Women: Homewreckers From Birth
It’s a commonly accepted fact that women ruin most marriages. At the moment, the worldwide divorce rate is somewhere around 50%. If it isn’t, I don’t care. The point is, in addition to being loud-mouthed and lazy, today’s modern woman doesn’t know how to compensate for her shortcomings in marriage by shelling out any respect. Women also have opinions these days instead of chores. That’s stupid.
What about when divorce isn’t a woman’s fault? It’s unlikely, but since I’m a man, I’ll be the first to admit when women are not to blame.
Science, unclouded by my male compassion, disagrees, and points the blame at daughters. The Little Women.
Gordon Dahl and Enrico Moretti have compiled a scientific paper that includes the following man-ass blowing statistics:
Parents of girls are 5% more likely to divorce.
Parents of three girls are 10% more likely to divorce.
Single mothers of girls are completely fucked.
Apparently, women are poison to relationships no matter what their age! Whether they’re making ten cents on the dollar neglecting their children at some stupid Barbie Dream Job, or just being ten and playing with their Barbie Dream House, women ruin marriages. There’s no arguing with statistics. The figures are black and white.
When I first found out about this study, I was appalled. Little girls are even smaller and more helpless than women. They know even less and need more assurance and assistance than their larger and more opinionated counter-parts. Maybe, I decided, that’s why they’re such a strain on marriage.
Little girls cost way more to raise than little boys.
Men (and therefore boys) have something called imanginations. It means they can turn a cardboard box into a spaceship or a racecar or an outhouse at a construction site. Little boys don’t need constant fucking babysitting and they don’t need a bunch of expensive clothing and shiny bullshit. Fuck the nickel and dime shit, today’s modern little girl needs to have her wedding and college financed! That’s the dollar double dip that broke the marriage camel’s back!
Little boys wig the fuck out at divorces.
As a woman, would you want your bedroom furniture burned or your teenage son to be banned from public school transportation? No way. There aren’t enough hours in the week for a woman to deal with something like that. That’s called, ‘boys incentivize a happy marriage’.
No one wants a daughter.
It sounds harsh and that’s why women are banned from reading all of this, but while everyone loves their daughters, no one ever wanted one. Cindy Crawford loves her mole and Owen Wilson probably loves his fucked up nose, but at some point both were catastrophes. What’s a daughter going to do? Get married to a billionaire? That’s some big fucking achievement. A son might start IBM or join the Marines. There’s no telling what kind of excitement lay ahead.
In conclusion, just like keeping a full-sized woman, having a baby girl involves a lot of charity. If you find yourself in the predicament of having one and you also want to maintain your marriage, take a lesson from China: have a boy instead.
Related Articles:
I don’t know about that man, but I have two kids, a boy and a girl. I was really happy and proud when my boy was born. Three years later my daughter was born and she means the world to me. Both my kids did well in school and are both successful in their jobs.
Whoever said they don’t want a daugher does not know what they’re talking about. My daughter has contribute a lot in the family, and me and my spouse are really proud of her. That goes for my son as well.
Women also have opinions these days instead of chores. That’s stupid.
There is another great qoute.
One word - ”lowlife” and i would say its pretty accurate from the way he presented himself. All he did was constantly hurl insults at me through that whole rant of his. I dont think you can compare the two but nice try.
You seem to not be able to converse without spouting insults and curses to hide the fact you are incapable of saying anything worthwhile.
Um no.. think you’re very wrong there. I’m far from ‘ common’. You seem to not be able to converse without spouting insults and curses to hide the fact you are incapable of saying anything worthwhile.
”Men only care about sex”- disagree with you on that. Men enjoy all of the above that youve said no matter how much you try to deny it.
If i’m unsuitable for marriage to you I thank my lucky stars because I would never want a lowlife such as yourself.
Hey, slut, I sum up your existence just by copy-and-pasting my analysis of all of the other whores. It applies just as much to you - perhaps because you are common, crude used goods. You posted three times in a row like the stupid stock whore you are - and you fail to see the blindingly obvious.
I’ll admit one of your emotional opinions is correct, though:
Men only care about sex. We don’t care about dinner, money, or commitment. All we care about is sex. It’s a pity that you can not say the same, or that your own ingratitude and foolish pride has crippled you to the point where you could never survive in an equal society. You would be unsuitable for marriage, so the only thing you would be good for would be ‘unskilled labor’ - because giving a sloppy blowjob is unskilled labor.
