Note: I greatly appreciate the work the National Marriage Project is doing, especially in putting out easy to read and meaningful data in their State Of Our Unions reports. In addition, their director W. Bradford Wilcox strikes me as a very sharp and stand up man, and he has very kindly assisted me in the past. This post isn’t a shot at the Marriage Project, but an attempt to demonstrate how ubiquitous our blind spot is regarding women’s accountability and the insidious way that child support has replaced marriage as our fundamental family model both legally and in the popular conception, even for those who consider themselves pro marriage.
In the 2012 State of Our Unions report they offer ten suggestions to strengthen the institution of marriage:
…we offer ten recommendations—for federal policy, state policy, and cultural change—for renewing marriage in Middle America.
Suggestion number four is to end “anonymous fatherhood”, with an emphasis on sending a cultural message that fathers matter (emphasis mine):
In the U.S. today we have a fundamental contradiction in our policy on fatherhood. If a woman gets pregnant after a one-night stand, the father can be held accountable financially for that child for eighteen years. An elaborate, nationwide child support enforcement apparatus has been erected in support of this goal. But if a woman buys anonymous sperm from a sperm bank, the anonymous man who provided his sperm walks away with no obligation. In the first case the state has decided that children have the right at the bare minimum to the financial support of two parents. In the second case, the state has decided that children have no such right.
While only a small (but possibly growing) minority of would-be parents use sperm donation or similar technologies to get pregnant, the cultural power of the idea that it’s acceptable deliberately to create a fatherless child and for biological fathers to walk away from their children is real. Further, studies reveal that majorities of adults who were conceived via sperm donation believe that anonymity should be ended. Therefore, we propose that the United States follow the model of other nations that have banned anonymity in sperm donation—such as Britain, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, and Switzerland—and reinforce the consistent message that fathers matter.
Note how even when talking about women deliberately creating fatherless children in the most undeniable sense, the only moral judgment is on the man who donated the sperm. They aren’t objecting to the cultural idea that a woman would deliberately create a fatherless child, but to the cultural idea that the man should not have to pay her large sums of money as a reward for her making this awful choice. The inability to see women as responsible for their very deliberate choices regarding marriage and motherhood is a tremendous blind spot in our culture.
Also note that the solution to unwed motherhood isn’t to send a moral message that unwed motherhood deprives children of fathers. The solution is to bolster unwed motherhood by making sure our new family model is consistently followed. Morally marriage is no longer the solution, and this will remain the case so long as we wrongly embrace child support as something moral, instead something evil.
Anything which replaces marriage is evil, and this is exactly what child support is designed to do. The best defense of child support is that it may be in certain extreme circumstances a necessary evil. But even here, this is only a qualification of the fact, not a refutation of the evil nature of child support.
Edit: To reinforce the way that child support has become our fundamental model of the family, consider what the solution to the sperm bank problem would be if we instead had a marriage based family structure. In that case the solution would be obvious; bar unmarried women from using the services of sperm banks, and only permit married women to use them with the written consent of their husband (which would serve as formal adoption of the child on his part). But this solution is obvious only in a culture where marriage is the fundamental family structure.
Barring women from anything is inconceivable in our culture.
I think one of the mistakes we often make is assuming that the status quo is irrevocable.
In China, today, single mothers get taxed heavily to pay for their illegitimate offspring. If a woman continues on the course of being a multiple babymamma, the police will sometimes arrest her, take her by force to the local clinic, and have her tubes tied with or without her consent.
In the USSR, up until the early 1990s, mutiple babymammas were arrested and sentenced to jail for vagrancy and wasting resources, and their kids were taken away from them to be raised by more normal couples.
These all sound really brutal and inhumane to us, but it’s useful to note that up until the late 1950s, the same sorts of things happened in the USA. Even one illegitimate kid would instantly disqualify a woman from most jobs (widows were not included) and would often land such women in the poorhouse, with their kids taken away from them too. What’s more brutal? The selfishness of allowing people to raise up delinquents who have social problems and drain public resources, or encouraging 2 parent families?
My guess is that once the pursestrings get tighter, such penalties (social or legal or both) will suddenly reappear. Society simply can’t afford to keep subsidizing people’s foolish choices.
