Child support is typically framed as state intervention on behalf of children. However, it is more accurately an alternative to marriage for women. Traditionally, women would find a man willing to formally commit to them before having children. By marrying (and staying married to) the man who would be the father of her children, women would ensure investment from the man and the provision of resources both to her and her children. Note that child support isn’t needed in the traditional model, and that it isn’t relevant in the case of the death of the father. Even in the case of divorce, child support isn’t needed if parents share equal custody. Where child support is needed is if women want to expel the father from the household (or never bring him in). When the facade of Its for the children! is stripped away, child support is all about removing fathers from the lives of their children.
If anyone has any doubt as to the true purpose of child support, they need only look at how it is enforced in practice. In theory whichever parent can better raise the children should be given custody, and the remaining parent would then be compelled to pay child support. In practice it is almost exclusively a way for women who expelled their children’s father from the home to extract money from the man. While the law is written under the guise of being gender neutral, this is a sham; the system is strongly biased towards women at nearly every step of the process. I’ve created a separate post to share all of the data, but here is a quick summary:
Mothers are far more likely to receive custody (over 80% of custodial parents are mothers). Those few fathers who receive custody are less likely than custodial mothers to have support awarded to them. Those fathers who have support awarded to them have less awarded on average than mothers. Due to all of the biases in the system, roughly 90% of all child support dollars are paid from fathers to mothers.
But still there are those who will claim this isn’t about money, it is about the best interest of the child. They say this even though the money goes to the mother, not the child, and the mother is under no legal obligation to spend the money on the children. If it were about the best interest of the child, the system would concern itself with maintaining the child’s relationship with the non custodial parent. But while the system is draconian in its enforcement of money (which almost always goes to the mother), it is generally uninterested in enforcing visitation (which almost always would be for the father). If the system were about protecting the child, it would enforce support and visitation equally. A parent who denies visitation is denying their child access to their parent. A system acting on behalf of the child would work vigorously to ensure that the child isn’t denied something which money can’t buy; access to and guidance from their father.
Not only does the system not take vigorous action to ensure that visitation orders are enforced, the system is designed to estrange fathers from their children. It uses draconian measures on the father while acting in the name of their children. Support is said to be based on the income of the father, but often it isn’t the father’s actual income which is considered. The court will often make up a figure which it assumes the father should be able to earn, and assign (impute) that income to him when setting the amount of support to be paid. W.F. Price described his own experience with this in the comments section of a recent Spearhead post:
There is really no cap on % of income a man can be ordered to pay. Being unemployed when my ex divorced me (she demanded I indulge her and help her get the job she wanted by watching the kids, and I stupidly went along with it thinking this would be temporary and would save my marriage), I was imputed, and therefore the child support was infinity percent of my income. I was imputed at the standard earning for a man my age in Washington state, despite the fact that we were in a recession and nobody was hiring.
There is no limit, therefore. Inability to pay is no excuse. You might as well be asking for mercy from the mob. I watched “The Departed” recently, and when one of the bookies said he didn’t have the money the enforcer said “this is America — make it” after beating the crap out of him. This is exactly how fathers are treated.
Keep in mind that men can be thrown in jail for failing to make these payments. Fathers all around the country are put in jeopardy of going to prison for money they don’t have, based on actions which are taken in the name of their own children. Undoubtedly the vast majority of fathers make every effort to not allow this injustice to poison their relationship with their children, since they know that their children are merely pawns being used by the child’s mother and the system. However, this kind of heavy handed tactic combined frequently with denial of time with and influence over their children has to impact the relationship negatively. Not surprisingly fathers who are less cut off from their children are more likely to pay support. In 2007 the Census found that 78% of non custodial parents who had joint custody and/or visitation privileges with their children made their payments, compared to 67% for those who didn’t have either (source, P9).
But the ultimate proof of what child support is all about is the end result for children. While there is a grain of truth to the old canard that divorce is caused by philandering or abusive men who either abandon or mistreat their children, the vast majority of divorces are actually requested by women. Professors Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas W. Allen set out to understand why this was in their paper “These Boots Are Made for Walking”: Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women:
Because of the financial and social hardship faced after divorce, most people assume that generally husbands have instigated divorce since the introduction of no-fault divorce. Yet women file for divorce and are often the instigators of separation, despite a deep attachment to their children and the evidence that many divorces harm children.
Here is what they found (emphasis mine):
Our results are consistent with our hypothesis that filing behavior is driven by self-interest at the time of divorce. Individuals file for divorce when there are marital assets that may be appropriated through divorce, as in the case of leaving when they have received the benefit of educational investments such as advanced degrees. However, individuals may also file when they are being exploited within the marriage, as when the other party commits a major violation of the marriage contract, such as cruelty. Interestingly, though, cruelty amounts to only 6% of all divorce filings in Virginia. We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce, particularly when there is little quarrel about property, as when the separation is long.
Keep in mind that getting custody not only determines which parent has their children ripped away from them, but that because of the child support system the children also often come with a hefty payment stream the ‘winning’ parent can spend however they want. The ‘loser’ on the other hand is compelled at risk of imprisonment to pay amounts which can exceed their actual ability to earn. While this money is extracted from them in theory on behalf of their children, it robs them of their ability to be seen as wanting to take care of their children. Fathers can’t spend money on their children which the mother has already taken by force. Making this winner take all game even more lopsided, in the US the receipt of the payments is considered tax free, since the support payer must pay the income tax on it.
This system which is supposedly about the children encourages mothers to expel their children’s fathers from their lives. One divorcée explains how many women think about this:
The problem with my life, as I saw it then, was my husband, and I imagined divorce as a process that would remove him but change little else — a sort of neutron bomb that eliminated men but left the rest of the world intact.
But divorce is only one way that child support encourages women to become unwed mothers single parents. The direct route to unwed motherhood is to simply get knocked up without getting married. This wouldn’t have guaranteed unwed mothers child support in the past. However, the rules were changed in the latter part of the 21st century, as Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers explain in their paper Marriage and Divorce: Changes and their Driving Forces:
Supreme Court rulings in the 1960s and 1970s also changed the nature of family relationships by eliminating many of the legal distinctions stemming from the marital status of a child’s parents. In 1968, the Supreme Court ruling in Levy v. Louisiana (391 U.S. 68) granted equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to “illegitimate” children. Five years later, the 1973 ruling in Gomez v. Perez (409 U.S. 535) overturned state laws exempting men from financial responsibility for “illegitimate” children. These rulings reduced both the social and economic cost to women of bearing a child out-of-wedlock…
Not surprisingly, this along with welfare payments has lead to an explosion of children being born out of wedlock. You can see the impact in the chart below from NCHS Data Brief No. 18 May 2009, Changing Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States:
The 2011 Statistical Abstract of the United States provides the breakdown of out of wedlock births by race (Table 86 pdf or image) for 2007, the latest year data is available. 40% of all babies born in the US in 2007 were out of wedlock. This figure was 51% for Hispanics, 28% for whites, and 72% for blacks. The US isn’t exceptional for its out of wedlock birth rates either:
But the direct approach to unwed motherhood isn’t preferred by all would be baby mommas. Some have a strong sense of tradition, and prefer the classic approach of marrying the father and then divorcing him after the children are born. Fortunately for them child support along with biased family courts makes this nearly as easy as the direct approach. As an added bonus, they get to attend a big party held in their honor, where they (get this!) promise in front of everyone they know to stay married to the father for life. This more classic approach to baby mamma-hood is also on the rise, as you can see in Figure 1 in Marriage and Divorce: Changes and their Driving Forces.
Divorce has gone from almost unheard of to extremely common. According to the US Census 2009 SIPP data, 39% of all white women aged 50-59 had divorced at least once. This works out to 42% of all white women that age who ever married. For Hispanic women the figures are 27%&30%, and for Black women the figures are 38%&48%.
All of this action supposedly in the interest of children has resulted in millions of kids growing up with little or no access to their fathers. A small percentage of these kids are better off because of the system. They had fathers who either abandoned them or were abusive. Far more have lost something irreplaceable; the chance to grow up with both their mother and father. There is a huge body of research showing how detrimental this is to children. In the interest of space I’ll only share one small quote from Dan Quayle Was Right (emphasis mine):
Even for fathers who maintain regular contact, the pattern of father-child relationships changes. The sociologists Andrew Cherlin and Frank Furstenberg, who have studied broken families, write that the fathers behave more like other relatives than like parents. Rather than helping with homework or carrying out a project with their children, nonresidential fathers are likely to take the kids shopping, to the movies, or out to dinner. Instead of providing steady advice and guidance, divorced fathers become “treat” dads.
Apparently–and paradoxically–it is the visiting relationship itself, rather than the frequency of visits, that is the real source of the problem. According to Wallerstein, the few children in the California study who reported visiting with their fathers once or twice a week over a ten-year period still felt rejected. The need to schedule a special time to be with the child, the repeated leave-takings, and the lack of connection to the child’s regular, daily schedule leaves many fathers adrift, frustrated, and confused. Wallerstein calls the visiting father a parent without portfolio.
This is built into any child support scenario, and simply cannot be changed or wished away. The profoundly negative result of fatherless children is widely acknowledged, even by those who enthusiastically support the new family structure child support encourages. However, instead of blaming the process which created the problem, most now blame the very fathers who had their children ripped away from them. This is the final insult by a system which sees fathers as no more than a walking wallet. Instead of blaming the concerted social push to allow women to raise children outside of marriage, the fathers themselves are blamed for being absent! Following the London riots many have pointed out that a major cause of the out of control youths is a lack of fathers. The headline of The Telegraph reads:
London riots: Absent fathers have a lot to answer for
Edit Aug 15: Updated with more recent US Census Child Support Data.
Uh, why should a man get married again?!
Again? hee, hee.
Mothers who take their children away from their fathers are committing child abuse.
Mothers who take their children away from their fathers are committing child abuse.
You’re right; they are committing child abuse. Then again, they not only have legal sanction to do this; they’re REWARDED for it! Uh, come again, Rampart?
See, this was all just numbers to me – bad numbers, indicative of a problem, but attributable to poor decision-making and short-sightedness rather than malice. Until I saw the link to the Telegraph article. What a surprise, some random feminist is blaming men for the natural consequences of doing what she herself wanted them to do.
Best part? In a purely financial sense, the safest women to sleep with are the ones who don’t even know my name (it’s a common name anyway, so I could just say women without my contact info). It would be smarter, in a genetic and financial sense, if I were to switch from dating to promiscuity, maybe whelp a few kids unknowingly without having to pay for their mother.
I can’t decide if the conspiracy theorists are right, and feminism is a Rockefeller-funded Commie plot to overthrow western society through the use of empowering but empty memes, or if people really are that stupid. What I am sure of is that civilization and society have clearly been built only by a small, small percentage of the population who had to drag the rest kicking and screaming into the light – and none of that small population have been feminists.
Extrapolating from the charts above, you can see that the the most unstable relationships are in Scandinavia and Britain. Breivik is Norwegian (absent father) and the Riots (UK) no father known – probably. Society pays a high price for indulging Female Pedestalising, and demeaning Male value. At the same time, however, although male desire is unending, I would instinctively mark any woman down on my mental check-list if she were an unwed mother, or Divorcee with a child, not just because her bastard is not my concern but because her profligacy would tell me of her lack of control and self-centeredness, – such as the woman I dated once last year on which said date she advised me of her son. Dropped instantly. Pump and Dump material only – and she must be used to lots of male attention being a Flight Attendant (Trolly Dolly). She then pursued me by E-Mail – which I ignored.
Great article, Dalrock.
The only hope is that this trend unravels and fathers become more important as Big Government unravels.
I was talking to a Russian coworker about single motherhood and she told me that where she is from, getting pregnant without a husband was extremely foolish because it is difficult to work and pay for food and shelter if you also need to care for a child without support. She could not understand why so many women here do not worry about getting pregnant without a stable relationship, especially at a young age (high school). Once I explained the “safety net” that is in place, she understood: there is no incentive NOT to jump into single motherhood. In fact, it’s a pretty good deal. You can even keep your social life if you’re willing to neglect your kids, as many are.
Thank you for the statistics on out of wedlock births–I was discussing this problem with my husband and he said that the rate was lower today than it was in the 50’s, but he apparently had it confused with teen motherhood, not illegitimate births. Of course, some couples intentionally have children without marrying because they don’t value a state-approved relationship, which may skew the statistics upwards, but it’s hard to say. Says something about the worth of modern marriage either way.
Good post.
*Comment on the British Riots and Children*
UK’s culture has collapsed -> http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/2009/09/paging-dr-dalrymple.html
The British underclass is literally assimilated to minority dysfunction, anarchy and depravity. An example of the loss of patriarchy would be a jobless man named Jamie Cumming whom has fathered his 15th child to 13 different women -> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023589/Is-Britains-feckless-father-Jamie-Cumming-father-15th-child-13th-lover.html?ITO=1490
This atmosphere is hurting nuclear families and the normalization of it has been a blow to fathers, mothers and children alike. What a sad state of affairs. TraditionalChristianity has discussed whether we should refuse the state on aspects such as marriage due to the corruption and its liberalism -> http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/separate-the-sacrament-of-marriage-from-the-state/
Note: In case people don’t know me I’m the same commenter as Elizabeth Smith on OZConservative.
This shit is really unbelievable, so much so that people don’t want to believe it’s this bad. In many cases, only those who have been through it will believe it.
Whenever I talk to people about divorce, I make sure to bring up the facts of the situation – that women file for divorce at a 2:1 clip, a large reason being that they are socially and financially rewarded for it, and that adultery/abuse/neglect are exceedingly rare as cause for divorce. This is obviously very threatening to women I talk to, who can’t believe I’d say something so misogynistic. But it’s not misogyny, it’s statistical fact.
Women wring their hands about the bogeyman of “men ditching their wives for younger models” and want a system to punish men who would do that but that worry is total myopia and hamsterwheeling (to say nothing of the fact that courts of law should not be a place for people to act out their personal grudges). There are those cases, but it’s a really a canard – the vast majority of divorces are not responses to objective misconduct nor initiated by men seeking a swinging-single lifestyle. For every cad who gets hosed by divorce court, there’s probably three innocent men subject to the arm of the law for nothing but spite and resentment for not being the uber-husband of Hollywood films.
Now I wait for J to check in with some more contrary anecdotes.
Don’t forget independent liberated career women and their IVF babies.
“I can’t decide if the conspiracy theorists are right, and feminism is a Rockefeller-funded Commie plot to overthrow western society through the use of empowering but empty memes, or if people really are that stupid.”
Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/hamsters-razor/
In feminism’s case, I think it is a combination of the two.
Women wring their hands about the bogeyman of “men ditching their wives for younger models” and want a system to punish men who would do that but that worry is total myopia and hamsterwheeling (to say nothing of the fact that courts of law should not be a place for people to act out their personal grudges). There are those cases, but it’s a really a canard – the vast majority of divorces are not responses to objective misconduct nor initiated by men seeking a swinging-single lifestyle. For every cad who gets hosed by divorce court, there’s probably three innocent men subject to the arm of the law for nothing but spite and resentment for not being the uber-husband of Hollywood films.
Good comment Badger. Abandoment and adultery is no longer the most common and greatest reason for divorce nowadays. Now it’s all about sexual liberation, “not being in love” and whatnot. No wonder so many people in the traditional conservative blogosphere want to avoid and reject the state on aspects such as marriage.
*Request*
Dalrock I will be 19 in two months and will start looking for a husband next year. I’m a Christian and a virgin. I also don’t live anywhere in the West. What advice do you have concerning marriage as in should I avoid the entire legal marriage deal and just get married in a biblical Church? I’m starting to see feminism creeping little by little into the culture and legal system of my father’s country but it’s still fairly low.
My father’s country is this one -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0UMb4F8tSE
My mother’s country is this one -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3bb2Fy3WeY
Note – Sorry I don’t wish to lay out the exact country’s names for fear that a colleague will find out about me on Internet.
Dalrock what do you think would be a good way to change this social trend?
For some strange reason, Shakespeare’s line on lawyers came to my mind.
Count the judges (and court appointed psychiatrists) as lawyers and I’m for it.
I don’t believe that there is any way to change this until the bubble implodes.
In the 1990s we had the stock market bubble.
In late 2000s we had the real estate bubble.
