Red pill parenting

Buckle up bitches, its time to get triggered. If you don’t hate me by the end of this post, one of 3 things have happened.

1.      Either I am right and this is the dawn of a new era of personal responsibility

2.      You haven’t been paying attention to what I’m saying.

3.      I haven’t been clear enough on how radical I plan to go with this.

So let us begin.

I want a manifesto of radical self-responsibility parenting. Throughout history we have confused fertility for ability in terms of parenting. There is about 3 continents of space between “can” and “Should” we need to address this, close that gap. It’s the only way we can save ourselves from extinction as a species. I warn you. This is going to lead to a new world order if implemented globally. And a lot of us, myself included, may not make the cut. So buckle up.

I propose. (globally)

No more in work benefits

Iradication of welfare for people in work. If you work a wage and it is too low to feed yourself and your family. You need to negotiate that with your employers. Unions are to be encouraged. So are strikes. If that means the price of a good is artificially low, then the price of that good needs to rise. We need to consume less of it as the market rebalances itself so that companies can still make decent profits. You are not entitled to cheap clothes off the back of a starving child/mother in Bangladesh. If that means the price of a top goes from £5 to £50 then you need less clothes. Fast fashion accounts for 10% of global emissions anyway.

Widow/widower benefits need to improve when the widow/er has children

Need to be the equivalent salary of the person until their children are classed as non-dependants (23 in the UK if they are in education)

Child benefit needs to be an out-of-work benefit.

Here comes the trouble.

If you have a child knowing you can’t afford it on your current salary and you are expecting the state to pay the £18 per week to feed/cloth/self actualise the child then you are evil. I’m not here to sugar coat this for you. I have grown up poor and it ain’t fun. Condoms are cheaper than children. Female contraceptives are almost always free. No one owes you the right to procreate if you can’t afford to. It will also discourage cheap sex, if you know you will be liable for somewhere between £70,000-£180,000 over the next 18 years you will sober up real quick before inviting that dude upstairs for a “Nightcap”

Also, can we please talk about the fact that Mama Mia is a movie/musical about a woman who’s mum is a hoe? 3 men in 2 weeks? You need to seek therapy. Something inside is very wrong and you are using sex to displace it. Best thank God you have a lovely daughter out of it rather than HIV.

If you are having sex and you don’t want to get the woman pregnant/be pregnant you need your own form of contraception. If your girlfriend wants to go raw and you don’t want to, you shouldn’t be having sex without a condom lads. That’s coercion. Also, we need to change the statutory definition of rape to include male rape. When a man is forced to have sex he is being raped. Penetration element be damned. If a woman “manipulates” a condom, it is rape in the same way if a man takes off a condom halfway through it is also rape. You are violating the terms of the agreement and therefore violating the persons right to choose. You are violating them. If your lover tells you “she’s on the pill” and you don’t live with her, haven’t seen her take the pill consistently then you are liable due to stupidity. Is it possible that women lie to trap men into relationships? Absolutely and it is fairly common. Especially in hypergamous relationships. Don’t. Be. Dumb. You believe that your penis controls your thinking then we, as a society don’t want you in the gene pool. If less than 6 inches of your anatomy controls a whole human being, and this particular 6 inches includes 0 brain cells then it is a receipe for disaster. Same with women. If your clit controls you, you are no better than beasts. But this was a round about way of saying child benefit is meant to be if the parent is out of work. The parent should, be able to feed the child from their wages. Children don’t need designer clothes or Xbox One’s. Not that every parent gives their children that. If you take a job during hard times with a significant paycut (5%+) to stop yourself being unemployed, there should be a child benefit topup, for 2 years until you get another job. Like myself. When I got divorced I took a job paying £40,000 when I used to earn £50,000. I did it in the first week of Lockdown one because the job that I had accepted with the Tate had fallen through. That’s a big old pay cut and if I’d had children basing my income on £50,000 and couldn’t afford to feed them on £40,000 yeah, sure the government should help, temporarily, because it isn’t a desirable state of affairs for me either. I did that job for a year and went back to earning £50,000+. You should have to produce your last P60’s that show you have taken an income cut, and then a tapered top-up payment should be made with a 24 month clock on it to keep the child out of poverty. Because the parent is doing the responsible thing, taking a job, any job sometimes to keep lights on and bills paid.  But the idea of the government having to keep the child out of poverty when it’s the parents job to do that is illogical. We spend billions on welfare because we mollycoddle people telling them they have the right to sex but not the responsibility to look after the child, remembering that there is emotional responsibility as well as financial. All you need is love? Bullshit. You need, in 2022, finances too.