“Morally marriage is no longer the solution” only until the Fed can’t print money to any effect any more and cover a $600B deficit. Once that merry-go-round stops and we have to actually pay for what we get the moral landscape will change dramatically. Imagine the fun we’ll all have when through either inflation or budget cuts, there’s no more funny money being sent to the fatherless communities.
Just want to say thanks. I don’t usually post, but I always look forward to a new Dalrock post. The content here gives me a lot to think about and helps shape the way I view the world. Thanks-
[D: Thanks, and welcome]
Charles Murray says that unwed fathers should have no obligation to or rights to their children unless they marry the mother. He also says that the state should not provide welfare to unwed mothers, and should only pay for abortion or orphanages, and if the woman can’t support the child on her own, it gets taken away.
All comes back to no constraints with no accountability on women. Anything goes…devolving downward to hell, not climbing upward to heaven.
I greatly appreciate the work the National Marriage Project is doing
Dalrock, I had not heard of this organization before. Are they “faith-based” or secular?
[D: Secular.]
Okay, I have mentioned this here before, but it’s definitely on target…. My wife left me, filed for divorce, and has shacked up with another man. My young child is currently taking a nap in the other room… and next week I will receive a child support check from my ex wife. As an aside, when all was said and done, I was granted the divorce on the grounds of my ex having maintained an “ongoing adulterous relationship.” I live in one of the few states that is not “no-fault.” At any rate, the child support check I receive from my ex goes entirely to my child’s private school education. I agree that homeschooling is best, but under the circumstances that is simply not possible. If child support is, in and of itself, evil, should I no longer accept the money? By the way, I agree entirely that our family law courts are corrupt (I’ve seen them up close and personal) and that divorcing your wife for any cause other than fornication (Matthew 19:9) is sin. I’m simply asking, as a man who “won” divorce court as best is possible, should I now let my adulterous ex-wife off the hook for the child support the court says she must pay for the divorce she initiated?
Two can play this game:
okrahead says:
May 31, 2014 at 5:36 pm
I’m simply asking, as a man who “won” divorce court as best is possible, should I now let my adulterous ex-wife off the hook for the child support the court says she must pay for the divorce she initiated?
Wow! What state do you live in? We live in a society that leans anti family / anti male, and more often than not the courts will monetarily reward a woman for doing what your wife did.
If we lived in a sane society, custody of your children would have defaulted to you and she would have been shamed (perhaps even punished) for having disgracefully dishonored her husband, her father, and their families. If we lived in that society, I probably would not accept money from her.
Under current circumstances I’d say that you dodged a bullet, and justice is being served at least in part.
“Even then, imputation and state coercion (i.e. new forms of slavery) will emerge.”
Oh, I think we’ll see change before that happens.
De facto indentured servitude will return before de jure does, as a simple consequence of poverty and the inability of the safety net to keep up with inflation.
@Okrahead
You seem to be making the case that in your situation it is a necessary evil. Would you not agree?
Ras Al Ghul says it right. “Barring women from anything is inconceivable in our culture.” It may not be women’s accountability per se that is the cultural blind spot, but rather that we have blinders foist upon us that prevent us from seeing the necessity of restricting women’s choices to better choices.
Dalrock,
I see what you mean about a necessary evil. I just wonder is I should have a moral compunction about accepting the money. At any rate, as I said, I make sure that every penny is accounted for in my child’s education. I am under no court order to do so; I simply feel it is a moral obligation on my part. My question, such as it is, is whether in accepting the money the court says I am legally entitled to I am doing something evil myself. At any rate, thanks for the reply.
Cordially,
Okrahead
“2) Any such law will immediately cause new men to stop donating, so it is a non-starter.”
Then perhaps this is actually a good idea? You’re right, no man is going to donate sperm if it means being on the hook for 18 years of child support. The result of such a law would be the shutting down of all sperm banks, thus eliminating this method of selfish single parenthood.
Perhaps the NMP is engaged in a clever bait and switch, pretending to take a misandrist position that feminists will support, but that will actually have a positive result? 🙂
Also the marriage penalty – however that returns to who defines marriage. Let the couples, churches, and community recognize the sacrament, and let the couple say that to.the church and God we are marriied. The pagan government can literally go to Hell.
I know, that is so gay
Suggestion 3 was to make men into incel.friendzone beta orbiters. However maybe we should end prohibition and the drug war as our grandparents did, though this is one of the Untouchables. I laughed at “Certainly, we would not want to encourage girls and women to think of men guilty of violent crimes as potential husbands. “. They need no encouragement.