The final bubble is the Big Government bubble. Just like the last two bubbles, the majority of the population doesn’t see it as a bubble. The general populace is happy to revel in the “bread and circuses” of Big Goverment and think that the bread and circuses will last forever. However, you’re finally starting to see the cracks.
The United States’ debt-to-GDP ratio is now around 85%-100% depending on how you account for it. (This disregards the present value of future promises of medicare and social security which add an astounding 200% or so.), which is historically the point at which governments become vulnerable to changes in market sentiment. Even scarier is that the deficit is around 10% of GDP, so in five years’ time we’ll be at around 135-150%.
All that it takes is a change of sentiment in the credit markets for the whole thing to came down. A year ago in Greece, everything was fine… then over the course of a month long-term government bond rates shot from 6% to 17%. Similar things happened in Ireland, Spain and Portugal, and Italy is the next victim. What ends bubbles is the Minsky moment: the point at which investors lose confidence in the Ponzi scheme, at which point the market collapse just feeds on itself. Make no mistake: more governments will go under, and they can’t all be bailed out.
The powers that be all want to kick the can down the road. All of the bread and circuses they vote for is (for now) keeping the underclass from rioting. Bu tthe bread and circuses are fundamentally unaffortable, and the fall will come sooner or later.
Higher taxation will not fix the problem. When taxation becomes punitive, effort shifts from productive activity to how to avoid taxation of productive activity. Corporations change their structures and move offshore. Individuals work off the books, work less, cheat on taxes or expatriate. There’s a lot of a debate about Laffer and his curve, but there’s no debate that he’s fundamentally right: the dispute is only about the shape of the curve is.
When the change comes it’s hard to predict: but it’s almost certainly going to come in the form of a collapse of fiat currency against hard goods. It may be the case that Social Security and welfare checks still go out, but they aren’t going to be as useful when a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk costs $50. Fred Reed hit the nail on the head in his interpretation of the London riots: http://www.fredoneverything.net/LondonRiots.shtml
This will result in a decine of living standards for virtually everyone, but the decline will favor people with marketable skill sets. People whose skill sets used to be in government makework jobs or people whose only skill was collecting welfare and food stamps from Big Government will have a tough time. (And will be pissed about it.) People who can fix things, build things and grow things will have a higher relative status.
Let us hope that the collapse just comes in the form of a decade of hard years and austerity while leaving a shell of rudimentary democracy intact, like what happened in England after its empire collapsed. It would be far worse (but seemingly more likely if history is any predictor) for a dictator to emerge. If that happens, let’s pray that it’s a friendly dictator like Lee Kuan Yew had in Singapore instead of a crazy warmonger like Adolf Hitler.
A lot of social forces (feminism, affirmative action, political correctness) that are rallied against on this blog and others in the manosphere are not sustainable without large underlying support from Big Government. However, the end of Big Government is coming. The cracks are visible everywhere. May you live in interesting times.
It would be far worse (but seemingly more likely if history is any predictor) for a dictator to emerge.
This is very interesting as Latina we already had our age of dictators: trujillo, somoza,pinochet…the muslims still live in many cases under this political situation (one of the reasons I think neither them or us is very fond of writing/reading about dystopian futures is because we already lived dystopian past and presents) but anglosphere never had this phenomenon. Is there is actually a real possibility of First world allowing this to happen?
Failed democracies tend to become dictatorships rather than constructively reforming their democracies. Democracy is a fairly recent development in the world so there aren’t that many examples of failing democracies (since there aren’t that many democracies that could fail).
Examples of democracies that became dictatorships:
Ancient Rome became the Roman Empire
Italy and Germany ditched democracy and became dictatorships in the 1930s
Japan went from democracy to dictatorship in the late 1920s
There are probably more. The key point is that what caused the transition was social forces that tore these countries apart and their citizens decided that a dictatorship was more effective than a bickering, ineffective democracy.
In the emerging world (Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, most of Central/South America and Africa) the line between what is a democracy and what is a dictatorship is much more blurred and there are a lot of DINOs (Democracies in Name Only).
This is a very good article by Amanda Devine, that was in the Australian Telegraph.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/pregnancy-of-penny-wongs-female-partner-no-cause-for-mass-celebration/story-e6frezz0-1226114379311
She speaks out against gay marriage and how it is undermining families as well. Penny Wong for those who do not know is a minister in the f**ked up Australian government, led by an equally f**ked up Prime Minister in Julia Gillard. Tony Abbott is leader of the opposition who has been married for over twent years and has three children.
“As a Catholic, I believe the push for same-sex marriage is not about enhancing the lives of gay couples. In countries where it has been legalised, there has been no rush to the altar.
The issue is largely symbolic. It is simply a political tool to undermine the last bastion of bourgeois morality – the traditional nuclear family.
You only had to see the burning streets of London last week to see the manifestation of a fatherless society.
The collapse of family life in Britain has been laid bare, reported to have the highest proportion of single mothers in Europe and nearly half of all children suffering family breakdown by the age of 16.
Fatherless families in underprivileged boroughs of London are the norm.
People were quick to call for sanctions on the parents of feral youth looting shops and torching buildings.
Clapham shop-owner Elizabeth Pilgrim wailed to the BBC: “They’re feral rats. What are those parents doing? Those children should be at home. They shouldn’t be out here causing mayhem.”
But the fact is the fathers of those children are probably long gone. There are no “parents” to take charge and exert control over their wayward children.
The welfare state has taken over the father’s role of protector, provider, and enforcer, substituting sit-down money for love and care. And what a mess it has made: fatherless boys full of incoherent rage, fatherless girls having another generation of fatherless babies to a string of feckless men.
It is politically incorrect to say so, but the ideal situation for a child is to be brought up in an intact family with a father and a mother.
As a rule, what prevents social chaos and the underclass is an intact family. What keeps children safe is an intact family, with a father in the home.
Sure, there are aberrations, and you can always find evils within traditional families, domestic violence and child abuse.
But even this imperfect institution is better than the Hobbesian social chaos the children of the underclasses have been born into for the last 50 years.
Marriage is not just a private relationship: it is a social good. Collectively, the erosion of the institution of marriage, and the relegating of fathers to the sidelines, is destructive to society.”
Funny enough I was asking about the London riots to my very liberal relatives (they are half British) and they glossed over the issue like Olympic skaters “well this class doesn’t has a chance to get out of it because they don’t have opportunities or good education and blah blah blah…” no one came forward and tried to point out that even if UK has a better welfare system having a bunch of out of wedlock kids concentrate in one place with mothers with the entitle mentality of a teenager is a bad idea. I wonder how long can we PC this facts?
Kathy,
I find that writer’s argument fatuous. What on earth does gay people getting married have to do with fatherhood in straight divorces? The horse is long since out of the barn when it comes to the Western state ruining marriage as a family institution – no-fault divorce effectively ended the concept of marriage in this country and that had nothing to do with gay people (don’t know if NFD is law in Australia).
In the emerging world (Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, most of Central/South America and Africa) the line between what is a democracy and what is a dictatorship is much more blurred and there are a lot of DINOs (Democracies in Name Only).
There’s a difference between dictatorship and authoritarian but thanks to liberals sometimes people can’t tell the difference. You’re right that in most of these emerging countries the line between democracy and dictatorship are blurred but others are just authoritarian.
Badger says:
I find that writer’s argument fatuous. What on earth does gay people getting married have to do with fatherhood in straight divorces? The horse is long since out of the barn when it comes to the Western state ruining marriage as a family institution – no-fault divorce effectively ended the concept of marriage in this country and that had nothing to do with gay people (don’t know if NFD is law in Australia).
Comments like this is one of the reasons why sometimes I don’t like the manosphere. Have you seen the political profiles of the manosphere? -> http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2010/05/revealing-political-profiles.html
Feminism denies any gender differences and believes in equality so in a strange way they might have enabled things such as transgenderism. If a man and a woman are the same then why even bother? Why not two men, two women, polygamy and whatnot? There’s also the whole aspect of autonomy and rebellion against natural norms. I browsed the comments from the Penny wong article and most of them were liberals supportive of this catastrophe. A couple are brainwashed children of these types of inhuman and immoral rearing.
Single parenthood is kind of similar to homosexual parenting since in both instances the opposite sex is absent. In single motherhood we have no fathers and so the same situation replicates with female homosexuals. In single fatherhood we have no mothers and so the same situation replicates with male homosexuals. Both situations fall short of the nuclear family ideal where a biological father and mother are present and together.
The institution of marriage is ruined but it wasn’t just feminism though that is a huge factor. Sexual liberation and liberal morales played a huge part in it as well and things such as feminism and homosexuality are without a doubt intrinsically tied to them. Just eliminating no-fault divorce will be a tremendous victory but it won’t be enough. We need to advocate things such as chastity and reproduction versus promiscuity and recreation. Homosexuality is naturally at the core a sterile orientation. What liberals are also doing is inverting the paradigm. They are breaking the traditional heterosexual family in pieces and things such as open relationships, polygamy, homosexual, transgenderism, single parenthood and whatnot become alternatives.
Liberal heterosexuals are kind of like European liberals (and in fact most of them tend to be one and the same). European liberals enable minority dysfunction and indeed their greatest allies -> http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2011/08/two-photos-that-show-sickness-of-dwl.html
Liberal heterosexuals work together with homosexuals and transgenders to do the same. To me the house is burning down thanks to liberal heterosexuals but adding more fuel to the flame isn’t the answer. There’s also the important aspect of the time period. Liberal heterosexuality is early decay and the sanction of homosexuality is late decay. Both are wrong and install depravity, just at different time periods. To acknowledge this universal and logical factor is quite different from affirming that homosexuality itself is a non-issue.
Badg, This gay marriage push for acceptance is contributing to the collapse of the institution of marriage, and the breakdown of the family unit. In the instance of these two women, what kind of a life will the child have without a father in it’s life?
In any case, mine was basically a response to the link below, posted by Dalrock. All these fatherless children come from promiscuous women who are not in fact married at all, but just continue to have children out of wedlock.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100100154/london-riots-absent-fathers-have-a-lot-to-answer-for/
And, here where I live, marriage is very much the norm for most couples.
According to the latest divorce statistics available, the divorce rate in Australia is on decline: after the peak divorce rate of 2.7% in 2001, it reached 2.3% in 2007 for 1,000 of residential population – the lowest since 1988.
And, to answer your question, yes Australia does have NFD.(which I do not agree with btw) There is also shared parenting laws here, so the mother cannot take the kids away from their father. The laws are not perfect, but at least there is recognition here that the father is just as important as the mother in a child’s life.
I will say that I think trad/cons are missing huge potential allies with the idea of keeping same sex couples out of the “traditional two household and commitment marriage” model many liberals don’t listen to our warnings because they only hear “I hate gays”, (and I personally don’t have a problem with gays I have a problem with promiscuous people gay/straight or whatever) the same way many trad/cons don’t listen to many claims because they hear “I hate unborn fetuses” so is a problem in both sides, IMO.
.
Accepting homosexuals that do see that the model of marriage (two people) and children is superior to single household with a string of boyfriends coming and going, will mean a lot more people willing to listen what the traditional model might offer. No to mention that if you accept them adopting the feminists will lose the whole “there are not enough families to adopt children so abortion is preferable to orphanages or being a homeless kid”. Contraire to popular believe, liberals don’t agree on everything gays are not as open to bisexuals as they would like to, neither all gays accept the idea of open marriages, many of them kind of loathe it, so there is potential for them to side with trad/cons in all except on who they sleep with.
Of course this is just the way I see the dynamics of liberals and conservatives and having talked to both kinds of positions I see some overlap that could be useful, but then I studied Theology and many religions also overlap and that doesn’t change the rivalry or make them more tolerant to each other,so feel free to disagree just wanted to add my two cents, YMMV.
“Just eliminating no-fault divorce will be a tremendous victory but it won’t be enough”
That is all you need. Bring fault back to marriage with real consequences reguardless of sex and these problems go away very quickly. Even so women will not take too kindly to actual equality under the law.
Proving fault in marriage is a mess. Who cheated on who first? Who first broke the vows? It’s soooo hard to prove by any objective standard what really happened.
It would be much better if we just removed the incentives for divorce. Scrap material presumption of custody, child support that is based on some flat standard and percentage of custody, rather than as a misnamed form of alimony. Those and a few other changes would remove the incentive for women to divorce without forcing the legal system into the dirty business of figuring how why the marriage failed.
Social change only emerges through violence, when its top down it comes through laws, when its bottom up it comes through physical force.
Considering fathers are at the very bottom of the political totem pole I can only see it happening through wholesale destruction of the current political order.
According to historical cycles, anarchy, dicatorship, oligarchies, mob rule (where we are now) and back to anarchy, we’re in for a bumpy ride.
@ Kathy
Are those divorce rates per year or marriage based? Cause the ABS says 1/3 of marriages are now ending in divorce in australia…..
Is it just me or did my response towards Stephenie dissappeared?
I will say that I think trad/cons are missing huge potential allies with the idea of keeping same sex couples out of the “traditional two household and commitment marriage” model many liberals don’t listen to our warnings because they only hear “I hate gays”, (and I personally don’t have a problem with gays I have a problem with promiscuous people gay/straight or whatever) the same way many trad/cons don’t listen to many claims because they hear “I hate unborn fetuses” so is a problem in both sides, IMO.
If the opposition misinterprets us and misunderstands us then that is their problem. Sometimes one shouldn’t befriend an enemy. We don’t need these “potential allies”. The only potential ally we need and indeed possess is goodness, truth and beauty.
Accepting homosexuals that do see that the model of marriage (two people) and children is superior to single household with a string of boyfriends coming and going, will mean a lot more people willing to listen what the traditional model might offer. No to mention that if you accept them adopting the feminists will lose the whole “there are not enough families to adopt children so abortion is preferable to orphanages or being a homeless kid”. Contraire to popular believe, liberals don’t agree on everything gays are not as open to bisexuals as they would like to, neither all gays accept the idea of open marriages, many of them kind of loathe it, so there is potential for them to side with trad/cons in all except on who they sleep with.
I greatly disagree. If the gender doesn’t matter then why on earth should the number matter? Why not three or four people? A child should not be deprived of a father and a mother. The modern model of marriage is a corrupted and depraved. The true model of marriage isn’t just “two people”. In genuine marriage we have a monogamous relationship between two individuals of the opposite sex united for the purpose of being mates (e.g. God made them male and female for companioship), bringing stability and building society (civilization) and child rearing (preferably their own biological offspring). It’s to honour the eyes of God.
In the instance of these two women, what kind of a life will the child have without a father in it’s life?
Agreed and sadly Badger doesn’t see it. How can he not see two women and no father in sight? There’s also another monstrosity here (a double catastrophe I call it) -> http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2011/05/imagine-this-family-15-years-from-now/
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3307.0.55.001
Hope this helps blogster.
See here too.
http://mydivorce.com.au/divorceadvice/divorce-statistics-australia.htm
You are indeed correct in saying that a third of marriages in Oz do end in divorce.
“I greatly disagree. If the gender doesn’t matter then why on earth should the number matter? Why not three or four people? A child should not be deprived of a father and a mother. The modern model of marriage is a corrupted and depraved. The true model of marriage isn’t just “two people”. In genuine marriage we have a monogamous relationship between two individuals of the opposite sex united for the purpose of being mates (e.g. God made them male and female for companioship), bringing stability and building society (civilization) and child rearing (preferably their own biological offspring) It’s to honour the eyes of God. ”
Completely agree with you Liz!
Btw, did not realize it was YOU when I commented in response to what you said over at Throne and Altar.. Long moniker. 😀
Blogster ,have replied to your query. Comment in moderation due to links, mate.
I have conflicting feeling on whether child-support is good or not. It forced my father to contribute more then the bare minimum required for us to survive…. assuming he could have managed the bare minimum without being sent to the poor house that is. He might have had to go a bit under that. Tough times.
On the other hand, the child support check might have kept him from having charges pressed against him and being sent to jail. Which would have stopped me from having to deal with him for a period and it also would have destroyed his life.
So it’s kinda hard to see which would have been better.
alcestiseshtemoa – in regards to your seeking advice for upcoming marriage, FWIW I would advise you to consider the teachings of the church and repudiating the teachings of the world. Remember you have no obligation to live as the world encourages you to live, you must determine your own actions and live with the consequences.