If you think im being paid for ’sex’ then I must be making a whole lot of money diamatik. I’m sorry you have such little faith in women that you would assume something so degrading.
yea, thats about right.. men are good for work.
So you wouldnt love your child regardless of gender.. You disgust me.
Good luck trying to procreate without us, you’ll be to horny to try to clone.
:]
OH REALLY?? What makes you “judge, jury, & executioner?!
oh btw: This is a MEN’S Site For REAL MEN ONLY!
In other words: GET LOST!
What makes you the decider of the superior gender?
Because you got a Y chromosome, and a penis? REAL MEN don’t associate themselves with angels.
Geez, just turn gay already Tyler, that solves everything, butt pirate(s).
“Not all women are like that” - Despite all the stats that 70% of divorces are filed by women.
The man did not satisfy the women, his fault, he is flawed.
“Be responsible and take care of your women and your kids” - Despite the fact that 80% of men cannot see their children ever again after a divorce.
The man is a bad father.
My new strategy, reply with short no fact base comments like the men side. It is easy, funny, and takes a hell of a lot shorter time.
“Not all women are like that” - Despite all the stats that 70% of divorces are filed by women.
The man did not live up to expectations.
“Be responsible and take care of your women and your kids” - Despite the fact that 80% of men cannot see thier children ever again after a divorce.
The man is a bad father.
i can’t tell is he is joking, or not.
Just for the fact that him and most men in here don’t really find any facts, and go off assumptions, if you research it enough you will find women who start successful business who run successful business as CEO’s etc, but as men you are to lazy to, (see i can to it to!)
Even in the face of all the statistics, all the published articles from very smart MEN, these females wont admit that marriage has been destroyed by stupid women. All they do is spew out the same drival.
“Not all women are like that” - Despite all the stats that 70% of divorces are filed by women.
“Be responsible and take care of your women and your kids” - Despite the fact that 80% of men cannot see thier children ever again after a divorce.
All hard facts that these stupid bitches expect you to just ignore, it just never gets old seeing how fucking clueless women really are.
So, not all women are the same, huh? That’s the biggest load of shit I ever heard in my life. That’s like having a feminist say, “I’m not THAT kind of feminist!” Women are no longer angels in this day, but demons of the damned, and that will never change.
Oh, but I’m supposed to take YOUR word for it, right, just FIND an angel? How about I load up eight bullets into a gun with ten chambers, pull the trigger at my head, and expect to come up with one of the TWO empty chambers? Because THOSE who take your advice, 80 percent of the time, end up with nagging whores instead.
Terrorists are better than sluts.
Will Sombody PLEASE call Homeland Security on this bitch?! (I Mean kl)
Damn! Gotta get it Right!
e
(I Mean for that “IK” person)
Will Sombody PLEASE call Homeland Security on this bitch?!
Preach? Like you have the “Divine Authority” to do so? You better go while the going is good.
Or in other Words: “legalized Prostitution” the state doesn’t give-a-shit as long as they get their cut!
OH REALLY?? What makes you “judge, jury, & executioner?!
oh btw: This is a MEN’S Site For REAL MEN ONLY!
In other words: GET LOST!
I’m sorry you guys are feeling bitter. I don’t blame you for feeling worn out but please consider that not all women are the same. Women are questionable and if you’re lucky maybe you’ll find a real angel.
They might be this way with you, but they’ll even come and mess up all the work you’ve done to try to be one of those 5% trying to really be happy in your marriage, so I say everyone is absolutely screwed.
I came into the world as a female and there’s nothing I can do about changing that. I’ll never be in peace - I’ll never be able to have female friends who wont go after my husband or homewreck for the fun of it and I’ll never be able to really know if my husband might be one to eventually cheat. Right? It’s really a sad state of affairs. I know there are good people out there….
I have 3 sons and a daughter. My daughter is just like her mom; naggy, stubborn, and just an all around bitch. I don’t know how her boyfriend puts up with it. poor fellow
Girl, is that “sick” like the way Pauly describes one of his righteous creations on Orange County Choppers?
I believe you’re right! We are sick bastards! The sickest!!
-Banzai
YOU ARE A SICK BUNCH OF BASTARDS
Again a brilliant point.
By my reading of the American Constitution as an unchanging, literal document that can only be altered via the Amendment process, marriage isn’t even a function of the State.