5. Extend the time period for divorce? First, maybe the protestants might adopt Catholic excommunication. Make nofault divorce easy if the spouse wants to.lose any claim on assets or children. Make divorce otherwise a scorched earth act.
There were two.tablets, and I’m typing on one, so I will continue in a second comment. But these people appear to be idealistic fools. Liberals in the sense of prescribing policies so unaligned with human nature, that they will fail and cause more damage.
6. Require Premarital education… this should be obvious, but if it is not, whom will set the lesson plans?
7. No marriage left behind.
8. Engage Hollywood? Do we need more craven firebombedes in 3d?
9. Hillary 2016! Is there anyone with any moral authority?
10. If you are a paedophile, talk about marriage. If you are gay… if you are a vegan… if you are a neo-nazi or commie, talk about marriage, e.g. “If you are for, against, or uncertain about gay marriage, you can talk about marriage. Talk about gay marriage—and then talk about why marriage is important for the vast majority of people who identify as heterosexual and whose sexual lives quite often produce children. Why does marriage matter for those kids?”
Query: which side are they on?
@okrahead re: May 31, 2014 at 5:36 pm?
I second the fellow who asked what state you live in.
My children principally live with me though I have not asked that the child support award be nullified or reversed (I pay her a fairly nominal sum). There are legal and moral rationale for my decision.
The morale rationale is that if I had an award placed against her I would be participating in a system of chattel slavery because her failure to pay would land her in jail (at least in theory). My small protest is probably of little consequence since I am an unwilling participant anyway.
I mean to write an article some time proposing an across-the-board gender neutralization of reproductive rights. Meaning: she can terminate the pregnancy, he can terminate his parental rights, she can give a live baby up to “safe harbor”, severing both her rights and responsibilities as a parent, … and therefore so can he. Arguably marriage may terminate this right of his but that can be corrected as he may divorce her to reinstate the right. Whatever reproductive right she has, he has.
A general guiding moral premise that I would like to see finding its way into law is the “whole and unseverable” responsibility of parenthood on both parties.
In other words: if we elevate reproductive rights because we refuse to impose the awesome responsibility of parenthood on people, we should be very clear and uncompromising on that responsibility on those who decline to exercise their rights to severe their legal parenthood.
That gets to a lot of particulars but here’s where it may do something to inform your case:
1) On one hand you and your ex, having agreed to become parents … are both 100% on the hook for this (whole and unseverable)
2) On the other hand … but still closely related: if you are both on the hook – while that should not allow the state to “divide the baby” with arbitrary systems of cash transfer, you can still agree to make your lives and labor/cost-sharing uncomplicated with a private, two party cash payment contract, enforceable in court like any other … that would be quite different from our current system of statutory child support backed by prison that is so morally problemmatic
So to your private situation, you cannot change the law, but ask youself this: do you consider your support award fair? How about you ex? Does she consider it fair?
If you both agree it is fair, and to keep it fair, and not to try to put one another in prison even though the law allows it, I would say you are doing the best you can in the current legal and political context.
TFH: The former Soviet Union had democratic elections. Rigged to be sure, but citizens voted
Okrahea,
I cannot figure out exactly which part of your support you believe is immoral. I believe the modern system that extorts support from a man by default and then refuses custody or even significant visitation is immoral. I also believe that an adulterous spouse should be due nothing because of that adultery.
A spouse that is wronged getting something from the one they were wronged by has some merit, though it can be a slippery slope in other perspectives.
The feminazi’s are busy changing even the fundamentals behind this topic….now even sperm donors must reconsider that choice as the courts are viewing THEM as sources of cash and prizes for poor choices made by females.
http://healthland.time.com/2014/01/23/sperm-donor-must-pay-child-support/
1) Productive taxpayers do NOT want to pay for some irresponsible player’s illegitimate spawn.
2) Women make poor reproductive choices and are not held responsible for them BECAUSE we acknowledge their lack of agency, especially on this issue.
Child support shall be strictly enforced upon the person responsible. This is the man. (or the sperm bank.)
Women who spawn unsupportable bastards should lose custody (they are a priori irresponsible, incompetent, and will harm the child) and the child given to some couple who want to, and can, raise it.