The way I see it, Christianity has been so effectively removed from government that if we ever could call the state a christian one, we can no longer do so. Governments cannot be looked upon as the source of morality, and cannot be depended on to rule in favor of the moral against the immoral. This will have real and sad consequenses, but I’ll not dwell on those here but rather address your question.
In a way, this new understanding of the state and Christianity is more of a return to it’s roots, when the practice was ignored, ridiculed, or persecuted. As such, I have studied the writings of the church leaders of those times for guidance for how to conduct my own life, as a pilgrim among unbelievers. There is much fruit in such study, and I would encourage you to take it up. In particular, study the letters of the new testiment and the writings of St. Augustine, both of which touch on the matter of marriage in a world such as the one we find ourselves in.
In those days, poligamy and homosexualtiy was common and poligamy at least was recognized by the state as legal (the direction I am certain we are currently headed). Paul encourages men to marry only one woman (if indeed he should marry at all). Both Augustine and Paul encourages women to be submissive to their husbands, as their husbands should be to Christ (they go into more detail than I do here). I would encourage you (as I will my own children) to adhere to such ideas, and find a man who is willing to put himself under the authority of Christ. Finding such a man, you should be willing to put yourself under his authority. The modern feminist woman rejects this idea even as she finds in practice whenever she marries she is in the power of the man she chose anyway, and you might say that the current legislative problem as outlined in Dalrock’s post above is the modern woman’s attempt to get the state to overturn this simple reality. As an aside, this is why marriage is so screwed up right now – just as when the state interferes with commerce, favoring one party over anohter it always hurts commerce as a whole, so too when the state interferes with marriage, favoring one party at the expense of another, it always hurts the overall good of the institution.
I would also encourage you to be married by the state and not just by God, as if you are not you open yourself and the church up to ridicule by the world, and you need to remember you are an ambassador of Christ and should always put your best foot forward – be in the world even as you are not of it.
Good luck and God bless.
default father custody + no fault divorce should result in reasonably stable families. Or at least affirmative action to boost father custody up to 50%. Fathers who don’t want custody can pay the child support. Women won’t like default father custody, but in that case, they can just have children outside of a marriage contract. Another solution would be to expand the prenuptial to cover child custody.
Thank you for the advice Dan in Philly. Appreciated.
This is an excellent, excellent summing up of the situation, Dalrock. Badger is correct, most people in the US who don’t know anyone that’s gone through the meatgrinder of the divorce industry have no idea what’s involved. And the first reaction of most men to this information is a skeptical disbelief, coupled with a scoffing idea that “Well, those must must be losers to let that happen”. I find that attitude very strongly among conservatives, social and otherwise. But there’s a liberal variant along the lines of “Well, he must have done something for that to happen”. (Actually, in many cases it is what he did not do that contributed to the situation – he didn’t Game his wife)
What is truly astounding is the number of rational men who can’t see that there are clear, defined, obvious financial incentives for women with children to divorce their husbands, in addition to the emotional ones (and the emotional ones likely matter more to many women). That quote from the women who basically wanted to drop a neutron bomb on her world, removing men, is very revealing indeed.
But that is how some number of women think. In my opinion, such women are “married” to their children. They can be seen around us in all stages; I’ve seen them myself. Just this summer I met purely by accident a woman pushing 40 in the initial post-divorce euphoria; the new hairdo, the brand new car, the new clothing that goes with the recently lost weight. Last year I was at a dinner party and sat near a woman in another phase: the woman in her mid-40’s whose youngest child has just graduated High School and just left home. That woman was pleasant and cheerful enough, but there was a definite air of lonesomeness and a whiff of desperation, as her empty nest is empty indeed. Her ex has a new LTR, not sure if he’s married or not. A few years ago I was helping a friend with some yard work, and a neighbor woman in her 50’s came up. Talk ensued and it came out that her house would be for sale soon – her youngest child was 18-20 and in college, and “the owners” of the house wanted to sell. A bit more talk, and it came out that she was divorced. Ah. So “the owners” would be — you and your ex husband, and he’s selling his half of the house, and you can’t pay for it, right? Bet he’s glad to be out from under that child support now. Maybe his current LTR is looking forward to the increase in income in that family?
Dalrock has shown over and over the “selling” of divorce, often by playing up the euphoria phase, but what is not seen in these pieces he points to? The cost is not seen. The cost to men is not seen, nor is the cost to children seen, nor is the later cost to women seen. It’s like any con — the offer of something for nothing.
I invite the reader to back up and look at the charts and numbers. Bear in mind that in the US, child support is not paid from ex husband to ex wife directly, but rather from ex husband to the government, and from government to ex wife. That is how it is possible to put men in prison when they owe too much back child support; their debt is to the government. That is how it is possible to prohibit a man who owes too much back child support from obtaining a hunting license – the game and fish / wildlife services database is tied in to the state child support database (it is a mystery to me how this particular incentive is supposed to work, but it is the law). Now, reader, consider how much that costs. How many computers databases must be maintained by skilled programmers, how many clerks must work in state agencies processing checks from fathers and cutting checks to mothers, how many functionaries must go around checking up on the issuance of checks (and hunting fraud), and so forth.
Child support amounts to a huge, ill-defined, financial overhead to US society, and we all pay for it one way or another. How much are we spending to deduct money out of divorced men’s paychecks, and put it into divorced women’s bank accounts, I wonder? Even with direct deduction / direct deposit it is not trivial, and it is buried in the “do-good” part of government budgets, the social welfare/ “protection of families” line items.
Feminists routinely glide over the social costs of no fault divorce and child support, I’m sure they won’t pay any attention to the financial cost. The links that Dalrock has provided on the social cost go down another rabbit hole, and it’s not exactly a secret what the bad outcomes for children of divorced families are: increased odds of early drug use, early alcohol use, (and increased chances of addiction later in life to both/either), increased odds of early sexual experience setting the stage for another go ’round the cycle, increased odds of failure in school … the list goes on. And it’s been known for over 25 years, maybe 30 years. If there was some kind of germ that did that to children, huge efforts would have been in place for years to find a cure, develop a vaccine, there would be wide spread efforts to warn parents of the dread disease.
None of that is going on. Outside the various pieces of the men-oriented web, I don’t see anyone calling for an end to no fault (really “men’s fault” ) divorce. Even pushing towards joint custody of children is an uphill fight, although it has happened in some stats in the US. So everyone is paying for a bad situation, some people multiple ways, but change is slow to nonexistent. Why?
IMO because not only of entrenched groups that financially profit from divorce – the divorce industry, including lawyers, judges, various state agencies – but because no fault divorce coupled with child support feeds female hypergamous tendencies. It’s like the lottery. Most women who drop that neutron bomb on their marriage will find it much more difficult to “trade up” to the ideal man in their fantasies (they won’t be finding a reclusive millionaire gardener in their back yard, for example) but something like it could happen. They could find that “soulmate” that is missing from their lives. And they could win the big Powerball, too. But the odds are heavily against in all the above cases; 1 in 1 million might be optimistic.
What kind of social policy is it that ultimately exists to feed middle aged women’s fantasies, to enable them to retain their children and extract resources from one or more men that are essentially barred from having any meaningful interaction with those children, freeing said women to go “pursue Mr. Right”?
I’d say, an insane social policy, that in the long run will fail.
Addendum to the above: the divorced woman whose house would soon be up for sale was right. It did come up for sale, and it was priced below market value (this was during the US housing bubble) for quick sale. The woman neighbor moved to some townhouse. Maybe her husband dumped her to “trade up” for a tighter, younger wife. Maybe they parted ways amicably, although the details of the house sale suggest otherwise.
And maybe, just maybe, at some point in their lives when the two children were early school age, she poured all of her attention into them and her job, and left her husband in the cold. Maybe he found he was not regarded as a man by her anymore, but there were other women who did look at him as a man. Or maybe she just developed a problem with no name, discovering she was fond of him – she “loved him” – but was not “in love” with him anymore. Given the 2:1 ratio of female vs. male initiated divorces that’s been building for a while, the last guess has a higher weight of probability.
From what I can tell, her sons turned out all right. Many children of divorce do. But they themselves are more prone to divorce, and thus even if the divorce of one generation is “friendly”, that action sets up the next generation for a greater chance of divorce, and thus the grandchildren of divorce are at higher risk for any number of bad outcomes.
Child support was supposed to alleviate all of this, by the way. Child support was supposed to keep the children of divorce in the home they were already living in, and living more or less in the style to which they were accustomed – the music lessons, gymnastics, sports teams, and other activities would go on uninterrupted, paid for by the guy who was no longer allowed in the door.
Funny how money doesn’t seem to substitute for a father very well, no matter how much there might be (and two households cannot be cheaper to run than one, not in reality).
Very important posting, Dalrock.
Opus
Extrapolating from the charts above, you can see that the the most unstable relationships are in Scandinavia and Britain. Breivik is Norwegian (absent father)
From what I have read, Breivik’s father did not leave, his mother drove him out via divorce. Said mother later on became incapacitated due to a rare complication of her infection with genital herpes. Breivik himself in his rather long text goes on about this, it appears in some excerpts I’ve read. So it is not just “absent father”, it’s “father who was driven away by mother who became a carousel rider, and then became a basket case thanks to disease she caught from the carousel”.
None of this justifies anything Breivik did, I wish to make that clear. But it does cast a clearer light upon some aspects of his personality. Going by the suicide numbers for Nordics, it is certain that there are other men with similar upbringing to Breiviks who choose self-murder rather than his horrible route. But that could change given all the publicity.
Very powerfully put. Rock on, Dalrock.
Don’t forget independent liberated career women and their IVF babies.
More common would be the single women who choose artificial insemination. From what I can tell, the sperm banks that were created in the 60’s to help married couples where the man was infertile cater mainly nowadays to single women and homosexual couples.
But in all of these are really a tiny number, when compared to the growing number of “baby mommies” who have basically “married” the government, and the generation of women who dropped the neutron bomb on their marriage. if government subsidizes something, whether it’s converting corn to alcohol to fuel cars, or single women bearing children, that ‘something’ is likely to increase. Paying women to have babies outside of marriage has clearly resulted in a lot more women doing that.
However, were there to be any attempt to roll back government support for single women with children, there is no doubt in my mind that three groups would rise up in a rage: feminists, for obvious reasons, liberals because of their politics of “government as sugar daddy”, and trad-cons, who have always been suckers for slogans having to do with “it’s for the children”.
Therefore, child support will continue. Funding of baby-mommies will continue. And the damage will get worse.
I don’t wish to police homosexual lives, but do you know what one of my main arguments against gay adoption is? Children need fathers. Of course they need mothers too, but most everyone knows that; it’s fathers that society’s forgetting about, and I believe more gay women than gay men adopt (I know they can be good parents, but raising a kid with only a single gender parenting them, whether there are two members of this gender or not, should never be the norm). A liberal man I said all this to didn’t like to hear it, but whatever; I’d think the need for fathers would be a celebrated fact, not a denied one.
Good comment Badger. Abandoment and adultery is no longer the most common and greatest reason for divorce nowadays. Now it’s all about sexual liberation, “not being in love” and whatnot.
Well, Elizabeth, I’m pleased to see you finally admitting this.
No wonder so many people in the traditional conservative blogosphere want to avoid and reject the state on aspects such as marriage.
Yet it appears that many, indeed a majority, of tradcons still expect men in general to march right up and get a state marriage. At least that’s the impression I get from cough various sites. Can you explain this?
“The modern model of marriage is a corrupted and depraved. The true model of marriage isn’t just “two people”. In genuine marriage we have a monogamous relationship between two individuals of the opposite sex united for the purpose of being mates (e.g. God made them male and female for companioship), bringing stability and building society (civilization) and child rearing (preferably their own biological offspring) It’s to honour the eyes of God”
BEAUTIFULLY said.
Jennifer, in my experience the only time that any attention is paid to the need children have for their fathers is when it’s part of yet another lecture, book, screed, or sermon on how men need to “do more”. It’s generally used as a convenient stick to beat men with. And it is quite galling.
Men as a rule love their children just as much as women do. They manifest it differently, much less visibly, but they do. And I believe that women count on that. I believe that married women who are “married” to their children count on the love that whats-his-name has for the children to keep him around, no matter how badly he is treated by his “wife”. I believe that divorced women count on that love to keep the child support flowing, too, which is why they become so vituperative if the money is late, or worse yet dries up.
But it’s never recognized. In fact, it’s even demonized — a man on the one hand is supposed to be an involved father, on the other hand any interest by any man in any children including his own can be painted as potential pedophilia. It is more than annoying, it is angering and disgusting.
Child support as alimony – chil-mony – is but one part of the wider demonization of men, and manhood.
I see two things that would somewhat help:
1. no no-fault divorce.
If you file, it is presumed to be your fault unless you can prove otherwise. The few horrible instances of actual abuse are pretty easy to demonstrate. Cheating is provable. If the other person actually did something awful, you can make it their fault. If two people really truly both agree to amicably split, they can work out their own settlement with no trouble.
Otherwise, if you want out, then it’s your fault the marriage is broken.
The person at ‘fault’ for the divorce does not receive any support of any kind.
The person *not* at fault is the presumed custodial parent, with visitation rights given to the other parent. Either agreement between the two or extremely persuasive arguments are necessary to get a different result.
If there is to be any support, it must be managed by someone other than the custodial parent. The money should be spend directly on the child, and the custodial parent must account for the spendings of all money received. Support money should only be enforced as long as visitation rights are also enforced.
2. male ‘legal abortion’.
Right now, babies are completely at the whims of women. women choose when they want to have babies and when they don’t, and men basically just have to try to find a woman who will take their opinion into consideration. This is hardly fair. We can’t do anything about the biological realities, but we can even things up in the legal sphere.
As long as women are legally permitted to abort a child with no input from the father (whether or not one agrees with this, it is the current legal reality), men should have the same option – at least legally. Men have a similar span as women – from the time *they are informed of their impending paternity*, they have three months to choose whether they want to be a father. If they do, great. They may still have to fight for it with the mother of their child if they failed to marry first, but they can get there. But if they are not married, and they don’t want to be fathers, women can’t force them. They can petition the courts for a ‘legal abortion’, which basically states “I don’t want to be a father right now, and if it were my body, I’d abort the kid”. With this granted, they give up any possible future paternity rights and responsibilities. Now the mother knows what she’s dealing with. She can either choose to have the baby and raise it alone, or she can choose to put it up for adoption, or she can choose to make the same decision and exercise her legal right to abortion. But she can’t entrap the man into paying her to raise the child he doesn’t want.
The main criticism I’ve heard of this idea is that it takes men off the hook – well, yes it does. Right now they are on the hook with no choices. This would require women to stop sleeping with every bad boy she sees, and actually consider the consequences. If she’s sleeping with a guy who will abandon her if she gets pregnant, she can no longer just plan to have the state imprison him for her, she must decide to take appropriate precautions NOT to get pregnant with a man who won’t stick around – just like most of history!
It’s sure not the ideal state of society, but it at least evens things out a little for men in the meantime.
Thoughts?
Kai you are on the right track. It is the little things at the micro level that are the root. Any man should be legally able to abandon a child has women are today. Any mother can just drop a child off no questions ask. All of the vitrues of chaste and marriage and religious commitment with return very quickly. If the father has no stake he can just leave. Feminism dies the next day,and this society wide pop culture of misandry ends real quick.
As long as you can force people at gun point to take care of you,you have no reason to have empathy for them.(and they don’t) And a very strange thing will happen. Women will begin to feel happiness and appreciation for the men in her life.
The purpose and goal of MGTOW is to deny as many women as possible within the current laws of misandry the benefits of feminism enforced with misandry. In topic with the current article no male contact no baby no child support. A non hormonal male birth control pill will be the restorer of politeness.
Greyghost, I don’t think feminism would die if child support were taken away. Surely, the lack of child support, if it were to have any effect at all, would increase the likelihood of abortion, as well as the motivation of women to find other resources besides the men in their lives to pay the bills. (Indeed, most women today have jobs and can support their own children, albeit at the same standard as they would if married to another earner and/or receiving support.) Taking away child support would probably only affect the poorest women, who are the least likely to be feminists anyway, no?
Chri$t. Reading articles like this makes me so happy to be a middle-aged virgin omega.
I’ve been very busy, but wanted to check in and let Greyghost and alcestiseshtemoa know I saw their questions and will answer them when I have time.