Marriage is a religious ceremony: Catholics, in fact, place marriage on the same level as Holy Communion and Priesthood. Therefore under the 1st Amendment, marriage cannot within the purview of the Federal Government at least.
Since most States also have similar freedom-of-religion clauses in their Constitution, most States should not be able to touch marriage.
This of course wouldn’t stop atheists like myself from drawing up a marriage-like contract on our own. However, as you say, such individual contracts would avoid sharing our partners with the State.
The moment government adheres to the Constitution and gets out of the marriage business, the moment marriage will become significantly more stable.
However, fat chance that will ever happen. Political power is now based on ignoring the Constitution except when making speeches. No politician will ever voluntarily reduce their own power by adhering to Constitutional limits.
And yes, I know about Ron Paul. I wish there were more like him. But there aren’t.
Marriage is polygamy. That’s why is can’t work. End of story.
Imagine two women and a man all trying to be married to each other… The women would get jealous. Same problem with 2 men and one women. After all, would you share your women with another man?
Now consider these:
“Dear, how should we school our children?” “Hmm.. let’s ask the state. The state thinks we should send them to this school.”
“Honey, should we remodel the bathroom?” “Hmm… let’s ask the state.. Nope, the state won’t grant us a license to do that. The bathroom shall remain the way it is”.
“Dear, I want to buy a hand-gun to protect the home in case there’s a burglar” “Hmm… the state says we need to get fingerprinted to do that. Sorry, no gun. But we could always dial 911 if we walk in on a burglary in progress. That should be sufficient”.
“Honey, let’s have a baby, what name shall we give him?” “Hmm… I don’t know, but remember we have to share our baby with the state by getting a birth certificate, and he can’t work for our family business until he’s 16, but he must still graduate high school at 18. Our third spouse, the state, requires it”.
“Dear, come here and have sex with me” “Hmm.. I’m tired, and plus, the state says I don’t have to have sex with you if I am not in the mood. Otherwise it’s rape”.
State Marriage is polygamy. That’s why it fails. If you get married, write your own contract, don’t use a lawyer, and make your girl sign it. Do NOT get a state marriage license, or else your marriage is doomed.
Why are we men sharing our women with the state???
Fuck no it doesn’t you gunt havin hoe. Men are basically paying for sex these days, lets see a woman do the shit we do. The only thing amazing woman do is have babies and occasionally shut the fuck up and color like they need to. If you didn’t use us like were a fuckin IV bag sucking us dry then you wouldn’t be seen as a worthless piece of pussy(its all your good for sometimes).
“The national divorce rate is 50%.
I read it was higher.
And in some places it’s women destroying 70% of marraiges.
And this makes sense stats show women file for divorce over 70% of the time.
From my life experinces I know women are rarely ever happy. Almost everytime my wife opens her motuh the same few words start her sentences with “I want.”
I’ve been picking at her about it. But it’s true. Most women are never satisfied with all that they have.
“The national divorce rate is 50%. (It’s higher in some parts of the country, like CA) However, I ask you, consider of the number of people who are in a bad marriage, but elect to stay. (Men who don’t want to lose 50%, ….women who know they can’t support themselves alone, etc) Next, think of how many more couples stay together just for the sake of the kids. Of these, “forced marriages,” consider how many of these marriages involve infidelity. A shot in the dark, but I estimate the percentage of happy & monogamous marriages to be under 5%. Are these odds you would take in a business venture? Or even a raffle ticket? Most of the risk-averse population would not. Yet they seek this exception to the rule everyday at the altar.”
From: http://www.nomarriage.com/
My boyfriend is as far from a thug as you can get; he pays for his half of the date, but it would be unfair for him to pay for both of us because it would just cost too much to pay both halves for dates every weekend. He might be able to afford it but it would be unfair. And he has never cheated.
Exactly.
Alex is a hardworking girl who’s so obsessed with her thug bf that she supports his deadbeat ass while he fucks her sister/friend/roomate.
Don’t think that just because you can paste statistics and talk rationally that you are one of us, because that is a lie.
Alex you dont speak for most of women. You think because you and a few other women pay for their dead beat bfs, most of most women in that situation either live togeather and their husband/boyfriend doesnt have a job, or the significant other is a jerk that wont work. Most of you dont mind going on a date thats decent looking, but you let him ask u and get a free night and never call him again. (you women wouldnt want to actually pay for a date would u lol). But i would say some men are too prideful and pay for dates but i think people wouldnt have their feeling hurt and women would be accepting dates less often if men stopped paying. Hell wise up guys you lose either way.