Only the most drastic incentives will restrain the natural reproductive drive of women and men. In our current sinful society a woman who has a child, despite the ease with which she could prevent or destroy it, has been driven by her nature to have it.
Where we have gone wrong is in assuming they are even a bit rational when it comes to children.
If you look at the National Marriage project Dakrock linked above, you will see the lastest figures on marriage are from 2011. In the past, every year the figures for the latest available figures have been printed. So, of course, I would not expect 2014 figures.
But, the last figures were posted in 2012. Nothing in 2013 nor 2014, for the correct past years.
Based on my long held belieft that feminists are highly predictable, this tells me there is some reason they do not want the figures to be released any more.
I can brain storm a couple possible reasons. First, the figures are still sinking so fast they don’t want the dearies to panic.
Second, perhaps they hope by not printing the figures any more, everyone will forget about marriage rates dropping as an important issue. Out of sight; out of mind.
That is, of course, projecting female views on to men. Are we going to forget about the risks of marriage, just because the MSM no longer reports the marriage rate? I don’t think so. Dearies will.
There may be some other goal, but there is a goal behind it.
Anon 72
I think the issue with the missing data is from the US govt. The census says that the CDC is responsible for the marriages stat ( here http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/). But the CDC latest data is for 2011: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm
Two people have asked, but for personal reasons (mostly relating to my divorce and child custody issues) I do not wish to disclose my state of residence. If you are of a mind to I suggest that you do a web search for states that require fault in divorce court. There are very few such states.
As for the morality of my accepting child support:
1) I did not leave, my ex wife left.
2) I did not desire to divorce, she was the initial filer. I counter-filed only once she made it clear reconciliation was impossible, and I did so on grounds of an “ongoing adulterous relationship,” which I am fairly certain is covered by Matthew 19:9.
3) Even once the custody arrangement became clear, as well as the fact that she would have to pay child support, my ex still would not relent on her course of action. She had to be happy, whatever that means.
Just as an aside, I also got the house and 1/2 her retirement account. The right lawyer and a private detective are sometimes worth the money.
“Even once the custody arrangement became clear, as well as the fact that she would have to pay child support, my ex still would not relent on her course of action. She had to be happy, whatever that means”
That sounds like she thinks its fair. She has responsibility to the children, if she expresses some of that through paying child support to you, no harm, no fault, no foul.
I tend to think Dalrock’s posts on the meaning of child support and what it says about our priorities and values are his best: it is a view found nearly nowhere else and as such it’s something of a public service. We do this because when we look at a bell curve we feel that the one-third of marriages where women are trapped in bad marriages are intolerable to decent society while the corresponding one-third where both husband and wife and down for their children and the institution is something rather optional and so assured it may be taken for granted.
Where will someone go but Dalrock to have this put into relief? Not even the National Marriage Project.
Okra, “go forth, raise your children the best you can, and don’t put their mother in jail unless its to protect them.”
As is, I think you’re cool.
I find nothing wrong with the Project’s recommendation.
It’s a continuum of the British Governement’s quango Behavioural Insights Team (BIT or better known as the nudge unit, based on ‘nudge’ behavioural psychology) social policy.
Clearly the aim of the recommendation is to change ‘female’ behaviour through dissincentivising men.
At least The National Marriage project has the foresight to realize that women are incapable of making that change themselves and can only affect female behavioural change indirectly through men.
okrahead
Do not feel the slightest hint of guilt. Feel good, it is ok
The state roping in anonymous sperm donors reminds me of the switch one of the East Coast states pulled on drivers of hybrid cars.
For years, the politicians there strutted their green cred by providing financial incentives for people to buy hybrids.
But then something happened: the state’s gas tax receipts declined because cars were becoming more fuel-efficient. So the politicians slapped a levy on hybrids to recoup the difference. Now, instead of an incentive, there was a penalty. Gotcha.
It’s one short step from having sperm donors subsidize a protected political class of single mothers to imposing a bachelor tax. This expropriation can easily be done indirectly and clandestinely, through administrative slight-of-hand. For instance, taxes can be raised on everyone, but the single mothers will be given an offsetting tax break not available to single men. The proceeds are transferred to the mothers in the form of entitlements or refundable tax credits. That’s just one possible method.