Also, I found some updated data from the census on child support. The paper I referenced is pretty old. It took a good amount of digging but I finally found some census data from 2007 which I will share. It looks slightly less biased against men, but still overwhelmingly so. I’ll do a write up on the new data I found and then edit this post with the latest info.
Thanks everyone for your comments.
@Doomed Harlot
From what I have read for that demographic child support is mostly about the government recouping its welfare costs for the woman and her child. I think some states will give the woman $50 out of it as an incentive to bring the man into the system. Here is a NY Times article from 2007 complaining about this. I don’t know if the laws have been changed since then.
“I don’t wish to police homosexual lives, but do you know what one of my main arguments against gay adoption is? Children need fathers.”
Don’t get me wrong I totally agree with the ideal and perfect model to be father and mother. I’m mostly working from an estrategic POV, there are homosexuals that aside from their sexual inclination agree with many trad/cons lifestyle. And I think it would be a better move from us to embrace them instead of drove them to the crazy ones. But then I know that for many people they believe is God’s will for them to keep them out. I just wanted to mention it, because is better than never saying it.
Kai
I will say that I agree with this, but I think also there should be a way for the father to have a say if he wants the baby. Some men had expressed the desire to keep their babies while their women just have an abortion for whatever reason. I think it will be fair for them to have a way to keep them if they want to,YMMV.
I’m not sure how my mileage might vary on a philosophic question…
I think it’s a horrible situation that two people create a baby, and then one has no say whatsoever it whether it makes it to birth. I think that if a man is willing to singly parent the child, and can pay for any medical costs along the way, it’s pretty awful that he still has no choice in the matter.
But there are biological differences here that can’t just be legislated away. And I don’t want to make this a debate on the morality of abortion.
The question of a man who wants it and a woman who doesn’t is difficult and complicated due to biology.
but the issue of a woman who wants it and a man who doesn’t isn’t difficult – the biological differences can easily be made into legal equality. So I think it’s at least a start.
“greyghost says:
Any man should be legally able to abandon a child has women are today.”
Well, we’re on slightly different tracks here. I can agree with some obligation to a child you have chosen to raise, and I’m not okay with dads randomly buggering off when a child is ten. Once you’ve made a commitment in good faith* to a child to raise it, it’s a different matter. (One that doesn’t necessarily justify government intervention, but it’s an entirely different issue from the one I’m mentioning.) My point is simply with the issue of whether to become a parent in the first place. Right now women have that choice, and men don’t. If both choose not to use protection, the woman has recourse and the man does not. This is the inequality with which I disagree, and which I think is pretty simple to fix by extending the legal rights of women to men. That is why I also give it a time limit similar to that imposed on women, except that the time limit starts when the man is informed, regardless of when the pregnancy began, so that a man cannot end up trapped by not being told.
*ie. the commitment was not made on false premises such as lying about paternity or the like.
I’d love to see your plan for non-hormonal male birth control pills. We don’t even have something non-hormonal for women. I think it would be awesome for both to exist, but I haven’t seen anything looking towards that existing in the near future. I’d be thrilled if it is out there.
Legal abortion and then actual abortion?? My God, what a tragic scenario 😦
Yet it appears that many, indeed a majority, of tradcons still expect men in general to march right up and get a state marriage. At least that’s the impression I get from cough various sites. Can you explain this?
Traditional conservatives are often torn and a few times confused. For example our loyalty is to religion and yet modern governments are often secular and ranging anywhere from indifferent to anti-religious in the Western world in particular but we are told that we should participate in public places. We believe in traditional marriage and yet the legal system is corrupted and much of it endorses liberalism and heresies. We realize and often write about the influence that the liberal worldview has had throughout the world and yet we don’t completely disregard them (liberals) as too late to save. Even in the darkest times plenty of far-right wingers see the light and perhaps this light lightens up the room so that the darkness is forgotten and not seen. I think since traditional conservatives believe and hold the religious ideal of marriage as good many mistake it for the view that they see the modern state of marriage as good when in reality this is false. They care about genuine marriage (the belief, the idea, those practices), not modern liberal influenced corrupted marriage. I believe traditional conservatives are a couple of times idealistic and this has been simultaneously their greatest strength and weakness. They’re not like left-liberals (far-leftists, anarchists), centrists, apolitical nor right-liberals (neoconservatives, libertarians, classical liberas) that’s for sure.
Nailed it, Alces.
“Men as a rule love their children just as much as women do. They manifest it differently, much less visibly, but they do. And I believe that women count on that. I believe that married women who are “married” to their children count on the love that whats-his-name has for the children to keep him around, no matter how badly he is treated by his “wife”. I believe that divorced women count on that love to keep the child support flowing, too, which is why they become so vituperative if the money is late, or worse yet dries up”
Very sad and true. Anon, about Godless women.
When traditional conservatives are talking about men and women marching up to get state marriage they mean in the idea that marriage itself is a good. Many can’t separate it because we are by nature authoritarian. On the other hand most traditional conservatives agree and believe that what is legal and what is moral is different -> http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/019601.html
For example if murder and stealing are legal is it moral? No, it isn’t. You have to dig deep and just right out ask “Are you talking about the current corrupted liberal legal state of marriage or the whole idea of marriage as morally good, God ordained and essential for civilization?” Then you have to play up law vs. morality/ethics since most traditional conservatives don’t view law and morality as the same but as morality enshrined in law. If one goes out and says that what is enshrined in law is immoral and unethical then they start thinking maybe they should either reject or reform the law. Some Christians in Ancient Rome lived in civil disobedience because they would rather follow the (moral) laws of God rather than the (sinful) laws of men. A couple of them became martyrs.
For example this post on ideal of marriage vs modern legal state of marriage -> http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/separate-the-sacrament-of-marriage-from-the-state/
Terri might have waked up and was thinking separation, reformation or going underground. She might have thought “Hey should I follow what is right, moral and God-ordained or what is legal, wrong and sinful? I pick the former.”
In all Anonymous Reader when traditional conservatives get all gushy about marriage they don’t usually mean marriage as in the current state of marriage (though that may come in). They mean they love the belief, practices and ideal of marriage. They want to preserve that. They are also naturally authoritarian and so usually state marriage is mixed up with marriage itself. But they agree and believe that the law and morality/ethics is clearly not the same (e.g. morality/ethics gets enshrined in law and law is kind of a structure for conduct in society). Sorry if I’m confusing in my explanations. Hopefully I helped you get a clearer view on how far-right wingers see this issue.
That’s interesting stuff, Dalrock. The existence of welfare benefits for poor women, I suppose, shows that even the most vulnerable women in our society would not necessarily have to become newly dependent on their children’s fathers if state-enforced child support were limited or done away with.
I am not sure there is any way to even out the injustices of biology. It is true that men may be stuck supporting children they would have aborted if they had the choice, but women bear both the physical and the financial risks of an unwanted pregnancy. No matter what choice the woman makes, she will have to undergo the considerable risks and physical pain of either pregnancy-and-childbirth or an abortion, which isn’t exactly a walk-in-the-park. While the man may be obligated to provide financial support, he is under no obligation to take custody of the child or provide care or to pay for the medical costs of either the pregnancy or the abortion. The woman will have to figure out how to get and pay for the medical care she needs, and if she has the child, she has to figure out how to provide adequately for it, either by giving it up for adoption (which isn’t necessarily that easy if the child doesn’t fit what is considered a desirable demographic, i.e. healthy and white), or by taking on its support and care for the next 18 years.
I doubt there is any solution to unwanted pregnancy that is perfectly fair to the man, the woman, and the child all at once. I think it is incumbent on anyone who has sex (whether within marriage or outside of marriage) to take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and also to consider and to get on the same page with one’s partner about what will happen if there is an unwanted pregnancy.
I have several female friends with kids and they to a “man” (sorry had to ) can’t wait for the kids to be 18 and out of the house. The cold heart and steely eyes are somewhat frightening. My sainted mum informed Mrs and me when our first was born, that babysitting was out of the question, she raised hers and she’s done with that!
I was at a domestic last night, and the soon-to-be ex could care less about tossing out the ol man out in front of the screaming kids…they wanted their daddy to stay. She yelled at them ( age 6-9 respectively) to “grow up”…wow, Mother Theresa move over.
Daddy, as we’re walking to his car, tells me she is expecting her boyfriend over later and wanted him gone, when he refused she claimed she would bang her head against a wall and have him arrested for battery. He knew she would, so decided to go before she made shit up and got him arrested. He fears moving out because his lawyer said she would file an abandonment petition. He also fears for the kids nutrition and school schedule…she is preoccupied…I’ll bet she is!
I’d love to tell you this is a rare example, it’s not…
Dalrock, your posts are between the best of the manosphere but you have hit a home-run with this one. It’s one of your finest.
The so-con obsession about gay marriage (while not paying attention to divorce and out-of-wedlock births) is similar to the attitude of the people who was rearranging decks while the Titanic was sinking
Amen Doomed.
Pingback: Latest U.S. Custody and Child Support Data | Dalrock
Kai
You had this to say
“I’d love to see your plan for non-hormonal male birth control pills. We don’t even have something non-hormonal for women. I think it would be awesome for both to exist, but I haven’t seen anything looking towards that existing in the near future. I’d be thrilled if it is out there”
http://www.israel21c.org/health/a-birth-control-pill-for-men This guy here is working to reverse engineer male invertlity. To make it someting to be done on purpose. His mehod is nonhormonal.
To all
There is no legal or finacial risk what so ever for a woman to give birth. no woman is under any legal obligation to be a mother. At any time a woman can chose to not be a mother with no consequence. That is the way it is.
Buck,
you are right on about what is really happening in western society, The laws of misandry that allow that scene to play out needto go away. It should not even be possible for a woman to even think like that much less put that into play.
“We have found that who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce,”
Actually, if you delved into this historically, your would find it is not equal by gender. It is far more accurate to say that when women can get custody of the children, she will be more likely to divorce. Keep in mind that up until the 1860’s, father custody was the norm, meaning that even if the father was a philandering lout, he still retained custody. Yet, for thousands of years up until the 1860’s, the divorce rate remained less than one percent. Fathers, in the vast majority, did not expel their wives from their children’s lives even when they had the absolute authority to do so.
The noble suffragettes, such as Susan B. Anthony, lobbied hard to have custody transferred from the father to the mother. By 1870, assumed mother custody had been instituted, and from 1870 to 1920 the divorce rate rose to 1 in 7, from less than 1 in 100 before 1870 – an unprecedented increase in divorce. Since 1920, the increase in divorce has marginal compared to those first years of changing the assumed custody of the children to the mother.
Historically, as well as in the modern day, women have always left men more than men have left women. Who they didn’t leave though, were their children.
Men love women, women love children, and children love puppies.
There is a hierarchy, and when fathers had assumed custody instead of women, women will stay in marriage in order to maintain contact with children. Men, however, when they have custody of children, tend to care for both the mother and the children, and does not tend to throw the woman out.
What do you think inspired men to die on the Titanic rather than boot the women out to make room for themselves? And why don’t you think we will ever see a time when women will do the same thing for men, and go down with the ship so that men can survive? (The hierarchy just don’t work that way!).
I think it is incumbent on anyone who has sex (whether within marriage or outside of marriage) to take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and also to consider and to get on the same page with one’s partner about what will happen if there is an unwanted pregnancy.
Doomed Harlot I would say that these “unwanted pregnancies” are usually consequences of promiscuity, adultery, drugs or stupidity. A lot of these “unwanted pregnancies” can be prevented but most leftists don’t want to take this route. They want to indulge themselves in gluttony and are surprised to find themselves fat. In fact about 90 to 95% of abortions are because of this. No most abortions aren’t done because of mutations, deformations, incest, rape and mother’s life in danger (which I consider the adequate reasons for abortion). It’s done because of the fickle actions of people.
I too think that decent people need to simply be adults and take responsibility for the fact that sex is linked to procreation.
But I’m realistic about chances. Right now, women are biologically but not legally responsible for their mistakes (ie. they have the legal right to get rid of a child, though it does take some biological toll). Men, on the other hand, don’t have biological consequences, but run the risk of all the legal responsibilities with no choices.
We can’t make the biology fair, but we can at least stop holding men to standards women don’t have to meet.
Despite the biological risks, a number of women don’t take it seriously. I’m suggesting that we put the legal risks in there too and see if that makes women take a little extra thought before they screw.
It puts them at the same level as men, legally speaking – where you really need to consider the other person’s views before you have potentially procreative sex.
Right now, the state tries to slap paternity on a guy no matter what – if it’s his kid and he doesn’t want it, he still has to pay. if it’s not his kid, but he ever acted like a father without that knowledge, he can be forced to pay. if he isn’t told about it for years, he can be forced to pay. Women simply discharge their responsibilities at any point they wish.
“greyghost says:
http://www.israel21c.org/health/a-birth-control-pill-for-men This guy here is working to reverse engineer male invertlity. To make it someting to be done on purpose. His mehod is nonhormonal.”
One guy, not yet trying in primates, and not divulging the workings.
Sounds great, but the chances of this making it to market within ten years seem minimal.
It is definitely an interesting concept for going at the problem from a different direction.
But Kai, if a woman gets an abortion, the man is under no legal or financial obligation to the child. BOTH parties are off the hook legally or financially (though the man might be emotionally hurt or disappointed if he had hoped that his partner would go through with the pregnancy).
If the woman does choose to have the child, then she is absolutely on the hook, just like the man and more so, because she has to have the baby as well as care for it, and because the baby is right there with her. I am not sure why you think that a woman can just walk away. I suppose you may be referring to the options of giving one’s child up for adoption or the states that have laws allowing mothers to leave their babies on the hospital steps. But in reality, I would bet you that most mothers, even those who didn’t want their children, are going to have a hard time actually abandoning their babies on the hospital steps unless they feel they are in an extreme situation. And those that give their children up for adoption may not have an easy time finding a suitable family. (When I was in college, I worried endlessly about how I would find the right family if I were to have an unwanted child, which, thankfully, I never did.) The fact is that when a baby comes out of your body, the baby is there with you and you have to deal with it somehow, even if in extreme cases you decide to walk away from the baby on the hospital steps; and if you do something like leave your baby in the dumpster or the toilet, you better believe you will be held criminally responsible for abuse, endangerment, or homicide.
“Despite the biological risks, a number of women don’t take it seriously. I’m suggesting that we put the legal risks in there too and see if that makes women take a little extra thought before they screw.
It puts them at the same level as men, legally speaking – where you really need to consider the other person’s views before you have potentially procreative sex”
Women take a little extra thought before they screw??? Come on!
Guy doesn’t want a baby, then don’t have sex with some feckless woman. Problem solved. Keep it in ya pants.
In any case abortion is murder and I am bloody well sick and tired of selfish women and men who are only concerned about their own welfare and treat the unborn baby as if it is some sort of commodity or bargaining tool!
Alcestis —
Adultery and promiscuity are not themselves causes of unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancies occur in marriage too. It is just that a married couple may be more likely to either want a child, or be prepared to care for a child even if the child is unwanted, though not necessarily.
And you couldn’t be more wrong that leftists don’t care about preventing unwanted pregnancies. That is why we on the left support comprehensive sex education and measures to increase access to reliable contraception.
Buck —
Is strikes me as absolutely understandable that mothers with young children in the home would look forward to the day when the children are 18 and out of the house. Raising children is an incredibly time-intensive effort involving endless responsibility, worry, and often sheer drudgery. While I know plenty of great fathers, the bulk of these burdens (and the pressure to be Mother Theresa) tends to fall on the mothers. Even though I want a child, I often quaver at the thought of what I may be signing myself up for.
There are certainly lousy mothers out there. And I think it is in poor taste to advertise to all and sundry one’s desire to get one’s kids out of the house. But I don’t think it is cold or inhuman to be weary of the burdens of mothering, or for a grandmother to want to do other things (like your mother) after decades of caring for her own children. And I don’t think we do women or children any favors by pretending that motherhood is an unmitigated joy. And I don’t think it is fair to believe that every woman who is less than thrilled to spend all her time wiping runny noses and baking cookies is some sort of cold, inhuman person. (Would we give a grandfather a hard time if he were uninterested in doing a lot of baby-sitting, i wonder?)
“And I don’t think we do women or children any favors by pretending that motherhood is an unmitigated joy.”
That’s right , DH. It is certainly not for me. It’s a damn hard slog. But I love my kids and I do the best that I can. I am certainly not the best mother in the world. I am under no illusions there. It doesn’t come naturally to me. I worry I panic.. Could not manage without the help of my husband who is a very good Dad.