Wrong.
@ Brian- I think that men being used for their money (at least in dating situations) is a slowly dying trend. I’m 19, and on dates among people my age the cost of dates is usually split in half. I know I personally always pay half the cost of dates, I don’t know if my boyfriend has ever paid my part of a date. Dates simply cost too much and it’s ridiculous for one person to pay for all of it.
@ Son of the Sons- This may be more true now then it was 50 years ago, but even with the 50% divorce rate, the other 50% of marriages stay together. Many people are happily married, it isn’t as if every marriage succumbs to infidelity and divorce.
No man in his right mind would marry a modern women.
The only men who want to marry modern women are homosexual politicians who need a cover marriage and don’t give a fuck if their wife is fucking someone else, because they’re sucking their political aid’s cock in rest areas.
Show me a heterosexual man over age 22 married to a modern woman, and I’ll show you a fool.
my take on what ive seen is most women dont want to work, want babies, want money, need a man that works a good 40-80 hour week. But statistics are showing more women are being caught cheating EVERY year. I know there are good women and good men but i see good guys being used for money in simple dating situations everyday in our youth. Do you ever see a decent looking guy trying to milk a decent looking girl for a meal ticket? honestly? Ive never seen that. Its sad that women are viewed as sexual objects in the media but its even sadder when good men are being used for their possessions and what not. And what i dont understand is why some women will complain their not getting a good guy theres none out there when their dating the jerk type. You say youve dated how many guys but their all jerks. Well its cuz all you date is jerks your attracted to them and thats what screws you over. Take a look at the others that dont want good guys and love the jerks you girls have been messing with mens minds. Your terrible indecent creatures. Your body is no better than a mans God made us to reproduce enjoy life living togeather and not hold things over eachothers heads
…………………
………………
SON OF THE SUNS!!!!! preach it!!!!!!!
Most men on this site have.
KL we’ve all been there, the problem is harlots like you want men like us to work 80 hour weeks and pamper you while you fuck the thug dealing drugs around the corner.
We know your ways back to front. We’ve been through this before.
I bow to no cunt.
Hahaha.
Good one Diamatik.
You’re are a great example of everything that is wrong.
Women are what’s wrong with the men.
That is the main reason women are not allowed.
Like paying you for sex so that you can buy a BMW then claim that it was your money that paid for it?
sure ill bake some cookies for my man, cook him a nice meal if he asks but i think he should do some nice things for me too
Why wouldnt you want to cook and clean? Dosent it make you feel good to do that?
read the article and then tell me that im wrong. If you agree with this guy WE ARE ALL DOOMED
look , just some respect what happened to respect these days? you all have to be macho jerks. Theres a couple good ones out there though.
The question is , why wouldnt you want to pamper your woman? Why wouldnt you want to provide? Dosent it make you feel good to do that?
In other posts you said that women should be pampered and men are only good for work; that they should not only provide an income but also cook and clean, and accept the fact that you don’t do anything at all.
So, if you think there’s something wrong with men these days, I’ll take that as a compliment.
youre as bad as the terrorists, id shoot ya dead
if you were here id shoot you dead for the good of humanity
you make me fucking sick . The guy who wrote this article is the definition of everything thats wrong with men these days. Youre a disgusting piece of shit.
You lost just by coming on this site, bitch. See this is the sort of thing which makes me atheist. You bloody christians who go ‘we have the right way, all others are idiots’. Be like proper christians and just accept that people don’t follow your ideals all the time.
As I’ve always said: Preach to the choir and you’ll never lose.
As we’ve always said, fuck off.
As I’ve always said: You can’t argue with ignorance.
Hmm, I wonder. How come you’re here then? You must have searched for it or something.
Go somehwere you’re wanted, Christina.
Jesus christ. You guys are so fucking pathetic it’s amusing.
If you’re such tough men, grow a fucking dick and stop whining like depressed schoolgirls. You pathetic fucks.
Not quite. The adjectives ’stupid’ or ‘obnoxious’ should precede, thus making her name more accurate.
Point. Hypocritical should be in there too.
Not quite. The adjectives ’stupid’ or ‘obnoxious’ should precede, thus making her name more accurate.