It is amusing to observe TFH practising Eugenics; pre-Red Pill, unable to score with the sort of women he desired he ends up impregnating Lesbians, Fatties, and the like and then as with any rake or cad abandoning them to their fate. Let us hope for TFH’s sake that they do not change the law, for otherwise, in later years, he will be visited by a multitude of people calling him ‘Dad’ as well as their mothers pleading for financial support. At the very least he would have to send a card twice a year – at Xmas and birthdays.
TFH was younger then and has doubtless (as we all do) learned the error of his youthful ways and privately regrets his impetuosity and generosity. The idea of children being born through the anonymity of sperm banks – test-tube babies (I was until recently so ignorant that I neither knew it was possible or happened) repulses me, much as it might if one were to learn that one was conceived during a busy night at a swinger’s club. My observation of adopted and fostered children is that it is a well-meaning but undesirable idea; even the most middle class of adoptive parents end up raising thugs and tearaways which suggests it really is nature rather than nurture.
Once again, under the sentiment of kindness and the rubric of choice The State has ended up facilitating depravity and promoting long-term misery. I feel confident that TFH will now feel it necessary to once again correct my spelling.
tz2026 does a fine takedown of the NMP recommendations via aspersive relabeling (No Marriage Left Behind!), but mischaracterizes Suggestion 3 as “make incel beta orbiters”. In fact, this suggestion is designed to remove men from the company of women for years at a time, presumably in order to make them thirsty for marriage.
Some examples are better than others. This post is a superior example of the normalcy bias. Correct me if I am wrong Dalrock….if you know…..I assume Mr. Wilcox didn’t even consider the POV you describe whereby he fails to hold the woman to account, choosing to lament how men are getting away with something.
He is pointed in another direction. Full stop. He has his point of reference established and it is fixed. On a spectrum that has male accountability on one end and female on the other he works in a very short segment of the line. In fact his spectrum may BE that small segment, with male full responsibility on one extreme and the other extreme is “male responsible but it is remotely possible some reader could infer something about women”.
IOW female accountability isnt even thought of once. As if it doesn’t exist. Its like researching some disease that is killing villagers but totally precluding viral or bacteriological infection.
Dalrock,
Any want-to-be legislator who runs on this platform would never be elected. Any currently serving legislator who proposes this legislation would be outvoted in the house and he or she would never be re-elected. The 19th Amendment to our Constitution prevents any common sense legislation like this from ever becoming law. Women vote with their emotions, not with their brains. And calming explaining to them why their emotions are wrong is effort in futility because women refuse to see the forest through the trees (again, their lack of understanding of cause and effect.)
Dalrock has some outstanding ideas on how to improve marriage and society in general but his ideas are in effort in futility because of the 19th Amendment. We are screwed.
One step in the right direction is red pill truth for all young men. Starting in middle school. Everything for family law, culture, and criminal law. The male pill (or lack of) and the effects of the laws of misandry as put in play. What happens to you when you become a father. etc. etc. Tell the truth show them the suicide rate as well as the occupational death rate. And then show them how the 19th amendment works.
Seems like every article or a lot off them at the end always comes down to the laws of misandry. The solution is going to be savagely violent
@Okrahead – Life is a kludge. You do the best you can. I’m in your shoes, sans child support and about 12 years farther down the road with a few added complications. I don’t think you should have any moral reservations about taking the cash. While it’s loads of fun to argue in moral absolutes, life doesn’t work that way. There are the ideals we all should strive to attain and then there’s what we can actually do, Christ doesn’t call us to succeed, he calls us to try and keep trying.
God bless you, sir.
Agree with others about Okrahead.
If I were to design a fair system in the case of parents who were too dysfunctional to share custody (such as in okrahead’s case, with the wife who couldn’t keep her legs closed) it’d be something like: mother custody until age 8, father custody until age 16; with bidirectional child support that would (in theory) cancel itself out (father pays until 8, mother pays until 16).
One part of the red pill truth that is lacking, even on sites like heartiste, is the status of a married woman. The playa who bangs a married woman (no matter what she looks like) is the equivalent of the playa who bangs a 500 pound morbidly obese fattie, or amputee. Married women who fuck around are utterly damaged goods, gutter dwellers who are totally unfit for game, and no playa should even be talking to them.
Married women who fuck around are utterly damaged goods, gutter dwellers who are totally unfit for game, and no playa should even be talking to them.
I would interject here that two pieces of sub-human scum who hook up under such circumstances as you describe absolutely deserve one another – and the inevitably ugly fallout, of various sorts, that will result from their trysts.