I would say that I am a better wife than I am a mother. 😉
Probably because I married for love and sex and not to have children ,necessarily.
Nevertheless, I would not be without them . No matter how hard it is. 🙂
Despite the biological risks, a number of women don’t take it seriously. I’m suggesting that we put the legal risks in there too and see if that makes women take a little extra thought before they screw.
Agreed Kai.
Adultery and promiscuity are not themselves causes of unwanted pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancies occur in marriage too. It is just that a married couple may be more likely to either want a child, or be prepared to care for a child even if the child is unwanted, though not necessarily.
If sex is all about recreation in marriage I’m not surprised.
And you couldn’t be more wrong that leftists don’t care about preventing unwanted pregnancies. That is why we on the left support comprehensive sex education and measures to increase access to reliable contraception.
Comprehensive sex education? You have to be kidding me. Far from it. It’s all about liberal morales and less about biology and the sort. Not to mention a couple of the contraception they offer is not only unreliable it’s harmful.
Sex in my marriage is DEFINITELY about recreation. 😉
“If sex is all about recreation in marriage I’m not surprised.”
I’d be interested to know what you think sex in marriage should be about, Liz? 😉
I can’t speak for Alcestis, but I am willing to bet that she is Catholic (and that, unlike many western Catholics, she actually believes what the Church says). If I remember correctly, the Church has said (via encyclicals issued by one or two recent Popes) that the only way to express true conjugal love is to be open to the possibility that the sexual act will produce a child. I have heard Catholics say that sex, even within marriage, is nothing more than “mutual masturbation” if there is no possibility of creating a child. Am I getting this right, Alcestis?
The Church’s opposition to birth control has always struck me as an exceptionally cruel doctrine. I can’t imagine having to go through my reproductive years constantly pregnant or in fear of getting pregnant — or in the alternative, kicking my husband out of bed. I can’t figure out how this kind of tension can be anything but conducive to marital misery — unless you just happen to be one of the few people who really wants 10-15 kids.
No most abortions aren’t done because of mutations, deformations, incest, rape and mother’s life in danger (which I consider the adequate reasons for abortion).
Why is it that even “Christians” say this? Sorry, but this is rubbish. Mother’s life in danger? How exactly do “they” know that pregnancy will kill her and that killing her baby is the cure? Is a human being conceived in rape or incest less of a human being than any other? Is a “deformed” human – or mutated, which I guess includes Down’s babies – any less human?
There is too much room for interpretation of what is meant by “mother’s health” anyway. I’ve heard that rationale used in defence of partial birth murder and no one seems to ask how that grisly “procedure” is less harmful than a c-section, if somehow natural childbirth is so dangerous.
ROFL! DH. I’m a practicing Catholic. (don’t think Al is a Catholic)
Nah, ya got it all wrong mate. 😉
Sex is for unitive and procreative purposes.
From the Catholic Catechism.
2362 “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
Kathy,
I think I got it right, though perhaps I wasn’t clear. I meant that the Church is opposed to sex that is purely recreational, i.e. sex that has no procreative possibility. I assumed that’s what Alcestis was referring to as recreational sex, but again I can’t speak for her!
Curmudgeonlover, My blood runs cold at the thought of the government deciding for me what health risks I should be forced to undergo. Why should the government get to decide that a certain health risk is not that a big deal, or that I should risk death because I don’t 100% “know” that continuing the pregnancy will kill me?
Please show me where I said anything about the government deciding anything. (It’s “loner”, not “lover”). As for 100% knowing a pregnancy won’t kill you, nothing is 100%, including knowing that a partial birth murder or even a regular early term murder won’t harm you.
Laura Bush was told she should abort her twins because it was a high risk pregnancy. Now they are all alive and well. Doctors don’t have crystal balls.
No it’s not DH. My first husband was infertile. Even so, infertility is not grounds for annulment. I obtained an annulment through the Catholic Church because he was incapable of making a commitment at the time of the marriage. If marriage was all about procreation in the Catholic Church it would of course have been grounds for annulment.
So, if a couple find out they are infertile, too bad, the marriage is a valid one. They can copulate to their hearts content.
Also a couple beyond child bearing years can also marry in the Church, because as I said, sex is for unitive AND procreative purposes.
Again from the Catechism
2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”143
It’s all about love, baby. And out of that love a possibility of new life.. The marriage should be open to procreation.
Curmudgeonlover,
So does that mean that you don’t think the government should interfere with a woman’s decision to have a later term abortion?
I agree that doctors don’t have crystal balls. They can tell you the risks and the options available. But just because a doctor cannot preduct an outcome 100%, it doesn’t follow that I am required to roll the dice. These decisions are highly personal. For example, if at eight weeks pregnant, a doctor told me I had a 10% chance of dying if I carried the pregnancy to term, I would get an abortion. If, in the the third trimester, a doctor told me the same thing, I might roll the dice, but I would probably get an abortion if the doctor told me I had a 25% chance of dying. Other woman might make a different calculation — some might not be willing to risk even a 1% chance of dying, and others might still press forward even in the face of an 80% chance. I just don’t see how others can substitute their judgment on behalf of the woman whose life is at risk as to what constitutes a reasonable health decision.
Kathy, I don’t think we really disagree. I get what you are saying, and maybe I am just wrong in my assumptions of what Alcestis is getting at. Looking at Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, he says:
This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a result of laws written into the actual nature of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.
This certainly confirms what you are saying, but also what I am getting at as well (albeit clumsily). Basically, the church is okay with infertility that occurs naturally, but you can’t purposely stop the course of fertility in its tracks by using birth control or a condom. And the church does think that the procreative possibility of sex is necessary in order for married sex to express “true mutual love.” I suspect that is what Alcestis is getting at when she indicates that she is troubled by mere recreational sex on the part of married couples, i.e. sex by couples who use birth control.
I’ll make one last post on this as it’s threatening to derail this thread and we all know where abortion debates go…. It’s not a matter of it being a “highly personal” decision. This isn’t about something arbitrary, it’s about the value of human life and that it isn’t up to us to decide who gets to live and who doesn’t. What about the risks of abortion? There are plenty of those but you only mention the possible risks of a pregnancy.
Reducing your own offspring to a calculation is pretty cold. It’s not “my judgement” but God’s, truly. It’s about the value of human life; as soon as we devalue human life and reduce it to a matter of cold (and unreliable) calculation, we have lost the plot. A world where a mother can kill her own offspring on a 10% bet that it won’t turn out well for her is a world devoid of love.
Curmudgeonlover, I value human life too, but that includes the lives of women! Your preference for sending women to their deaths on the off-chance that the fetus might survive seems at least as cold and cruel as any other calculation, if not more so given that the woman is sentient and knows exactly what is happening to her.
One last thought, what is life without risk anyway? My first baby was premature and no one predicted that, nor did they have any explanation for it after the fact. The second one went to term but I suffered what seemed to be a partial placental abruption during labour, which could have killed both of us, and no one predicted that either, nor did they have any explanation for all the horrible pain (worst of my life, in fact) and bleeding after the fact. I wouldn’t put all my faith in some doctor’s “prediction”.
Curmudgeonlover
This is how it is. Women will always want to have a choice in every thing. Even a helpless human child has no chance at life due to a womans say so. Women are adverse to any code of honor or rules. No matter how christian, liberal, in love or enlightened she will claim to be, a woman will always take her own self interest. With out wellfare,child support, social status of motherhood (a very big one) nearly all children would be aborted. The people that write the the laws of misandry know this about women. That is why the laws are written the way they are. (women vote)
Ask yourself one thing. Why is paternity fraud still perfectly legal and enforced one the chosen man(victim)? hint: no responsibility thing and the vote.
I dunno about the social status of motherhood – seems as soon as one is visibly pregnant everyone has an opinion on what you should or shouldn’t be doing and once the kid is out, it’s open season on endless criticism on the job you’re doing or not doing. I don’t think nearly all children would be aborted without those conditions; that’s rather a sweeping statement.
And my handle says LONER not lover! LOL
@Kathy
This is the right advice to give to an individual man, and he would be wise to follow it. However, basing public policy on this is an unmitigated disaster, as the statistics I have shared prove. If 40% of women are willing to become pregnant outside of marriage (or not concerned enough to take serious enough measures to prevent it) and only 1% of men are similarly irresponsible, 40% of children will be born out of wedlock. If 40% of men are willing (or careless enough) to have a child out of wedlock, and only 1% of women are, 1% of children will be born out of wedlock. The issue isn’t what is fair for men or women, but what is best for children. Stop worrying about the double standard, wagging your finger at men while whistling past a 40% out of wedlock birth rate (higher for Hispanics and Blacks).
Oops. I meant to say “loner” this time, but somehow “lover” came out again. It just flows better!
Dal,
So what are you saying? That men who have sex out of wedlock should not have to pay child support so that women will have an incentive not to have sex out of wedlock? (If that is what you are saying, I understand that position to be based on the notion that the burdens of an unwanted pregnancy should fall more heavily on women since women’s behavior is what actually drives up the unwanted pregnancy rate.)
“Stop worrying about the double standard, wagging your finger at men while whistling past a 40% out of wedlock birth rate (higher for Hispanics and Blacks).”
Not whistling past anything.Not wagging a finger either. My comment had nothing to do with double standards…
I was responding to Kai’s lament about the legal responsibilities with no choices for men.
Easily fixed, keep pants zipped.
I am more concerned about the welfare of the unborn child, here. Not the legalities involved, to be honest.
“The issue isn’t what is fair for men or women, but what is best for children”
Couldn’t agree more.
“If the woman does choose to have the child, then she is absolutely on the hook, just like the man and more so, because she has to have the baby as well as care for it, and because the baby is right there with her”
That’s why I give the man a short time limit. Assuming she informs him around the time she knows, then he is making his decision with time for her to make hers. She can know that the man isn’t interested, and then decide whether she wants to raise it without his support or not.
It is true that biology falls more heavily on the woman. But that’s something we can’t change (at least yet).
In history, pregnancy and children belonged completely to women, and if they were smart, they’d try to have them with a guy who would stick around to help out, but he could walk at any time while the women were stuck with it.
Now, based on the law, women can get rid of them quite easily, while the woman decides for the man whether he’ll be paying for a child for 18 years – no choice in it for him at all.
A man should thus be careful with anyone he has sex with, because it’s a constant possibility of 18 years of wage garnishment.
Women are not held to the same standard. Women do not have to try to find a responsible man, since if they have a baby with an irresponsible man, they can count on the state to force him to support her. Fair in a marriage, perhaps (when the child is biologically the husband’s), but an extreme inequality in choice in casual sex.
Women can choose to have a baby and get money from a man without any input from that men as to his interest in either a child or paying for one.
I’m not worried about unexpected children in marriage, as I assume that people who have committed to marriage have sorted that stuff out for themselves.
I very purposely did not bring up the morality of the legality of abortion, because I don’t think it’s actually relevant here. That’s a whole separate fight. I actually happen to be strongly against it, but that doesn’t matter to many people.
The legal reality at this time, is that women can freely abort in most states (and spectacularly freely in Canada). It’s a tough fight to do anything about that – I’m just looking at the rationale. abortion supporters are so in favour of letting women ‘choose’. I’m simply suggesting that as long as it’s legal for women, men should be extended the same ‘right to choose’.
Of course, the supporters of abortion do not tend to support any rights for men.
I can’t speak for Alcestis, but I am willing to bet that she is Catholic (and that, unlike many western Catholics, she actually believes what the Church says)… Am I getting this right, Alcestis?
I’m not Catholic. I do like a couple of Catholics though. My parent’s are Pentecostals (they were unbelievers beforehand). In Catholicism sexual relations is for unitive and procreative purposes and I kind of agree with that. I’m a Christian with no denomination but maybe I will convert to the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church. You did get one thing completely on spot though. My parent’s are not Westerners, I don’t live in the West and my first, mother language isn’t English. Bingo.
The issue isn’t what is fair for men or women, but what is best for children.
True.
I’m not worried about unexpected children in marriage, as I assume that people who have committed to marriage have sorted that stuff out for themselves.
Agreed.
“Kathy says:
I was responding to Kai’s lament about the legal responsibilities with no choices for men.
Easily fixed, keep pants zipped.”
Yet the women who see an easy solution here are the ones who consider it sexist to hold women to the same standard – easily fixed, keep your legs shut.
Kai, plenty of us say the that too. Kathy was answering wrt men, so she said “keep it in your pants”; I’m pretty sure she’d have said “keep your legs shut” if it had been a woman lamenting about an unwanted pregnancy and consequent “need” to pay for an abortion, for example.
The problem is that “what’s best for children” has led to so little consequences as to *encourage* women to get pregnant without a steady man around.
I’m looking to try to discourage the babies in the first place. There’s still plenty of state aid to go around for the poor suckers who end up with these mothers despite everything.
Though I think anyone receiving welfare benefits or child support from the government should be on free and mandatory conception prevention to avoid adding to the problem (as opposed to our current system which again, actually encourages more children for more money).
Concerning child custody during separation and divorce make paternity testing manditory. About anywhere from 20 to 40% of the men were found not to be biological fathers according to some studies. Perhaps this would help.
“curmudgeonloner says:
Kai, plenty of us say the that too. Kathy was answering wrt men, so she said “keep it in your pants”; I’m pretty sure she’d have said “keep your legs shut” if it had been a woman lamenting about an unwanted pregnancy and consequent “need” to pay for an abortion, for example.”
But my point is not what a pile of internet discussions come up with. My point is the legal realities.
the problem is that those with power to set up the laws consider “keep it in your pants” to be sufficient recourse for men, while calling sexism on anyone who suggests “keep your legs shut”, and actively working to come up with all sorts of other options for women who don’t.
“alcestiseshtemoa says:
Concerning child custody during separation and divorce make paternity testing manditory.”
Hell, you could make it mandatory at birth. Might as well know the scale right away (i think that might have been already proposed here). Or, not mandatory at birth, but mandatory in order to put a father on the birth certificate.
If testing at divorce would also need to include the change that a man doesn’t have further responsibility to children that turn out to be not his. The current system will punish a guy for having trusted the woman and acted as a father by forcing him to pay for a non-biological child even after divorce.
But my point is not what a pile of internet discussions come up with. My point is the legal realities. the problem is that those with power to set up the laws consider “keep it in your pants” to be sufficient recourse for men, while calling sexism on anyone who suggests “keep your legs shut”, and actively working to come up with all sorts of other options for women who don’t.
It’s the alpha carousel for women as gamers say I’d guess (e.g. No for you, yes for me). I don’t believe that Kathy is that sort of character. She seems like a sweet and intelligent woman. She probably finds promiscuity and the sort corruptable and wrong in both men and women.
Hell, you could make it mandatory at birth.
Interesting.
The abortion industry and family courts would be out of business if women kept their legs shut and men kept it in their pants. But everyone wants sex without responsibility or consequence and to frustrate the natural procreative part of it in order to practice hedonism. This is the real problem.
Alcestis, I called it wrong!
I find it hard to believe that single motherhood while collecting child support is a desirable option for most women, except those with very few options for the future to begin.
The best incentive to avoid single motherhood is having a bright future with lots of educational and career options that would be threatened if one suddenly had to drop everything and raise a child. There is a reason that single motherhood is a class issue. None of the upper middle class girls I grew up with had children out of wedlock, because none of us wanted to give up our opportunity to go to college and graduate school. That doesn’t mean we kept our legs shut, but it does mean that we took advantage of our access to reliable contraception.
[D: You are responsible, hard working, and have a strong future time orientation, so you assume other women are naturally this way as well. If it were true, the welfare state wouldn’t be a disaster.]
Not everyone who ends up a single mother had children out of wedlock.
All contraception has failure rates. Based on average usage the pill and the patch have an 8% failure rate, so I guess you’re willing to accept the risk of pregnancy, therefore of murdering your own offspring, for the reward of sexual satisfaction, but you won’t take the same odds with your own life in order not to murder your offspring.
Keeping your legs shut is the only reliable way to avoid any “risk” of pregnancy.
That is, your sexual desires are worth more to you than the lives of your own children. You said it yourself without even realising it.
