I have a friend dedicated to astronomy who walks around with a camera in his rearview mirror. As he explained to me, most images of a certain type of celestial bodies are captured by Russians. Investigating the reason, he discovered that in Russia there is a law that requires drivers to compensate victims of being hit by a vehicle. Thus, some pedestrians began to throw themselves in front of cars to take advantage of the drivers – who, in order to escape the blow, began to walk with cameras hanging from the rearview mirror. To the delight of the observer of celestial bodies, who provided one for themselves. This is the beauty of unintended consequences. These should be the object of study of the social sciences, not moral treatises.
There are certainly state policies designed to promote science that, with a huge budget (see Sciences Without Borders), had less impact for the progress of science than a traffic law. On the other hand, traffic suffered from the well-meaning law. The law created the figure of the pedestrian coup, non-existent under normal conditions. So it’s quite likely that, at least before drivers got out of their way and got a camera in their rearview mirror, the pedestrian-killing law caused a hit-and-run boom.
It should be clear that when a roadkill gives financial incentives for an action, that action will become a business and will be stimulated. If Damares’ project, which financially rewards self-declared rape victims, goes ahead, feminists will be very happy with Brazil’s rape statistics, and they can happily claim, full of official tables, that this here is worse than Pakistan. And if anyone asks what kind of woman would do that, since the money would be little, I answer easily: a thief’s wife. She won’t have the courage to go to court to receive food, so she will claim that her son is the fruit of an unidentified rapist. “But wouldn’t that be better than having an abortion?” Dear reader, contraception exists and is easy. A thief’s wife, as a rule, is drugged, and drugs are expensive. What she will do is contraception, take the money from the State to buy drugs and take care only so that the child (the pretext of the pension) does not die. Long live, she will suffer from all kinds of abuse.
Lula and the maria-chuteiras
Scrupulous men, unlike bandits, are in the position of being coerced by coup plotters and resentful. This began in 2009, when Lula sanctioned the Law 12.004, according to which women had the power to point a father to his son, and the man could only escape being considered a father if he has a DNA test proving that he is not. In a word, men are forced to register any children they may have. Rather, we could morally judge the man who does or does not do this. Not today. Because when there is no freedom, there is no morality.
Once you have been forced to bear the child, you will also be forced to pay alimony. In a world where there is neither freedom nor morality, the State, through the judge, decides the price to be paid. In theory, the pension is to feed the child; therefore, the delay in the pension can lead to imprisonment, implying that the child will die of hunger if the father is too late.
A curious thing about alimony is the proportionality of income. If a father earns a lot, he is obliged by the state to give more. The State will break its bank secrecy in order to see its income and usually take a share proportional to a third of the income, and give it to the child’s mother. The father cannot be virtuous or scoundrel; if he has a formal contract, the pension will be deducted from the payroll (if he does not have a formal contract, he will have to expose his entire professional life to estimate the adequate amount and pray that he does not fall into the hands of a feminist judge). The son of a millionaire would not need to eat more than the son of the poor should eat, but the exorbitant amount that will be given to the child’s mother will continue to be called food, with delays that could lead to imprisonment.
Is it not clear that in the middle and upper classes it is more a tool for punishing men than for feeding children? The amount of income is transferred from a man to a woman, without any control over expenses.
What kind of family do our laws encourage?
Just as the Russians created the coup pedestrian, Lula and the Judiciary created the coup mother, who will pierce the football player’s condom to get rich. Lacking a football player, she can earn a third of the porter’s minimum wage. If you make three children of different janitors, you’ll earn a minimum wage in total. If the scammer is from the middle class, living with a child is as viable as living on rent, with the advantage of dispensing with the previous accumulation of assets. And more: as the pension only exists if the child lives with her, the scammer has all the interest in the world to practice parental alienation, so that the child never runs the risk of wanting to live with the father.
I don’t spend a third of my income on food. If I had a child alone, my difficulties would not be financial, but operational. With this law, the cost of feeding a child is artificially thrown up. Thus, legitimate children end up being cheaper than single children. This could be an incentive to have legitimate children, were it not a zero-sum game in which the bad-faith woman has the advantage. From the point of view of the scammer, having children only reverts to income if the children are born out of wedlock, preferably each of a parent (if a poor thing has three children, no judge will order three-thirds of the salary). From a man’s point of view, it is an advantage to have legitimate children. But the woman has control over contraception!
Let’s imagine now that we are in the shoes of the doorman with a minimum wage who got a scammer pregnant. After years of having the pension deducted from the payroll to pay for the manicure and joint of Enzo Gabryel’s mother, who has another little brother with a different father, the doorman finds a woman he wants to marry and have children with. Inflation will consume his income and he will have less than a thousand reais to spend on his new family. In the end, the son who would live with the father is no longer born. Part of the resources that would go towards creating a balanced family is diverted to the manicure and the joint of the periguete who doesn’t care about her son and stays (from the pill up to date) throwing herself on the dealer’s lap to get more drugs. If this lady’s children reach the age of majority, it will not be surprising that they become a drug trafficking soldier or another periguete, since they have no good reference in life.
Even so, there are politicians wanting to regulate more pensions and put the floor down.
What do feminists want, anyway?
So we are left with this: since the spread of the contraceptive pill and condoms, the men and women can have sex without commitment. If before, when society saw women as a kind of minor, men were responsible for pregnancy, it would make sense that today, when women are masters of their own fertility, the onus would pass to us. If there is a relationship of trust between a couple, it is natural that the man stops using condoms and starts to trust the contraceptive methods used by the woman. He’s in the position of being passed over, not she. Ultimately, unwanted pregnancy became more of a male problem than a female one.
But feminists act as if contraception doesn’t exist, and women get pregnant for mysterious reasons. Men are horrible, but they want to have sex with them anyway. They don’t want to have children, but they want to have sex without contraceptive precautions. And in the end, they ask for the right to abortion, claiming that men already have this right when they choose not to take care of the child. They also keep saying that abortion is safe, and they are likely to believe it – see that activist who, when abortion happened in Argentina, got pregnant, went to debut the service and died.
As we saw in this Gazette, they even go so far as to say that fetuses and babies are completely different things. Therefore, the question remains: why are men obliged to consent to a pregnancy, if abortion is safe and does not extinguish any human life? If the right to male abortion really existed, the man would only be forced to bear the costs of having children if he consented to the pregnancy.
Finally, one more question: how are egalitarian ideals reconciled with income-proportionate pensions? So it is said that the millionaire’s son must have a proportionally greater pension than the bricklayer’s. Inheritance is bad because it perpetuates inequalities after the parents die, but a pension proportional to the father’s income from childhood is good. These ladies would be more honest if they said right away that the millionaire’s pension is not for the millionaire’s son, but for themselves, these predatory women who invent a war of the sexes to be able to coup.
This one such an important issue for common Brazilian life is an object of the social sciences. The government should have a research center that investigates the effects of laws and policies on the family, with special attention to mothers who make money on child support and their children. Progressives manufacture a thousand fanciful data dressed up as Science, but conservatives don’t have social scientists to scientifically corroborate things visible to the naked eye.