Of course we know that to be generally the case, but I think it should be laid out to the young bros clearly on game sites; and, men who bang married women (including women who are “separated” but not divorced yet) should be laughed at and loudly mocked without any mercy at all. Either they were so desperate as to pick up another man’s wife, or they didn’t do their homework and get the truth of her status before hand.
No man with options would consciously lay with someone so desperate and so detached from reality. Any association at all with such a slattern reflects deeply upon the skills of the playa himself.
EVERY STATE allows ‘NO-FAULT’ divorce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-fault_divorce
Funded trolls write stuff like I live in one of the few states that is not “no-fault.”
@Dalrock, your comments section is focusing on a supposed exception. Even friends of mine that are heard in this documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZTOT6DKfZ8 (Divorce Corp) admit to the one-sided nature of the divorce system.
I like that Boxer. It never bothered me to hear of a cheating wife that got murdered. It now doesn’t bother men when a woman that loves bad boys gets beaten or killed by her thug lover.
TFH:
“However, this will never happen, for two reasons :
1) A sperm donor who has gone through the rigorous qualification has 10 children (they limit each donor to 10 per bank). Even if they take the donor’s money, they have to divide it among 10 women.
2) Any such law will immediately cause new men to stop donating, so it is a non-starter. ”
You are whistling in the dark, TFH.
You’re first reason doesn’t matter, yes they’ll divide it among how many women, starting with the first to ask for it, and reduce it as more come out asking. There are guys out there with ten plus child to several baby mamas, it doesn’t stop the system then, why would it stop for you?
As for your second reason . . . it doesn’t take the legislature, it just takes a judge to find that protecting your anonymity is a violation of the child’s right to know his parents. A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT legally.
Second, you forget that our society and women in general don’t think cause and effect very carefully they expect things to keep on going the way they have “always” gone.
It is only a matter of time because its for the children. They’re already creeping around the edges.
[As an aside those of you that think support ends at 18 it doesn’t. If you’re college educated, you’re expected to help your kids through that too.]
And I found what you wrote here amusing:
“Then women will just get impregnated by thugs and PUAs.
At least sperm donors are screened for looks, height, IQ, profession, and family health history. Better a heavily vetted donor like me, then some hardened criminal.”
Based on your own predictions of the “misndry bubble popping” this is the very future you are predicting:
Most men will drop out into VR sex, while PUA artists (and thugs) will be screwing chicks and marriage will be polygamous. You don’t see this as really a bad thing
Current data is contained in this book that someone recently shared with me: http://wp.me/P3P5mL-sk
“One part of the red pill truth that is lacking, even on sites like heartiste, is the status of a married woman. The playa who bangs a married woman (no matter what she looks like) is the equivalent of the playa who bangs a 500 pound morbidly obese fattie, or amputee. Married women who fuck around are utterly damaged goods, gutter dwellers who are totally unfit for game, and no playa should even be talking to them.”
Never going to happen.
1) Married women are easier to seduce. Sorry, its true.
2) PUA are looking to get laid, not have a long term relationship in general, so whether she is damaged goods or not is irrelevant.
3) Since a PUA is looking for sex with the minimum amount of investment, married women are in fact optimal for this
4) All that matters is hot or not
5) What this is, is just another form of mate guarding and the PUAs see through it
6) Most PUAs convolute their thinking to see themselves as doing a “favor” to the marriage, I kid you not. They are giving the woman a release. Or she’s a cheater and would have anyway.
7) legal marriage is a joke anyway
I could go on, probably for days with why this will not work without some kind of moral authority that punishes transgressions
Ras Al Ghul
It is going to collapse. The beast will start to eat the enforcers. They will then be corruptible. Lotta dead ex wife cold cases. Unenforced laws of misandry etc. Wait until the elites figure out a way to turn off the babymamma tap that finances the Detroits, , Chicagoes and Stocktons and any other bastard baby I don’t need a man thugciety. That will be some good television there.
@JDG,
OT Warning
A big Thank You to you for posting the link to the article by Wayne Grudem about the original greek meaning of “head”. It was used as “authority”, not “source”. A well researched article.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tj/kephale_grudem.pdf
greyghost says:
I like that Boxer. It never bothered me to hear of a cheating wife that got murdered. It now doesn’t bother men when a woman that loves bad boys gets beaten or killed by her thug lover.”