Well Dalrock the reply to Kathy was spot on. And notice the conversation afterward. This is why men that have really thought this out have come to MGTOW. The over all solution will have to be borne by men taking away the the choices from women. A male control pill for men and a culture of the PUA followed as the men age with MGTOW. “Involutary childless spinsterhood”
Just think 53 year old women. No kids, no grand kids no husband (had one and divorced him at 36 to get back on the carousel) no qualification for state money (single and childless) no intitlement to a man’s income (childless) looks fading and out of child bearing age , lonelywith no reason for man to want her. (other than to stick his penis in) As younger women figure it out women with the femminist fed hamsters will spend their last days financually struggling alone talking amungst each other about how screwed up men are. (personal stats not good enough to overcome entitled western women attitude)
Laugh it off ladies, you may get by but your daughter is going to pay the price.
[D: For the reasons I mentioned in my reply to Kathy, men can’t effectively deny women children. Just a few strike breakers can service the whole lot. However by refusing to become the baby daddy of their out of wedlock child does deprive a woman of a walking wallet, because the strike breakers will tend to be the ones with nothing to lose economically (as it is already). And each successful man who refuses to marry does deprive a woman of marriage (more or less, some men can choose to keep remarrying after each divorce theft, but that is far more limited).]
Curmudgeonloner, Actually I was never willing to accept an 8% chance of unwanted pregnancy and have never in my life risked such a thing. You can reduce your odds of an unwanted pregnancy to almost nil by combining the pill and condoms, which is what I did when I was young, before marrying an infertile man. You can then address even the small odds of an unwanted pregnancy via access to emergency contraception (“Plan B”). No determined and vigilant person with resources need face unwanted pregnancy. The problem is that not everyone has education, or access to contraception, or the full cooperation of a partner. (Try getting your boyfriend to agree to condoms when you’re already on the pill and you’ll learn some valuable lessons in standing your ground.)
Greyghost, I wonder why you assume the 53-year-old woman with no husband, kids, or grand-kids will be struggling financially or more miserable than her 53-year-old male MGTOW counterpart? I think the pay gap between men and childless women is virtually nil these days, so she is no more likely to be struggling than he is. And if he is going his own way, he will also be lacking in a partner, kids, or grand-kids just as much as she is! It seems that the MGTOW-er is punishing himself as much as he is punishing the women he resents.
@Doomed Harlot
I don’t have time to give a full answer to this right now, and it dovetails in with greyghost’s question as well. Before we try to solve this we need to acknowledge that the current system is a disaster for children. This in itself is a major battle, since nearly everyone believes that it is in the interest of the child. The solution is to find a way to remove the incentive to have children out of wedlock, as well as the incentive to remove them from an existing marriage. Also, right now responsible middle class men and have a huge disincentive to father children, but layabouts aren’t discouraged by threats to garnish their nonexistent wages. The same issue exists for women as well. The most irresponsible women are rewarded for getting knocked up.
I think part of the solution will need to involve limiting mandatory child support to an absolute bare minimum. If the government wants to prop up the mother with welfare then that is its own business, it shouldn’t foist this failed policy off on men. Men should still feel social/moral pressure to provide beyond the state mandated minimum, but this should be their choice. This way the mother has some incentive to keep a good relationship with the father, and the child can see that the father does in fact care for them since a good portion of the support offered by the father will be direct to the child and/or voluntary.
I have some separate ideas on reforming welfare which I’ll share in a future post. I think you may be surprised at my proposed solution.
Hmmm. I look forward to it!
DH
Her 53 year old male counter part will have a 35 year old girl friend and a bank account with no ex to interfere with his life. Also, have no time to look up at this moment but articles are coming out now about older single women having retirement issues. Women waste money combined with a lifetime of requiring the world to kiss their butts responsibility is just not there Also add the female status competition thing and you have financial issues.
The last step of MGTOW is surrogacy for men that truely want their OWN child to love without having to ask for permission. The desire for a man to to love and raise his child is even stronger than the desire for a wife (it was and is for me). A tycoon in Hong Kong has triplet grandsons due to surrogacy. The government is pissed off over about that too.
Overall MGTOW is not about a man going without. It is about a man not being used. Also not all men will GTOW which is a good thing. Nothing like a spinster seeing a woman that is actually glad she is a mother and wife. Makes for a polite female population.
It’s all fun and games for the 53 year old MGTOW-er until his little 35-year-old trollop steals his sperm. It does happen, ya know! (Does it really count as GTOW if he takes up with a woman in the end anyway?)
I am sorry, greyghost, but I can’t help but laugh at the whole concept of MGTOW. MGTOW seem to despise women so much that it seems like your hypothetical 53-year-old woman left alone due to MGTOW may have dodged a bullet! Surely it is better to die alone with one’s cats than to be tethered to someone who hates and despises you and your sex?
Who are these 35-YO women dating old men anyway? It’s bad enough trying to find a man my age who doesn’t look like my dad, never mind the average 53-YO. This is almost as ridiculous a fantasy as the woman who puts off having kids until her last menstrual cycle.
The best incentive to avoid single motherhood is having a bright future with lots of educational and career options that would be threatened if one suddenly had to drop everything and raise a child.
There are single mothers whom have had children due to IVF due to their high-status (they were able to afford such an operation). The future isn’t always typically bright when it comes to careers. Economic crisis is sweeping across the Western world and the USA needs an educational reform. Google “rich single mothers”. J. K. Rowling went to university, married a man, had a child and then divorced him. She had custody of the baby. She was penniless and on welfare but now she’s a billionaire. She’s not the greatest example but a way of showing on how even educated women, particularly after divorcing but a few times adultery, can become single mothers.
There is a reason that single motherhood is a class issue. None of the upper middle class girls I grew up with had children out of wedlock, because none of us wanted to give up our opportunity to go to college and graduate school.
There are children out of wedlock in the upper-classes but a smaller minority compared to the lower classes. The middle class is the group whom is trying it’s best to sustain the nuclear family but it’s being crushed by both the lower classes (dysfunctional minorities, poor Europeans assimilated to anarchy and minority norms) and the upper-classes (typically European liberals, some Jews and others). The middle class is also starting to be influenced by the lower and upper classes in their behaviour.
That doesn’t mean we kept our legs shut, but it does mean that we took advantage of our access to reliable contraception.
Once again the comprehensive sex education you pointed out is flawed. They concentrate on sexual liberation and liberal morales, encourage an individual to acquire gluttony, surprised to find out that one is fat and then try to amend the situation with contraception. Contraception then becomes like the welfare state whichs upholds an individual so that they don’t face their consequences and continue in their blindness. Contraception should be responsible and efficient but unfortunately it typically isn’t and that’s thanks to those whom shout the loudest responsibility, protection and sell ‘comprehensive sex education’. Contraception should be thought of as a parachute in cases of emergency, not as something that saves one whom chases danger all of the time.
Alcestis,
I don’t think single women who get IVF are a significant population (and they certainly aren’t hitting anyone else up to suppor their kids).
That is an interesting point about the upper classes. I bet a study of history would show that the highest and lowest classes have always tended to abide by sexual morality the least because they are the least affected by the consequences. The richest can afford to support their unwanted children, and the poorest are usually so badly off it can’t get much worse, or they can rely on welfare or charity. It’s the middle classes that tend to have the most to lose. And, back to the main subject at hand, I don’t think receiving child support (which can often be difficult to collect) really insulates women from the adverse consequences of single motherhood.
“alcestiseshtemoa says:
I don’t believe that Kathy is that sort of character. She seems like a sweet and intelligent woman. She probably finds promiscuity and the sort corruptable and wrong in both men and women.”
That is how it seems. But it is not people like Kathy who make the laws, and it is not people like Kathy to whom I was referencing.
“curmudgeonloner says:
All contraception has failure rates. Based on average usage the pill and the patch have an 8% failure rate, so I guess you’re willing to accept the risk of pregnancy, therefore of murdering your own offspring, for the reward of sexual satisfaction, but you won’t take the same odds with your own life in order not to murder your offspring.
Keeping your legs shut is the only reliable way to avoid any “risk” of pregnancy.”
Well, some people are not using contraception at ‘average’ usage, but are meticulous because they have a lot to lose. That brings the stats down to ~1% failure rate.
And some people are doubling up on the pill and a condom, which, with careful use, each have a solo failure rate of around 1%, and thus get the chances down to pretty low – low enough to work for them.
And not all consider abortion the backup option. For some, it would be parenthood, for others, carrying to term and adoption – but they are willing to accept those risks when they are sufficiently small.
“Doomed Harlot says:
You can then address even the small odds of an unwanted pregnancy via access to emergency contraception (“Plan B”). No determined and vigilant person with resources need face unwanted pregnancy. The problem is that not everyone has education, or access to contraception, or the full cooperation of a partner. (Try getting your boyfriend to agree to condoms when you’re already on the pill and you’ll learn some valuable lessons in standing your ground.)”
‘Plan B’ removing the chance of an unwanted ‘pregnancy’ depends on your definition of when pregnancy/conception/life begins. It prevents implantation of a zygote – but not fertilization in the first place.
As for the full cooperation of a partner, that’s back to if you’re responsible, you won’t have sex with anyone not willing to take the appropriate level of precaution to satisfy both partners’ risk tolerance.
“alcestiseshtemoa says:
Once again the comprehensive sex education you pointed out is flawed. They concentrate on sexual liberation and liberal morales, encourage an individual to acquire gluttony, surprised to find out that one is fat and then try to amend the situation with contraception. Contraception then becomes like the welfare state whichs upholds an individual so that they don’t face their consequences and continue in their blindness. Contraception should be responsible and efficient but unfortunately it typically isn’t and that’s thanks to those whom shout the loudest responsibility, protection and sell ‘comprehensive sex education’. Contraception should be thought of as a parachute in cases of emergency, not as something that saves one whom chases danger all of the time.”
What on earth is taught where you live???*
Yes, comprehensive sex ed does assume that people are going to be interested in having recreational non-procreative sex. It then goes over the best ways to ensure it is non-procreative.
I don’t know what you could possibly have been taught, but in my schools, it was emphasized that the only sure thing was abstinence, but risks could be brought to fairly low levels by using various methods of contraception, preferably combined.
I think there is still much lacking in the current options, but we were given the stats (both on typical and perfect use) and told to consider the risks. A dating couple using the pill and condoms together to avoid parenthood is pretty efficient and responsible as far as I can see. My sex-ed classes did accept that people might want to have sex other than to have babies as a norm, but did not exactly spend its time discussing positions and alternate orientations and whatever else you might be suggesting is ‘contraception teaching sexual liberation’.
Are you reading ‘contraception’ to equal ‘abortion’?
How could contraception be a parachute in cases of emergency? “Oh know, we MUST have sex suddenly! Pull out the contraception!” “Please Mr. rapist, at least use a condom?” ?????????
Or are you just completely opposed to sex that specifically avoids the possibility of procreation? I really don’t understand what you are talking about.
*Also, please check on your subject/object learning. The constant ‘whom’ is painful.
“Doomed Harlot says:
I don’t think receiving child support (which can often be difficult to collect) really insulates women from the adverse consequences of single motherhood.”
No, it doesn’t insulate them from all the consequences, but it sure helps while hurting the father.
Deadbeat dads are a small percentage that are assumed to be the majority. Most child support is collected just fine, but the guy has no way to ensure it is spend on his child, and his visitation rights are not enforced with near the same rigidity. You can send a guy to prison for not paying, but women can get away with keeping children from their fathers for years.
“The abortion industry and family courts would be out of business if women kept their legs shut and men kept it in their pants. But everyone wants sex without responsibility or consequence and to frustrate the natural procreative part of it in order to practice hedonism. This is the real problem.”
Exactly Curmudgeonloner, (sheesh I had trouble spelling that, nearly went with lover like DH.. lol)nobody wants to do the hard hards. Like I said selfish women and selfish men.. with scant regard for the oft end result of their fecklessness, an innocent child.
Again I come back to what Dalrock said.
“The issue isn’t what is fair for men or women, but what is best for children”
That’s it in a nutshell, I reckon.
Maybe everyone could call me CL to make it easier. 😛
Question for alces, CL, Kathy, and anyone else opposed to sex-while-avoiding-procreation:
Do you consider this always wrong?
Is it wrong to have sex before marriage?
Is it wrong to have sex within marriage but precluding procreation?
Is it wrong to have sex avoiding procreation if you are willing to love and raise the child if it doesn’t work?
Is it wrong to delay childbearing?
Is it wrong to avoid procreation without direct barriers/hormonal reprogramming (NFP)?
I fully agree that sex with the possibility of procreation removed is hedonistic, if we are defining that as ‘solely for the pleasure of the self’ (and perhaps the partner). but is all hedonism bad? Are you ascetics? Is it wrong to do something just for pleasure if no-one else is hurt by it?
Is hedonistic sex, if they do successfully prevent pregnancy, really a problem for society?
This is all irrelevant to the actual point, since a government must make laws based on what people actually do, not what we wish they would do, but it seems there are completely different parallel ideologies going on here, and I’d understand what people are saying better with this cleared up.
See my reply to DH earlier in the thread , Kai. Here is part of what I said below. I admitted to being Catholic so yes, sex outside of marriage is for me, wrong. I have a fifteen year old daughter. My husband and I are instilling these Catholic values in her.
…..”2361 “Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death.”143
It’s all about love, baby. And out of that love a possibility of new life.. The marriage should be open to procreation.”……..
NFP is okay, and is sanctioned by the church. I know my cycle very well. The window of opportunity for pregnancy is actually very small.
I married for love and sex. My marriage was open to children.
Sex in marriage is encouraged because it has a unifying effect on the couple.
It’s true. The more hubby and I have sex, the less arguments we have. The happier we both are . The deeper the bond and spiritual connection.(hey it works for me)
I’m quite a passionate and highly strung person so sex reduces stress and mellows me out. 😉
This idea that Catholics can only have sex for procreation is bollocks.
Those are a lot of questions and maybe a bit much to answer in a comment, so perhaps I will think about it a little and then put it up as a post. But what do you mean, “hormonal reprogramming”? NFP isn’t reprogramming but avoiding sex on fertile days, which, as Kathy points out, are few (about 3 days out of the month, usually).
I personally don’t disagree with sex before marriage per se. If the couple know each other to a reasonable degree and both are in the same page and this is just part of their relationship not the reason they are together with precautions and responsibility I think what happens there is their choice and their consequences as long as they are fully aware of them and willing to take them to heart and no abortion is not the responsible thing to do, is the easy discreet out of the issue, don’t sell me that taking care of a child for as long as he/she is alive, making all changes in your life necessary for it to happen, is the same than getting rid of him/her in a clinic in a few hours, and then continue your life plans like nothing happened because I’m not an idiot.
Now my problem is with casual sex. Not for morality grounds specifically but what many people kind of don’t realize is that morality was born to deal with practical issues.
If you analyze the cost and benefits of casual sex, it doesn’t add up.
The only benefit from having sex with a stranger is the sex (there is not even a guarantee of an orgasm for women), but you risk this stranger being a potential rapists, serial killer, STD’s carrier… if you go down to the extremes or to go to less material consequences he is being a the type of guy that gets off at discussing your sexual skills in the internet, make a chart calling you “hole” or “pie”, or simply he gets your number and you wait for that call and he never does and you feel like crap for that.
Really if women didn’t cared for all this after the fact o if this didn’t colored their view of men and relationships in the long run. I wouldn’t have an issue but given the outrage and depression they experiment if the stranger they generously banged last night didn’t consider them beyond a thing to use, then I would say having casual sex is stupid, stupid, stupid.
I know men don’t have as many hang ups so that is why I concentrate in women but is the same if a man feels used, or like crap if the women they had a casual encounter with doesn’t show any level of respect or appreciation for them, stopping is also a good idea. And given the amount of women outraged out of the “college” lists when they become problem or when they discover that one of their lovers is a PUA that publishes his conquest on the net for everyone to see I will say that yes casual sex is not a good choice. No to mention that the amount of bitter women and men that don’t believe in love, marriage or children are usually plagued by experienced people that had tons of casual sex but little experience with love and loyalty, every time a PUA bangs a married woman or a woman with a boyfriend his vision of women becomes worst, women experiment the same after being banged by men that run at the “ring talk”. So everything points out to casual sex being a big problem and people shouldn’t engage in it. It has bad short term consequences and terrible long term consequences.
Now I know there are plenty of promiscuous people that will claim they are not like that, but the numbers don’t lie about how people are behaving in the long run after a life of blissful free sex, cheating more, divorcing more…so yeah, YMMV as usual.