Her name is very accurate for her isn’t it.
Wow! What wonderful insight she gives, indeed.
In all honesty, I sincerely wouldn’t want to lay the prom queen. I could save time and money sticking my penis in a urinal at the high school stadium, everyone’s had their’s in their too and I wouldn’t have to drop a bundle to get at it.
As for the “FEMALE” character that is blasting everyone here. She is a Sociopathic Narcassist, or not a SHE at all. More than likely this is a male that is so mixed up with his sexual identity, that he has no way to relate in either direction. Every time this person makes yet another post, they show their immaturity by choice of words, and their profane view of life. Wake up FEMALE, it’s a wonderful world you’re missing.
Good women, Dinosaurs, Dodo birds, anyone notice a pattern here? To say one is looking for a “good woman” is to believe in Santa, The Easter Bunny, and Leprochauns. Keep looking for them, tell us how that turns out.
What a brilliant argument. Gwallan, Diamatik, what fools we are to think about the world when this pearl of narcissus lies before us.
-wolfe
you guys are so queer! If you hate women so much why do you need pussy?
this website should be called: weareabunchoffagswithnopenises.cum
So your excuse for not being a Ghandi is because in doing so you cannot get laid? Have you ever considered that the reason such men are great is because they don’t base their own motivation and sense of worth on whether or not they get to fuck the prom queen?
RAS YOU ARE SUCH A FAG
You’ve been told before Female: FUCK OFF. You are not welcome here. I cannot tolerate your feminine non-arguments and your totally unfounded statements on men’s personal sexual desires (e.g. principles - something that women are totally incapable of). If you’ve been told once, you’ve been told a million times… FUCK OFF…
See boys? More wasted energy on this estrogen-fuelled piece of shit.
GET A FUCKING LIFE! You guys seriously need to get laid-or if you hate women so much- remove a few ribs and blow yourselves
GAY!
There has been no US blockade of Cuba other than during the ‘62 Crisis, where, yes, nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons delivery systems were interdicted.
To refer to the US sanctions on Cuba as a ‘blockade’ is to distort the meaning of the word beyond all recognition.
But fair enough; let’s amend your argument to economic sanctions and we can ponder it.
And the answer is ‘no’. Plenty of countries sanctioned (or not sanctioned) by the US or the USSR (#2) and much of the rest of the world have failed or succeeded on their own merits. Most of the world had all kinds of trade sanctions against South Africa, yet she managed to continue operating at a somewhat higher relative standard than Cuba. (Stipulated: education was considerably worse in the townships than in Cuba due to the repressive nature of Apartheid. Stipulated: Apartheid was an evil system. That said, the economics of the nation were sufficiently attractive that blacks headed into the country from elsewhere in Africa to work, despite the racist National Party government. People across the Carribean did go to Cuban universities, but few headed there to work.)
Actually, the West was busy assisting Vietnam and Malaysia and South Korea far more than it was Singapore. Singapore was, for quite some time, viewed as a lost cause. Not lost to Communism, but simply something that would not be economically viable.
And I’ll accept the term “propping up” for Vietnam and Malaysia in a military and political sense; I won’t accept it for any of those countries in an economic sense. See below.
The ’strategic geo-political position’ argument ignores how easily it fell in ‘41 to the Japanese. Western strategists were very aware of this, and initially uninclined to pour resources into something unstable and vulnerable.
Now as for “propping up”, the West did spend a lot on economic aid, but much of that was to Egypt (and Israel). The Soviet Union treated Cuba as its shining dream of a client state, subsidizing it to the tune of billions. (And sure, let’s compare Cuba in ‘89 to Singapore in ‘89 when Cuba was still getting aid. No contest, and Cuba was being ‘propped up’ economically — obviously. Singapore wasn’t).
The overall economic assistance to South Korea (say) was nugatory, relative to her success. Ditto Singapore. The “propping up” model of economic development simply doesn’t wash, or Egypt would be a powerhouse, a model economy for the world.
Singapore and South Korea succeeded, not because of aid, but because of their economic approaches. (Incidentally, Korea isn’t a good model for the ardent capitalist such as me — they had a lot of state sponsored/guided stuff, and way too much crony capitalism. Yet it still worked a lot better than Cuba).