There really should be a legal defense “they had it coming.” The feminist sort of get way with that with the “battered wife syndrome” but I suspect society would be better off if you could argue directly that someone had it coming.
“It is going to collapse.”
Maybe, but it is difficult to predict the outcome.
There is a moral vaccum that needs to be filled and I don’t see Islam or christianity being the ones to fill it.
Dear Ras al-Ghul:
I know. They’re at about the same level of difficulty as a 250kg fattie, or a double amputee. All the more reason to mock men who bang married sluts.
Fun story: A couple of years ago I started banging a woman I thought I had done my due diligence on. She was older, lived alone, etc. She (mis-)represented herself as a divorcée. I had sealed the deal with this woman a few times and she was becoming a regular in my rotation. One weekend she got a call, and after hanging up the phone, she was frantic, I had to leave immediately. Turns out the bitch was married. Her husband was (probably still is) one of those silicon valley whiz-kids. He called her from his parents’ house, just a few minutes away, and was heading over to surprise her for dinner and a night out.
Had I been a bit more streetwise, I’d have refused to leave, encouraged the ho’ to call police or just stick around so that I can meet the dude. Anyway, that was a whole lot of drama that I didn’t need, and in hindsight, her eagerness should have been a tip-off that she wasn’t right in the head.
OK, you’ve got me on this one.
Regards, Boxer
Ras Al Ghul
I also like your take on the married sluts. The PUA should fuck what they can get no problem It is the delusional saps that think the slut was worthy in the first place is where the action is. The chivalry of one man to another is for a different time and place today we are shifting attitudes to make such a place.
It is her responsibility to submit If she chooses not to she gets what she has coming to her.
Greyghost:
“It is the delusional saps that think the slut was worthy in the first place is where the action is. ”
The best predicter of future behavior, is past behavior. If she cheated with you, she will cheat on you.
Boxer:
I know a guy (I don’t interact with him at all anymore) that slept with the wives of his two best friends. Not one, but two. He is in a long term relationship with one of the women and she’s pregnant.
Bad things are coming there, as they should. There’s already been one domestic incident involving a gun.
Boxer
Check this out from CH
https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/05/17/comment-of-the-week-deere-john/#comment-564104
See if you can find a box 9mm for sale anywhere.
Bee says:
June 1, 2014 at 12:57 pm
Your welcome. I’m glad I was able to help shed some light on this false teaching which has been perpetuated among Christians (who really should know better) and churchians alike.
“Morally marriage is no longer the solution, and this will remain the case so long as we wrongly embrace child support as something moral, instead something evil.” I agree.
“Anything which replaces marriage is evil…” I disagree. When the King insists on “first rights” by giving women money and impoverishing their men then the only “marriage” that is not evil is that which is done in secret and otherwise not sanctioned by the state.
Apparently, (nods to @Boxer) China and Russia understand mathematics as opposed to an economic system that depends on endless growth–population, resources, speculation.
@TFH: “A democracy, over time, always devolves into a ‘feminist’ police state + goddess cult. Even conservatives who think they are not ‘feminist’ effectively become woman-centric, because the laws and media have drenched society with this meme, in order to buy women’s votes.”
Agree and disagree (I am pro-Democracy). Personally, I believe that there’s no point in giving the women the “vote” (a violent act) as well as “birth” (an equally violent act). It’s a matter of mathematics. Women will still have plenty of power over the political process–indirectly. Giving them a civic “right” without comparable civic responsibilities is bad mathematics. Unfortunately, in the U.S. such was required for taxation when the booze tax wasn’t enough to finance wars in order to reduce population (because of Prohibition–an unfortunate civic result of too many women with nothing better to do).
Of course, giving women something to do which distracts them from over-reproducing is another tried-and-true population control method. Unfortunately, giving women the vote, men’s jobs, and an economy that requires endless growth subverts that process. Therefore, the current plan is to give women money. It’s the new “Eugenics”–as a means of preserving the power of the King (and aristocracy.) By the way, the King just said that he plans to kill Democracy. Make way for “population correction” of all pretenders to the throne who threaten his power to perpetuate gynocracy. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10859230/Prince-Charles-reform-capitalism-to-save-the-planet.html
Lotta dead ex wife cold cases.
