Jul 092013
 

Over the Fourth of July long weekend, Leila and I went to L.A. which meant visiting her parents.  I will spare you the boring details (especially since they could be used to identify me in some way), but it became clear that Leila’s parents really want grandchildren.  While I’m sure that they would prefer us to be married before having kids, I think they would be happy at some level if I knocked up Leila tomorrow.  Her parents almost seem like grandchildren wanting machines.

I think this may be part of a larger phenomena of baby boomer parents getting worried that their children don’t have children yet.  Since marriage gets delayed by women, that means that baby boomer parents have to wait longer and longer for grandchildren.  This makes them very nervous that they may never have grandchildren.  Eventually, they get to the point where they don’t care if their kids are married first before having kids.  Baby boomer parents are more and more becoming de facto supporters of single motherhood with all of the societal devastation that goes along with it.

For us, this means that the grandchildren strike is an effective weapon against feminist and shifting the costs of feminism on to those who created feminism.  If there’s one thing baby boomer parents are going to be worried about, it’s not having grandchildren.  For those of us in the M(H)RA and MGTOW sphere, when our parents start getting really worried about not having grandchildren, the only choice we should offer them is grandchildren via surrogate mothers (or artificial wombs depending on when they become available and our ages).  Hopefully, their heads won’t explode when we offer them that choice.

Dec 122012
 

A commenter writes about the silence of paternal grandmothers in losing their grandchildren due to their sons getting divorced:

I have to point this out until more people grasp this :

If women think the current laws are fair, and that getting unilateral custody is the way it should be…..

Then paternal grandmothers will lose access to their grandchildren when the father, her son, loses custody to the mother (her daughter-in-law).

So default mother custody causes plenty of paternal grandmothers to lose all contact to their grandchildren, as when the father is cut out, that means EVERYONE on the father’s side is cut out. Grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, you name it.

OK, so where is even the SMALL group of paternal grandmothers protesting default mother custody? What they thought was a great idea when they were having children, is now not such a good idea when their sons have children.

Old grandmothers are politically powerful. So where is the organization of ‘Grandmas against default mother custody’? Where?

Just one more example of women having no concept of cause and effect or long-term consequences.

There’s more to this than women having no concept of (long term) cause and effect.  It’s one thing to not realize that divorce means that you can’t see your grandchildren before a divorce happens.  It’s another to be fine with it afterwards as paternal grandmothers appear to be.  This is an example of team woman in action.  It’s a particularly extreme example in that grandmothers are willing to never see their grandchildren again just to support daughters in law they will no longer have a connection with.

The only way to deal with this is a true grandchildren strike, denying grandchildren from potential grandmothers.  A grandchildren strike should not be necessary, but as we can see, paternal grandmothers don’t care when they can no longer see their grandchildren.  The only way to deal with this is to not have children in the first place.  Usually, I advocate surrogate mothers in India for men who really want children in the current feminist climate, but doing so protects our mothers from the consequences of their actions.  That is unconscionable so perhaps we should all be on a grandchildren strike.

Sep 262011
 

One way that the costs of misandry get transferred back on to women is by denying marriage and denying children to women.  There is another aspect of this that deserves exploration.  Denying marriage on children to women also denies grandchildren.

Most ways that the cost of misandry will get transferred back on to women avoid a group that bears a great deal of responsibility for feminism, our parents’ generation, in particular our mothers.  Our parents’ generation had one foot in the old system and one foot in the feminist system.  This meant that many of them have completely avoided the consequences of supporting feminism.  I see this with my own parents who don’t particularly think of themselves as “feminists” but have effectively supported feminism all the same.  They have experienced absolutely no consequences from their support of feminism.  This goes for both my mom and my dad.  I suspect it’s the same with a lot of your parents.

While many of our fathers have been negatively impacted by divorce, they still supported feminism.  They just got married again and again.  Even when a divorce happened they didn’t experience it as a consequence of feminism.  It would be bad enough if the devastation from divorce in our parent’s generation was limited to our fathers, but many of our fathers still pushed for us to get married despite what they experienced feeding the machinery of feminism.

If there’s one group that needs to have the costs of misandry transferred back on to them but isn’t, it is our parent’s generation.  One way to do that, possibly the biggest and best way to do that, is to deny grandchildren.  Fortunately, it works as part and parcel of denying marriage and children.  Most of our parents want grandchildren so denying them grandchildren really forces the cost of misandry back on to them.  This is particularly effective when done by only children or by men who have only brothers.  Even for men who have sisters, this can still be effective if it prevents the “family name” from being passed on.

I have supported use of surrogate mothers at places like the Rotunda Clinic for men who want children but want to avoid the feminist marriage/child support/alimony apparatus.  Considering the importance denying grandchildren, I’m wondering if using surrogate mothers is a good idea now.  On the other hand, having grandchildren due to us using surrogate motherhood instead of by “traditional” means may be in itself painful enough for our parents because our parents would then be put in odd situations like having to explain to their friends why their sons are single fathers since we weren’t married nor got our girlfriends pregnant (or avoiding explaining it to their friends and hoping it never gets discovered).

Regardless the idea of denying grandchildren as a means of transferring the costs of misandry on to those who caused it is something that needs to be explored further.  We also should brainstorm other ideas on how to transfer the costs of misandry back on to our parents’ generation since many of them are getting off scot free for their support of feminism.

Translate »