But fair enough, you want a country that was miserably repressive, evil, socialistic, but didn’t have huge US sanctions. Zimbabwe (which had huge sanctions against it as Rhodesia, then all sanctions removed). Was it better for the average person (black or white) in ‘79 or in 2006? It does, I admit, have much nicer social programs on the books today than it did back then… and on paper it’s not racist at all any more.
The superbly developed welfare state of East Germany vs West Germany.
North and South Korea… North Korea actually bordering its masters.
Admittedly, crime in North Korea is probably lower since everyone’s starving to death.
I really don’t think I need to provide other examples, but I’ve done so. In general, I can’t find any ethnically and culturally heterogenous state where welfare and socialism work well, provided one makes as close to an apples to apples comparison as one can. (The Scandinavians debatably made a go of it for a while, but mass immigration seems to be killing that off).
-wolfe
Thank you, gwallan. I would further like to posit that Singapore is never a good example of economic development. Its strategic geo-political postion has more to do with its success than just its domestic policies. As communism was being spread through Asia, the West was busy propping up Singapore and South Korea.
Wolfe, please come up with a better example.
@wolfe
Singapore WO blockade > Cuba + blockade
Nobody, least of all the worlds most powerful nation, is running interference with Singapore’s development.
Hmm. Let me first say (as I’ve said elsewhere) I don’t buy the alpha/beta male dichotomy. It assumes human males are even simpler than wolves, and that I don’t buy. Men aren’t binary, nor are we even calibrated on a single axis. The space of men is a rich and gloriously multi-dimensional one. That said, of course I respect those who wish to analyze using alpha/beta, and those who believe it. This of course makes discussion somewhat difficult at times; so be it.
Now. Welfare itself. Giving money to people who don’t work. Let’s stipulate that we’ve a duty as a decent society to take care of those who genuinely cannot work due to extreme disability, illness, age, etc. Some (SotS?) might argue that our ‘duty’ to ‘take care’ is to leave such people on the nearest ice floe; others (Sony?) that it’s to pay them a rich comfortable pension. I’m somewhere in the middle. In any event, this shouldn’t be more than about 5-10% of the population at most.
For those who can work, paying them welfare, is simply subsidizing joblessness and idleness. And if there’s one thing we’ve learned from socialism it’s this: That which you subsidize, you get more of.
But leaving that aside: for a man, there’s a hopelessness in knowing that he is not the master of his fate, the captain of his soul. That he does not earn his living, but simply lives off the charity of others. The rise in crime of heavy welfare urban neighborhoods in the US and Ireland are surely indicators to us all.
Welfare, while stupid and counterproductive, may be very well for women who are used to living off the charity of others, but it’s not a good thing for men.
FDR, even though he was a pinko, had it more or less right: If you must pay people from government coffers, then create massive infrastructure projects so they’re actually doing something useful that they can look back on at the end of the day and notice accomplishment.
Let’s compare Cuba: well developed welfare state, with Singapore: not a welfare state. Which is lower crime? Which is a better place to live? Which is somewhat less corrupt? Somewhat freer? And yet, in the 1950’s Singapore looked like a write-off. It didn’t look viable without being part of the Malaysian Federation. Cuba, by contrast, was the wave of the future. It had everything going for it: proximity to the US, wonderful climate, tourism, ability to play the superpowers off one another, and the wonderful Marxist-Leninist-Castro approach to government.
5 decades of welfare and socialism turned Cuba into a bit of a hell hole. 5 decades of fevered capitalism, sometimes red of tooth and claw, turned Singapore into a first world city-state, a jewel of Asia. A great city of the world.
I’m not saying there should be no welfare, or no social programs; I am saying that welfare as anything other than a stopgap emergency measure is detrimental to most men, creates and subsidizes poverty, and likely leads to more crime.
-wolfe
It is unfortunate that I don’t have the figures to back me up, but I wish to disagree with sots’ sentiments. It is my personal belief that social welfare helps to ease the pain of the ‘income gap’ between the rich and the poor, and helps to reduce *(note well that I didn’t say eliminate)* the occurence of violent crimes.
If we look at countries that have well functioning welfare systems (States in Western Europe, Cuba, etc.) and compare them to those whose welfare systems are not as developed (Honduras, Jamaica, South Africa etc.) we will see that perhaps eliminating welfare will just lead to the ‘alpha-males’ brutalizing of the other males. They will just be more likely to rob and kill if there was no welfare system.
Good. That way they can be killed quicker by privately armed citizens or the State.