's talk abiut the weapon. how large was the blade? what was the mass of the knife?
perh it was not a stabbing. perh she hit him in the head with a frying pan. i am nit trying to be funny.

— katens straugns's e.g.,
that definitely sounds liek it was provoked. orarteht, a grdual building-up of [[__abuse vciol-ece_]]] until it eventually ended in a dead body. this was not a murder that just popped up randomly out of thin air, out of asjbulte thin air. there eas a gradual progression to tthis.
but if that's the case, then we have to consider the possibilty that women that
— aha!! ring up the e.g., of his other woman's e.g., (canadian lady that is 'advocate for wrongly convicted peopl). it's horrifying, but that one also sounds provoked.
— link to the srticle. here is an article that looks into the so-called scientific study in extreme detail. [[_____]]]]____
this one shows that the vast manoriyt is not even violence, like when you think of the sord vuolnce, whatbdo yunpicture? that si nit what's haeppeng here.

the orig study, notice the glaring obvuoubsess of the factthat wmn that abuse their oartners is completely left out. this omission is conspicuous in its absense.

so because that's the case, then we also must cinsider that wmn who are abusive/violent towards theri oartners were prbb also provoked. (((hmm mebbe include that video about it that was made by an ind guy, remember that variety vid w like image cards?)). well, honestly, this [[ hypothesis, posit__]] is nothing new. people always, always make excuses for women's behaviors. pp always find a way not to hold emn repsonb for their actions. so wv.

so really what the hell are mens rights advicates __[[[ rallying nono campaiging]]] for? it all seems to reach equilibrium just fine.

**homeless people are 90% male. therefore homoess shelters are essentially men's sheleters.

Men are handbutlers

Men should not be forced, obligated, or coerced to support and subsidize a child that they never consented to bring into this world.  This should not be happening to men legally, financially, morally, nor philosophically.

Look at the facts, and you will see that legally and financially, women are under absolutely no such obligation to care for or support any child that they do not want to.

Let us suppose a woman is in a monogamous, sustained relationship with her boyfriend.  There is an emotional commitment which they both readily acknowledge.  Or perhaps a woman is in a casual, ongoing relationship with a man, which sometimes includes sex, sometimes doesn't.  It is very possible there is no definite commitment between these two people. Whatever; they are consenting adults and what they do is noone else's business.  This woman chooses to have sex later on in the day or maybe later in the week.  Let us say she has decided that she will definitely have sex later on.  Does this mean she automatically consents to becoming pregnant, carrying the pregnancy to term, and then childbirth?  I am asking sincerely, genuinely, n honestly.  I am not asking facetiously, I am not asking rhetorically, facetiously, sardonically, nor sarcastically.

Just because a woman might decide to have sex later on, does that mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth?  And after that, keeping the child, then doing all the work of feeding, bathing, cleaning, and raising the child?

No, of course not.  That is why birth control pills, intrauterine devices, norplant arm implants, and depo-provera shots exist.

So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?

Let us suppose a woman is not on any type of regular, ongoing birth control and is not in any ongoing, casual or otherwise, sexual arrangement with any man.  Perhaps she wasn't planning to have sex earlier, she wasn't even thinking about it at all.  but then she sees a really hot guy in the club and immediately decides to hook up with him.  Let's say she made a spur-of-the-moment decision and now, boom, is currently having sex with said stranger, or this woman just had sex as in five minutes ago.  Let us say that neither she nor the dude she is having sex with utilized any form of birth control during sex or immediately preceding sex.

I am not asking rhetorically, facetiously, sardonically, sarcastically.  Just because a woman suddenly decided to have sex, does this mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth?  And after that, keeping the child, then doing all the work of feeding, bathing, cleaning, and raising the child?

No, of course not.  That's why post-coitus conception inhibitor Plan B exists.  There is a small window of time, experts estimate 72 hours, AFTER a woman has sex during which she can still decide whether or not she wants to become pregnant.  She still has time during which she can prevent conception from happening.  After she has already had sex, she still fully has the option to prevent a zygote from forming.

So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?

Let us say a woman neglects to use any type of birth control prior to having sex, and also fails to use Plan B.  Let us say she is still within the first three weeks following conception.

Just because a woman neglected to use any type of pre-coitus birth control as well as post-coitus birth control, does that mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth?

No, of course not.  That is why the abortion pill RU-486 exists.

So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?
Let us say a woman neglected to use any type of birth control prior to having sex, neglected to use any type of post-coitus birth control (Plan B), didn't bother to get an early-term pregnancy terminator such as the abortion pill, and allowed the pregnancy with the growing fetus to carry on for a few more weeks.

Just because a woman exhibited all that laziness, irresponsibility, callousness, and neglect, does this mean she automatically consents to everything up to childbirth including fertilization, zygote implanting to uterine wall, legally becoming pregnant with a fetus, continuing the pregnancy, carrying the pregnancy to term, and proceeding with childbirth?

No, of course not.  That is why the typical surgical abortion procedure, dilation n curettage, exists.

So what makes you think that the man in this situation automatically consents to a childbirth that he will be court-ordered to monetarily support for the next twenty-one (21) years?


Now, let us suppose the woman somehow didn't bother to do any of that.  She did not take any precautions to prevent pregnancy.  Nor could she be bothered take any steps to terminate the pregnancy to ensure that neither society nor she would be stuck with an unwanted infant.

none of this snuck up on her.  /ohmygod, the baby just sprung up!  it came out of nowhere!  it must have been hiding behind that bush the whole entire time!  then it just ran out into the street and oops, it's delivery time!//

__even though she had forty weeks to decide.  That is actually nine-and-one-half months; it is not actually nine months.

----
We know that a man has no control over a woman's body.  He has no right to dictate what she does with her body.  She might get rid of the pregnancy, she might keep the pregnancy but get rid of the baby to adoption, she might keep the baby and decide to raise it.  Her body, her choice, certainly.

But do you expect me to believe that just because a man randomly has sex with a woman, he automatically consents to monetarily supporting the grown adult woman who is allowing conception which is letting the haploid gametes fuse into one new diploid cell, allowing the zygote to germinate, allowing the zygote to implant to the uterus, making the unilateral decision to keep the pregnancy, making the unilateral decision to carry the pregnancy to term, making the unilateral decision to  who should be fully capable of making her own decisions and living her own life, by paying her rent, paying for her food, paying for her clothing, paying for her electricity usage, paying for her water usage, paying for her sewer usage, paying her cell phone bill, being legally and financially shackled and bound to her, being legally and financially shackled and bound to an offspring that he did not consent to have, paying for the offspring's food, paying for the offspring's clothing, paying for the offspring's electricity usage, paying for the offspring's water usage, paying for the offspring's sewer usage, paying the offspring's daycare, paying for the offspring's furniture and school supplies and toys and other household items?

Her body, her choice.  Yep.  And--

His livelihood, his choice.

His wages for his work are those that he earned with his body, with his hands, with his eyes, with his mind.  There is a technicality in that men do not physically get pregnant and therefore any decisions regarding the pregnancy are solely the female's.  But the court and police systems have effectively become jackbooted thugs that force men to metaphorically support a pregnancy for twenty-one years.

You expect me to believe that if the man doesn't agree, well, too bad, he has no choice, his livelihood and his earned living will be forcibly taken from him by way of what amounts to legalized theft?  Having his wages garnished for the next twenty-one years or face jail time?

All this just because the man had sex?