Next, no more single parenting. if you are not a rape victim.

If you are a rape victim, you should still identify your attacker, for the good of the criminal justice part. If it is gang rape, identify all the bastards. And if you are gang raped and you get pregnant, I believe you should receive child support from all the people who gang raped you. Yep. Personally I believe if you are raped and the person is found guilty and goes to prison, they should be liable for compensatory damages for the rest of their lives. If the victim has a life sentence, so should you. But I digress.

This is to close the gap of hook up culture. I saw a BBC video on a single mother skipping meals to feed her 10 month old daughter #costoflivingcrisis. My immediate thought was. Where is the daddy? She didn’t impregnante herself, where is the father? He’s either paying insufficient child support or no child support at all, yet the state is paying child benefit and child tax credit for this child. But the state wasn’t in the room when the 2 people were having sex. It wasn’t a threesome between Man, Woman and Her Majesty’s government. So why is the state paying and the daddy is not? I’d give people 1 year’s notice and then I’d say from June 22nd 2023, when a child is born in the UK there will be an automatic paternity test to match the child to the man on the birth certificate. A woman can name only 1 man as the father of her child, if he is found not to be the father, then he is not liable for child rearing, #letsendcuckolding even if he is the woman’s husband. If they divorce as a result of the child not being his, he can’t be made liable for the child’s welfare unless he legally adopts the child. If the woman names a man and he is not the father. She should be fined £1,000 for defamation of character and she should be made to find the father of the child. The birth will not be recorded until there is a father on the certificate. No one impregnates themselves. When she finds the father of the child and he has taken a paternity test (statutory obligation or face 18 years minimum in prison) he is liable for child support at the rate of 33% of his wages. So yes, if a man has more than 3 baby mamas the state can and should take 100% of his wages. If a man has 2 kids by 1 woman its still 33% of his wages he should be giving towards the children, because its 1 household those 2 children live in, and they can share things. So that puts emphasis on the men to not sleep around, because the state can and should take all your wages to support children you put into this world. Even if you are self employed. Will it put men into poverty? Sure will, but it is meant to disincentivise leaving the mother. It is also meant to disincentivise causal sex. When you think that for the next 23 years you will have 1/3 of your wages removed by the state and you are 23 you won’t go home with that girl you don’t know. You’ll wait. And if you divorce the woman, the rules apply still. the woman isn’t entitled to state benefits for the child unless the man is dead, or in prison.  By the way, I’m backdating this, so if the kid is under 23 and is still in education, you’re ass is toast. In those cases the man would be made to pay into a fund for the children to the value of the child support he should have been paying over the 18-23 years. He’ll have 10 years to complete that task. How he does that, not my problem. If he is a reformed rake? Also, not my problem, He also needs to rebate the state+ interest the value of the child benefit paid.

It is classed as abuse if a woman keeps her children away from the father.

If she can’t prove abuse, a woman is legally forbidden from disparaging the father of her children in front of/in earshot of, those children. That is forcing a child to take emotional sides, and is adultifying the child, robbing them of the childhood belief that both parents are intrinsically good. A woman must also make all reasonable attempts for the child to spend 50% of their time with their other parent. In tandem, a man must be made to make all reasonable attempts to spend 50% of his time with his children and this can be court mandated if necessary. We are tired of single parent households. Nobody benefits. If the child was a result of a rape/there has been a history of domestic violence, then this not mandated. But if you just don’t like your ex anymore that is not a legal reason to keep him from his kids. You like his money well enough.

If you have a child and you can’t afford to have a child, you as parent need to be either content to watch that child starve, or be content to do something about it. In extreme situations, like if inflation goes over 2% the government should help, but day to day, you don’t have a right to kids, a child is a responsibility. And one you should take seriously. That will mean less children, a lot less children in the west and eventually globally. When we take that mindset shift the responsibility shifts back to parents and then the consumer culture we’ll all sober up real quick.

That’s the discipline we need to avoid disaster.

Grace and Courage.

Annetta Mother Smith.