OK, here’s my best answer…. http://wp.me/p1M2NX-3
Have at it, lol.
Much as it might have made sense for you to put up a blog post, I have no blog, and figure it makes more sense to keep the discussion in one place. So I’m replying to both the comments here and CL’s post.
By ‘hormonal reprogramming’, I was referencing hormonal contraception such as the pill.
My grammar was probably ambiguous there. I meant to ask “Is it wrong to avoid procreation without direct barriers or hormonal birth control? – as in using NFP”
I am familiar with NFP, and did not mean to equate it to one of the others.
Though now I am. What’s the difference?
If you are purposely having sex only when you know you are infertile, then you are deliberately avoiding procreation with your sex. What makes that so different from deliberately avoiding it with a physical barrier? Or from deliberately avoiding it by convincing your body it’s already pregnant? If it’s the intent to be open to the possibility of children that makes the sex valid, how is NFP acceptable?
It seems pretty nitpicky to differentiate there.
“delaying childbearing” was meant to be post-marriage, since of course we suggest delaying it (and the entire sex part) until after marriage.
What if you wish to delay children simply because you don’t want them yet? Is it okay if it’s because you’re trying to do something charitable in the meantime? Not okay if it’s because you just don’t feel ready? And again, if you were trying to delay because of financial hardship or something, what makes it okay to do so by having sex only when you know you can’t conceive, but not okay to physically barricade?
My question about hedonistic sex was not intended to assume that no-one else is hurt, but reference only those cases in which that occurs.
A married couple having sex because it’s fun but preventing conception sure doesn’t sound to me like anyone is getting hurt.
Even if that became a societal norm, I’m really not seeing the breakdown that comes from married couples have hedonistic sex instead of procreative, unless your society depends on a constantly massively multiplying population.
Hedonistic sex was defined above as anything which precludes pregnancy. I am using that definition, and going with the safest kind – that between married couples who aren’t interested in having kids at this time.
I fully agree that there are all kinds of problems when people have random sex, but given the massively broad definition of hedonistic sex provided, I ask whether it is still a problem outside of the concerns of children-outside-of-wedlock and pre-marital-or-random-sex.
sorry, Kathy, I did see you post on a similar vein above, and ‘the catechism’ is a fairly complete answer for those for whom it’s the guiding philosophy.
But I would be interested in your answer to the last question:
“Is hedonistic sex, if they do successfully prevent pregnancy, really a problem for society?”
It is one thing to decide that a valid Catholic marriage must be open to children. But is sex-for-pleasure alone, and love that does not wish to produce children from that love a problem for society with marriage still intact? Is it a problem for society if people abstain from premarital sex but then have (catholically invalid) nonprocreative marriages with tons of hedonistic sex?
(If it’s too tangental, no worries. I was first asking just to be clear on people’s backstories, as it seemed in some posts that the premises people started with were so different as to be troublesome to communication. I grant that now I’m pretty much looking for defense/explanation of those beliefs, and it’s not really relevant or necessary.)
DH
MGTOW is not some guy jacking off in a corner. Take a look at George Clooney, it may not look it on the surface but he is a man gone his own way. He said he will not marry and father children. Some woman started talking trash and that ended the relationship. Now he has a new one. He is not making payments on his ex and she is free to market what is left of her vagina to land the next alpha stud.
Also with the male birth control pill little penis receptacle can steal all of the worthless sperm she wants. (nice of you to inform us dumb men on the internet that women actually do that) I wish you could explain why a woman that would be happier with her cats would want to steal sperm from a 53 year old man any way. What is the reason for a woman to have a child with out a husband? What incentive is it?
BTW this has some wishful thinking on my part. MGTOW is hard to do and very unnatural with out a male birth control method that doesn’t require a womans approval or knowledge. (Men do naturally love women and so do I ) So keep laughiong while you can, but as stated earlier it is your duaghter that will pay the price for you. (Your daughter is the 53 year old childless woman )
I applaud people like George Clooney who have the foresight to realize that for them the risks of marriage are not worth the rewards. I wouldn’t put him in the same category as an MGTOWer, though, because he doesn’t seem to be under the impression that he is visiting some terrible and deserved punishment on women.
It is the latter idea that I mock. First, a woman is better off remaining single and childless than tethered for life to a man who doesn’t want to be with her. Second, a single-and-childless woman is generally no worse off than her MGTOW counterpart. The average 53-year-old man is not sexually attractive to younger women and is not going to have Clooney’s dating success in that pool. Third, I doubt most men will go their own way. Most men like being in long-term relationships with women.
I am genuinely curious Greyghost about what you love about women? You don’t seem to like or respect us very much. Are you just saying that you find women sexually attractive? Or that you like women who act in particular ways you deem sufficiently feminine, i.e. submissive? Or are you saying something else altogether?
I don’t know who is better or worse off as an older single person, but I do know that most of the older childless women I’ve met are at least a little nutty, some downright psycho, whereas the men in that position seem more balanced in general. Just an observation. Not all, but in general some of the most miserable people I’ve had the misfortune to interact with have been older, post-menopausal, childless, single women. The one who lives above me HATES me for no apparent reason. Granted she looks like Vince Neil; I’d be pretty unhappy if I had to look at that every morning too.
DH
I see things the way Clooney does and that is the motivation for MGTOW. (I won’t be getting any applause of course) Clooney is an alpha stud. PUA are beta types that assume alpha characteristics. MGTOW are beta types that have found that they best way to change the society is to support the status quo. MGTOW is an unnatural thing for most men. The results of MGTOW is natural for an alpha like Clooney and you applaud it. Your post here have taught a few men a lesson in female nature. Your post justify the topic of the article and when the men that are victims of this madness come up with a way to change the behavior that doesn’t involve violence it is ridiculed. (“You don’t seem to like or respect us very much”) And the very man (50) with a now 31 year old girlfriend that will leave her childless if she stays with him is applauded. This is how we have the madness we have today. It is not your fault and is the basis for the PUA community. I have two daughters the oldest 10. Both are showing signs of thinking as you do,it is normal. (it took me a couple years to figure it out) What is not normal is for a civilized society to not keep that natural and savage behavior in check. That was the question I had for Dalrock at the beginning of the comment section above. A very difficult question to answer. For like him I am a family man that believes in marriage, children raised with a love and god. I should be respected and admired in a sane society. But we are laughed at accused of every abuse and though laws of misandry treated as second class citizens. While an open cad who as was stated thinks marriage (what I’m doing) is not worth the effort is seen as acceptable.
I am a father and I have a duty to my children to not leaved them to a world like that.
Dalrock
I hope I’m not messing up the theme of your web site.
Hi greyghost,
I am not elevating Clooney’s lifestyle over the married lifestyle. I am married myself. What I applaud in Clooney is that he has the foresight to have thought through the pros and cons of marriage, and has come to a reasoned decision.
Clooney is not a cad, nor has he deprived his girlfriend of the opportunity to have children. He has been open for years about the fact that he does not want marriage or children. His girlfriend (assuming he has one currently, I don’t actually know) is well aware of his position and chooses to be with him anyway. Who are you to assume that she wants a marriage or children? It seems to me that he has been entirely respectful and above-board with the women in his life, far from caddish behavior.
Doomed Harlot
She would love to have Clooney knock her up just like the last one. I’m done, and I enjoyed the conversation. Thank you for the responses.
Likewise!
Pingback: Best of the Web lately « Throne and Altar
Comparing childless older men and women tends to work from a base assumption that women *want* children, and will be unfulfilled and directionless without them at 50, while men are more indifferent to them, and not feel a similar lack. For those who do not align with these stereotypical desires, the stereotypical outcome won’t apply.
“TFH says:
This also proves that men are more capable of putting their children before themselves, and have a better long-term orientation than women.”
Only if we take as a given that the people believe married parents to be better for their child than anything else possible. People who believe that children don’t need two parents are misinformed – not uncaring.
It could also be explained as simple pragmatism. If it is women who tend more to raise children, then it is in a man’s best interest to keep around the mother of his children to do the work of raising them. A woman, on the other hand, has less incentive to leave the man if she will lose her children at the same time. That can be a purely selfish motive on both parts – not a careful ‘putting the children first.
Assumption of paternal custody gives both partners incentives to stay in the marriage, though granted, it incentivises the woman more than the man. More complete stats would also look at which partner is more likely to file in such a system.
Assumption of maternal custody doesn’t give women a strong incentive either way, but assumption of maternal custody combined with child support makes it extremely easy for a woman to leave. It also gives men more incentive to stay, since they are likely to lose their child and their wallet if they leave.
I’d say that the stats more likely ‘prove’ that humans respond to incentives than that men are more honourable. (They well may be – but this isn’t evidence of that).
Kai your logic does so many contortions it could run away and join the circus, with or without child support.
“More complete stats would also look at which partner is more likely to file in such a system.” We’ve had such a system. For ease of reference we’ve called it “all of recorded history up until the 60’s”. Men had the power to leave women, with or without leaving their children. They didn’t.
“People who believe that children don’t need two parents are misinformed – not uncaring. ”
No, they’re uncaring. They care not for the fact that children of one parent overwhelmingly and totally undeniably are worse off in almost every measurable way than children of two parents. It’s not as if the facts aren’t common knowledge. Such people care more about claiming their ideology is correct and their actions are rationalised, than about the untold damage to other peoples lives and society itself which is staggering toward collapse as is becoming more apparent.
As for your claim of ‘simple pragmatism’ as the reason fathers didn’t abandon mothers, a simple test of that theory would posit that noticeable numbers of men would have left their wives when their children no longer needed maternal care, or when the children left home, in this system we called ‘all of history’. I’m pretty sure the only time any kind of trend has been noticed, it wasn’t pre-1960, and it wasn’t men doing the leaving.
Let’s have a closer look at the full awesomeness of one of your logical progressions:
Step A – make the claim that those advocating single parent families are only ill informed, not selfish or uncaring. When they bust up a family, it’s kinda accidental (whoopsy), not selfish or anything bad like that. They just don’t think they’re doing something wrong…
Step B – then go on to claim that men who stayed with their wives because they though the kids would benefit from having a mother, did so selfishly.
Step C – then go even further and claim that the only reason men now won’t leave is because they’ll lose all their stuff forever etc. While it’s true they’ll lose their stuff, that doesn’t mean they would have left otherwise, which is what you’re trying to claim with your “There’s no proof men are more honourable” statement. It’s already been established that this doesn’t occur, even in a system that allegedly ‘favours men’ .
Men benefit more from marriage than women, especially in more patriarchal societies. It is much easier to be content in your marriage when the other spouse is cleaning up after you, feeding you, taking care of your kids, handling your social obligations, cleaning your clothes, doing the shopping, and taking care of the myriad other tasks of daily life. I myself have often said, “I need a wife!”
[D: Yes, no matter what choices women make they really are martyrs, trapped by the patriarchy.]
Dalrock
This exchange on your site and this article in paticular has been has to have been a very good learning experience for any man that has read through the comments. The female responses have been predictively incredable. No matter what a women will always look after what she thinks is her own interest even if it destroys everything. A guy could print this up and take everything learned from this guy (http://heartiste.wordpress.com/) and give a class. You are on par with any blogger on these subjects anywhere on the web.
If any successful changes are to be made to stop this train wreck there is absolutely no way in hell it has any chance if the changes involve cooperation or input from women. Cockroaches, rats and wild hogs have nothing on a hamster.
I will quote the best compliment a working man can give another. ” Dalrock you muthafucka”
Re divorce/child support etc. Sweden has a very high divorce rate. Highest iirc.
When you’re talking about a regular middle class couple, the culture favours joint custody. Child support is unusual in a joint custody situation. In the odd instance of any financial support, it tends to be pay X sports club for after school activities, or pay for the child’s clothes.
A couple of my friends have similar arrangements in the UK but the father pays school fees (to the school) and the mother pays anything else (which isn’t maintaining a house and paying utility bills which they both have to do and pay for themselves). This is most likely what I’d have if we ever split up but I try not to think about that.
Dalrock, the point is that men in more patriarchal societies (those that tend to presume fathers should have custody) are not keeping their wives around because they are so much more honorable than divorcing, western women. They are keeping their wives around because they are, in most cases getting enormous tangible benefits from their wives; the traditional wife acts as a free, full-time personal assistant (often even if she has a job outside the home). It is not fair to compare men who are getting this benefit to women who are not getting this benefit, and to then conclude that the men are more honorable for being more likely to stay in their marriages.
Now, what about the comparison between western men and western women, given the fact that women are more likely to initiate divorce? Well, I think that despite all the strides we have made, we still live in a patriarchal culture; that is, it is still widely expected that women do the vast bulk of the caretaking work, taking care of husbands, children, and elderly relatives, managing joint social obligations, and generally making sure the trains run on time on the home front. Western men don’t initiate divorce as often because they are still benefitting from that work that women still continue to do.
Am I saying that that fact morally justifies women’s decision to divorce in every instance? No. You are quite right that women in our society have more choices (although the culture can certainly operate as a significant constraint on those choices) and should take responsibility for their vows and their decisions. My point isn’t that divorce initiated by women is always A-OK. My point is that you can’t conclude, based on a comparison of men and women’s rate of initiating divorce, that men are much more noble than women when men and women are so differently situated.
““More complete stats would also look at which partner is more likely to file in such a system.” We’ve had such a system. For ease of reference we’ve called it “all of recorded history up until the 60′s”. Men had the power to leave women, with or without leaving their children. They didn’t.”
Yes, now let’s see actual numbers for ‘all or recorded history’.
Women weren’t leaving their men either, because it was extremely punishing both financially and socially for both. Pretty even there.
It would also be useful to look at at what point cheating stopped being acceptable. In the higher classes in a number of societies people were married off to people they barely knew, and were expected to produce children together, but all else was not really regulated. It was pretty standard for people to take lovers on the side – why leave your wife when you can keep your wife, and still get other women?
It seems to be pretty recently that it wasn’t still expected that a travelling man might be visiting other women along the way. I don’t find this very comparable to today’s beliefs regarding marriage.
“No, they’re uncaring. They care not for the fact that children of one parent overwhelmingly and totally undeniably are worse off in almost every measurable way than children of two parents.It’s not as if the facts aren’t common knowledge.”
I don’t think the stats *are* common knowledge. the media is doing a damn good job of suggesting exactly the opposite. children are taught that all types of families are equally good. People are saying everywhere that happy parents are more important than intact marriages. And it’s obviously not ‘the patriarchy’ selling this message.
I don’t mean to excuse willful ignorance. That was not intended to be a defense. It is simply wrong to figure a child doesn’t need the other parent, and yes, people are looking for reasons to support the beliefs they want to hear.
There are obviously no altruistic reasons to break up a marriage, so divorce is a selfish decision regardless. But most women are not making a reasoned decision that their happiness is more important than that of their children. They are working from the incorrect loud echo that their children will be just fine as long as she is happy. I still blame individuals for believing what makes things easy for them, rather looking for reality.
I am not at all excusing the action. I am just not attributing to malice what I believe is explained by stupidity/ignorance.
“As for your claim of ‘simple pragmatism’ as the reason fathers didn’t abandon mothers, a simple test of that theory would posit that noticeable numbers of men would have left their wives when their children no longer needed maternal care, or when the children left home, in this system we called ‘all of history’. I’m pretty sure the only time any kind of trend has been noticed, it wasn’t pre-1960, and it wasn’t men doing the leaving.”
But once children leave home and don’t need care, it’s not about fathers abandoning mothers anymore. It’s about husbands and wives, and the kids aren’t relevant. Fathers aren’t staying for the kids here either, since the kids are gone.
Now we might look and say that once children aren’t needed, men tend to be happy to stay with their wife, while women come up with crap about finding themselves, and a good number tend to leave their husbands, and therefore men are more faithful than women.
Here I agree with your logic. As stated, I was never disagreeing with your conclusion – just with the suggestion that your premises ‘proved’ your conclusion.
Do we have a modern culture somewhere in which divorce has become as socially acceptable as it has in north america, but where men normally get custody? That would be a good base of comparison.
I think the question of divorce in Patriarchy is a bit more complex than what we have exposed here. First in cultures were men have the power they also understand very well the responsibility, they get the custody of their kids but leaving their wives means that they are going to end up at the mercy of society, they might starve and/or ending up beggars or prostitutes, so a wife really needed to do something awful to earn this level of cruelty, like adultery for example.
Feminists never ask about “what was of the men the women left to find happiness?”Men don’t write books about their misery or about they having to reduce their standards of living to support his ex-wife lifestyle and a string of boyfriends and no seeing their kids.
I think the closest portray in the media about father’s desperation after divorce was “Mrs. Doubtfire” and I plan to do an analysis on that when I get my blog because I consider that movie the precursor to “Eat, Pray and Love” so I call dibs on it Dalrock :).
I wouldn’t say men’s reluctance to divorce was born out of pure altruism, even though we already discussed many times that women’s tears are a powerful weapon to soften the hardest heart of a man, unlike man’s tears that are usually just bringers of contempt for a woman that is already out of love.
But in Patriarchy women are heavily controlled by their fathers, very few men are going to just arrange a marriage for his beloved daughters to a man that already showed cruelty to a wife abandoning her or that clearly abused her, even if he wouldn’t love her it would be a waste a good marriage usually multiply a man status, picking a poor husband will reflect badly in his family. That is something stupid free women do, pick a man with a history of abusing other women because “it feels right” and “its going to be different with me”, men know a lot better and hence men in patriarchal societies there are many social deterrents for men to get a divorce, socially in our culture is acceptable for a woman to leave a man because she is “unhappy” and date again like nothing happened even if she showed cruelty to his ex-husband by denying him access to his children, raping in him divorce court or/and spent his money on luxury trips, because supposedly “he must had done something to deserve it” and this is something men usually do to, except men from the manosphere I had seen many of them refusing to date divorced women and single mothers, but the majority of men will assume that the guy was at fault, that is a different situation in a true patriarchal culture,YMMV.
One thing this blog shows is that conservatives are equally as likely as liberals to advocate social engineering.
I suspect that these statistics distract from the huge variety of actual situations. My mother divorced and then proceeded to board me and my brother out to a variety of foster families. OTOH, my grandfather banished my grandmother, remarried, and proceeded to treat my father as a servant. Bad mom, bad dad, all varieties in one traditional, Christian family.
Homosexuality had nothing to do with it. It was all conceit, selfishness and hubris.
If it matters, I too am a divorced dad who fought like hell to have shared custody. I don’t pay my support to the state, I pay her directly. Yeah it’s unfair, but whining about it isn’t going to help the kids, and that’s what’s important.
And I’m sure not waiting for any collapsing bubbles to make the best of things.
One thing this blog shows is that conservatives are equally as likely as liberals to advocate social engineering.
Are you under the impression that standards and social engineering shouldn’t exist like a sector of classical liberals and libertarians? I thought traditional conservatives were famous for their authoritarianism and particularly the accusations from liberals of them being totalitarians. I believe that yes political freedom can and probably should be allowed to a degree but that the whole ideal that social engineering is bad is flawed and unrealistic. A society, a community and a government of any sort that functions and exists has to have some sort of social engineering (whether it’s towards liberalism, moderation or conservatism).
African-American man on Maury dancing that he is not the father -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt2i0ts-uck
That is how it seems. But it is not people like Kathy who make the laws, and it is not people like Kathy to whom I was referencing.
Thank you for the clarification. Appreciated.
Pingback: Alpha Women, Beta Men | Dalrock
@alcestiseshtemoa,
It’s pretty clear to me that people everywhere love nothing more then to tell other people how to behave, and that’s not going to change. The phrase “social engineering” is a conservative charge against liberals, and it sounds pretty scary, doesn’t it? Kind of “1984” and all that.
I don’t have a stake in this, I figure society will go whatever way it does (*). Complaining and advocating can have an effect, to the extent that people are willing to listen and change. Sites like this one aren’t really going to reach a larger audience. Everyone here seems to agree with each other already.
But I really doubt that western societies are going to return to traditional patriarchy. The core of Feminism isn’t the silly fantasy of total equality in personal relationships, which is fading away, if slowly.
The core is legal equality, something I do support, if only because I think it’s a bad idea to use laws to engage in social engineering.
IMO, the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. There should be a variety of standard contracts to address all the legal issues that traditional and gay marriage are concerned about, like insurance, visitation rights and so forth. Childbirth should carry a requirement to have a contract of obligation signed by mother and father, regardless of any other factors. Then the legal system can deal with problems using breach of contract, rather then judges decide like Solomon who gets the baby and who gets the shaft.
It’s a pretty radical change, and I have no expectation that it will happen in my lifetime. But I believe it will happen someday.
(*) – actually, in the very long run I believe human society will begin to suppress sexuality in some technological way. Our sex drives, male and female, will be seen as a chaotic force destabilizing society. I’m not in favor of this, but I bet it will come to pass. Talk about your “heat death.”
But I really doubt that western societies are going to return to traditional patriarchy. The core of Feminism isn’t the silly fantasy of total equality in personal relationships, which is fading away, if slowly. The core is legal equality, something I do support, if only because I think it’s a bad idea to use laws to engage in social engineering.
Personally I believe there will be a long decline followed by an abrupt and tremendous fall. Traditional conservatism will probably return since societies tend to go in cycles and rarely in a linear direction but it will be late.
And when I say late I meant “the apocalypse has ended” where liberalism has done its best to destroy everything and has suceeded to an extent. Basically imagine a post-apocalypse setting.
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Incest Edition
Fathers all around the country are put in jeopardy of going to prison for money they don’t have, based on actions which are taken in the name of their own children. Undoubtedly the vast majority of fathers make every effort to not allow this injustice to poison their relationship with their children, since they know that their children are merely pawns being used by the child’s mother and the system. However, this kind of heavy handed tactic combined frequently with denial of time with and influence over their children has to impact the relationship negatively.
When push comes to shove there is really only one way for men to halt the rising tide of injustice, and that is by being willing to kill. To just say the hell with it all, I’m going to make a statement written in blood. Until that happens, the “authorities” — whoever they are — will just … keep … pushing.
Why are more men not driven to murder as a result of this injustice? It’s ultimately the only statement that will be heard.
Self-control is not always a good thing, nor is murderous passion always a bad thing. When the proverbial piece of paper is curled into a tube, you can’t just flatten it back out — you have to curl it back the other way, and hard.
Pingback: Linkpost, 8/21/11 « Organicist
Pingback: The economics of divorce theft and exploitation, and why we should repeal unilateral no fault divorce. | Dalrock
Pingback: Thou shalt be true to thyself | Dalrock
Pingback: Cord Ivanyi is not a mangina! | Dalrock
Pingback: Nothing is more subversive than the truth | Dalrock
Pingback: Charts on delayed motherhood | Dalrock
Pingback: Why won’t these Peter Pan manboys man up and marry aging flighty selfish career gal sluts already? | Dalrock
Pingback: Authority always comes with responsibility, whether you accept it or not. | Dalrock
Pingback: Warn men: Beware Christian marriage doublespeak and hair trigger for wife initiated divorce. | Dalrock
Pingback: Warn men: Beware Christian marriage doublespeak and hair trigger for wife initiated divorce. « Patriactionary
Pingback: Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family praises “heroic” unwed mothers | Dalrock
Pingback: Warn men: Beware Christian Marriage Doublespeak and Hair Trigger for wife Initiated Divorce – By Dalrock | Christian Feminism Watch
Pingback: The missing fear | Dalrock
Pingback: Is frivolous divorce overstated in the manosphere? | Dalrock
Pingback: Dalrock Repost: Beware Christian marriage doublespeak and hair trigger for wife initiated divorce. « Dating On The Move
Pingback: The College Boyfriend | Dalrock
Pingback: Mark Driscoll’s feminist foolishness posing as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock
Pingback: If Mark Driscoll weren’t so foolish he would be wise. | Dalrock
Pingback: Rediscovering Masculinity « Elephants & Trees
Pingback: Do not be alarmed. | Dalrock
Pingback: Women are innately good. | Dalrock
Pingback: What, Me Worry? | Dalrock
Pingback: Porn: The Evangelical “Get Out of Marriage Free” Card | Christian Men's Defense Network
Pingback: Craven | Dalrock
Pingback: Updated U.S. Custody and Child Support Data (2009) | Dalrock
The government’s claim that it is acting in ‘ the best interest of the child ‘ are laughable beyond belief.
If this were true, then why is child support paid to the state and not to the mother? Better yet, why can’t the father just pay for things directly, like clothes, school supplies, medical expenses? Also, why is an obscure and secretive formula used to calculate child support payments? Why not just have the father reimburse the mother for expenses based on receipts she provides. These things aren’t allowed because if they were, then the government couldn’t get its greedy hands on any of the money, and wouldn’t be able to skim some for itself. The ‘ best interest ‘ of the child argument is a smokescreen. The state is really acting in its OWN best interest and using innocent children as pawns. Also, arrogant family court judges, corrupt lawmakers, and nosy social service bureaucrats should mind their own business and stop smugly lecturing fathers and telling them what level of support they must provide to THEIR children. It seems that the same people who delight in lecturing fathers about their responsibilities are conspicuously and conveniently silent when it comes to enforcing a father’s visitation rights. Where are these same righteous snot noses then? The answer is that it is not profitable for the state to enforce a father’s visitation rights, while it is profitable to collect child support from him. It’s about money, not the ‘ best interest of the child’.
Wow. You all have way too much time one your hands.
Pingback: Here’s how it works, men: We say jump, you ask how high. | The Woman and the Dragon
CLASH OF THE TITANS: MARRIAGE VS CHILD SUPPORT: WHO WINS?
Interesting isn’t it when the two go head to head. It’s a battle Europe have dealt with, and the more traditional states in the Union are still battling with. The battle starts when a child is born to a married couple, but the child is not the biological product of the husband. In Europe, child support rules, and the biological father always pays. Some states enforce the husband to pay regardless.
In goes to prove how far child support has come to replace marriage as a way or organising society. And replacing a man’s consent.
Anyone see this?
MAN LIVES IN CAR TO MAKE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/child-support_n_3287716.html
I have a problem with the system of DNA testing. I don’t believe they are true. I have asked to do my own test on my supposed kids. Found out the equipment is all owned and controled by the freemason members . Patents also. Very fishy. Don’t believe anything I can’t prove myself.
I have enjoyed reading how my plight is echoed in the voices of so many here. Badger really champions my experiences. God only knows that child support is really, more often than not, just govt. sanctioned bullying of innocent fathers who would love to parent their children but are maligned worse here than in China or Russia. I am amazed at how we throw our stones at the Russians and Chinese and N. Koreans for human rights abuses while in the same breath laud and magnify abortion and stripping fathers of their children and wealth right here in America. We are by far the biggest civil rights hypocrites the world has ever seen. God is damning America for her Godlessness. Bless us? (laughter in heaven when those who have done this are going to need Him to hear their cry one day and he turns a deaf ear to them, according to his word.)
After being forced into fatherhood, I have become aware of the baby-mama injustice and this article basically summarizes it all well! Thank you for this post! A+
The Fed pays a matching fund for every order of support its courts enter. So no politician will ever stop a system that “protects kids”.
well if you don’t like it, then don’t put your penis in there
TFH says:
August 17, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Dalrock,
In theory whichever parent can better raise the children should be given custody, and the remaining parent would then be compelled to pay child support.
I would quibble with this. The main point is that divorce itself is INFREQUENT in societies where women are not given the children and the associated monies on a ‘no fault’ basis.
In other words, societies where men retain custody of children have LOW divorce rates. Men could toss out their wives on a whim, yet 90% do not.
But societies where women get custody of children have HIGH divorce rates.
This also proves that men are more capable of putting their children before themselves, and have a better long-term orientation than women.
The divorce rate of a society corelates closely to how much women can profit from divorce laws of that society. Societies with divorce laws favoring men do not see nearly as many men abusing these laws.
—
I suppose men aren’t inherent freeloaders then? Or we aren’t taught to have our hands out for financial support, in other words, we are accountable and generally take on our ($)responsibilities. Contrary to popular myth. Sure there are deadbeats. But I think this is more the exception and in fact sympathize with any father’s enlightenment moment when they realize what it really means becoming a father. Under a microscope of scrutiny and expectation, always always expected to and punished for not dolling out. Rarely if at all recognized for the extras, god forbid a 50/50 custody situation with two completely funcitonal and capable parents from day 1… and one parent (gender not specified) still gets to squeeze the other for money – and there is no real financial imbalance, both parents are relatively poor. And yet, again, one parent will be made to doll out, pay the price. Don’t ever assume I get my kid every other weekend though ok? Snotty super moms on the playground!
lol otherwise, parenthood is a wonderful experience. Just be forwarned about the inneviteble child support hooks in you…
Pingback: And the pendulum swings | Something Fishy
On my goodness, THANK YOU “Dalrock” for this beautifully articulated, yet so logical to the point the simplest of our human kind should be able to pick up on simply as an outside observer; however, and as I’m sure you’ll find in the the above comments, some don’t. There’s a “DivorcedMoms.com” website, that scarred me into a panic attack. I had to close my computer and scream, I can’t understand why this is so difficult for a seemingly educated group of people in our country to understand? I LOVED the call-back to the “Departed,” “THIS IS AMERICA, IF YOU CAN”T MAKE MONEY YOU”RE A ‘Dou…Bag.’ As a loving father, i could have went two ways after a year and a half legal battle in which I paid all of my ex-wife’s attorney fees and Spousal Support, and Child Support, coming out to about $4,000 per month, my total salary as an Actuary PLUS my Disabled Veteran Disability Payment. I was terrified, if I didn’t hound my brother in Afghanistan, fighting for that same Constitution I once believed so much in I would have been put in prison. Ironic to say the least… But I didn’t kill myself, I had to make money right, so i started a business, but in the meantime my ex-wife took my babies across the country and didn’t let me see them, speak with them, nothing. So I petitioned a modification to lower just a little bit the support payments so I could get some counsel and PAY out the nose to see my children, which let’s be real, she wasn’t about to let me see bc it’s not “hot” to have the father hanging around if you’re looking for another one. That other father wants to be the hero. He can’t if there’s already one in place, thus, I need to be gone for her to start a “new life” and by new life I mean a new sucker to pay her way. Long story short, I went into court, she claimed I hadn’t spoken to my children in two years and I was done, that was it. A year of working to get to that point, where I could share my frustrations and desire to see my babies gone. Poof. I was petrified, there was no way to make the additional support in time, and I will be going to jail.. See I had to start a business, DOING VERY WELL NOW, in order to fund my attorneys for my later trial in visitation bc as you know, there is NO Attoreny General for visitation issues… But sacrificing for the greater good of our relationship is NOT ok when it’s the alienated father. We are shut up and pay up. Period. I was destroyed, still am, but something inside me says, I can’t give up, I won’t give it. I feel like a chump, well more like the walking dead, but until they take that last breath from my lungs, I’ll fight for my children, then in the end, wind up another dead dad who blew his brains out hoping, PRAYING someone would just LET ME SEE MY CHILDREN and be a dad. Stop telling us to be dads, we WANT TO! I hate these people like I’ve never hated anything in the world, the family courts do more damage to our country than Bin Laden himself, statistically, check them out, more fathers commit suicide that all terrorist attacks combined.
The good news. This article. I WILL DO ANYTHING TO PERPETUATE THIS CAUSe, I’ll die for it. Please, we MUST do something, Fathers, and mothers too, we must unite. Our nations future depends on it, at least what’s left of it.
Daniel Stratton (My website below, http://www.fitholster.com is the company I started in my futile attempt to override the archaic and unfair lack of accountability in visitation as the judge let my exwife move across the country.
Pingback: How Conservatives Helped Ruin the “Sanctity of Marriage” | The Anarchist Notebook | Libertarian Anarchy
If all states recognized a birth certificate as a state legal documents a lot of dad’s would be there for the kids. The dad’s are not given a opportunity they take away the right but want them to pay support but not see there kids and that is b.s there is a lot of mom’s that don’t list the father on birth certificate so there goes his rights.
Pingback: Why Marriage Is a Lie (not Gonna Get It, Part II) « HOLY HELLFIRE
Pingback: Credit Due | The Anarchist Notebook
Pingback: Strategy For Men of the West: Polygyny | Toad's Hall
Pingback: Men are going Galt. Marriage is dying.
Pingback: Marriage today – and its dystopian future
Pingback: Some Christian conservatives bow down for feminists
Pingback: Introduction – Posthumanity