If only. Oh, if only…
Agree and disagree (I am pro-Democracy). Personally, I believe that there’s no point in giving the women the “vote” (a violent act) as well as “birth” (an equally violent act). It’s a matter of mathematics. Women will still have plenty of power over the political process–indirectly. Giving them a civic “right” without comparable civic responsibilities is bad mathematics.
Giving women the vote was indeed bad mathematics, but it was much more than that. It went against common sense (or at least good sense that used to be common).
“Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full
latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and, in practice, you know we are the subjects. We
have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight; I am sure every good politician would plot, as long as he would against despotism, empire, monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, or ochlocracy.”
~ John Adams to Abigail Adams, April 14, 1776
And contraception is also more than just a bad choice in numbers. It was once commonly understood to be morally wrong. Prior to 1930, all Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox held that contraception was sinful and contrary to God’s will. Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others included.
Alimony and child support are different, even if they do similar things (transfer money from man to woman),
If there is a child, child support is likely from father to mother. Alimony is more likely if the mom has been stay at home, the duration of the marriage is longer , whether they both work or not, whether one parent produces considerably more wealth or not. (but that last can be offset by merely giving the woman millions that the guy acquired)
Getting child support is considerably easier to get than alimony. It also has a stronger enforcement arm. There is a child support enforcement division, there is not an alimony support enforcement division. There are specific crimes for not paying child support, alimony is merely contempt of court.
Judges tend to be reluctant to order alimony, they’ll happily order the child support, they will give the woman a lions share of the assets, half the guy’s retirement (because that’s easy to do) but try to avoid the alimony because it means more potential work and headaches for them in the future.
The doctor with a trophy/stay at home mom for a wife is the most likely to get stuck with alimony, they’re rich enough to get hit, but not rich enough to buy their way out of it
I saw the National Marriage Project list of ten recommendations to “fix” marriage. I could get an equally valuable perspective from Jezebel. These people are nuts. Shall we?
1) End marriage penalties – they talk about tinkering at the fringes of the tax code, but ignore the biggest marriage penalties of all: men losing their jobs, their freedoms, and sometimes their lives because women can get the state to impose enormous (and largely sex-specific) penalties on them.
2) Triple the child tax credit for children under age three – here’s a thought: how about we reduce taxes on everybody… instead of forcing workers to subsidize women’s reproductive choices even more than we do already?
3) Help young men become marriageable men – By all means, let’s tweak around the edges of the problem rather than dealing with the MUCH larger problem of helping young women become marriageable.
4) End Anonymous Fatherhood – Is this a significant problem? Didn’t think so. How about we start penalizing (or at least stop subsidizing) women who have bastards by choice?
5) Enact the Second Chances Act to reduce Unnecessary Divorce – Rather than enacting an expensive and counter-productive new law we could just repeal “No Fault” divorce in all 50 states. If a divorce filing required evidence of fault, and no cash and prizes for women who frivolously divorce (it’s almost always wives who do that)… that would be FAR more effective than yet another law that will inevitably be used against men.
6) Require Premarital Education for Persons Forming Stepfamilies – Do I get to run it? No? Then screw that.
7) Encourage state and federal policy makers to invest in and evaluate marriage and relationship education activities and programs – or we could treat marriage as the private affair that it is and let adults take the consequences (good or bad) for their choices.
8) Engage Hollywood – This one is a joke, right?
9) Launch Community-Oriented Campaigns about the Facts and Fun of Marriage – Will these campaigns cover the risks and the anti-male laws. Somehow I don’t think they mean THOSE facts.
10) Find Your Marriage Voice – I’m not sure how encouraging every whack-a-doodle with an axe to grind is helpful. Furthermore they specifically encourage advocates of gay marriage and feminists to speak out… yet advocates for patriarchal marriage are conspicuously absent.
Seriously… other than an ability to crunch largely-meaningless numbers from population data, do these people know anything about marriage AT ALL? A monkey could have written a better list.
Livefearless,
It seems to be that OH has been by in the past commenting in good faith so I doubt the troll appellation but it did strike me as odd since you are correct that at least by standard def all states are “no fault” (although territories and federal holdings, what about those?) … but who knows.
I didn’t think it mattered even if it was a troll question because I don’t think it derailed the discussion.
Where I live a Bluedog is not a unicorn. Our US rep in congress is a BD as is the one in the district immediately south of here.
As such I keep company with a lot of blue dogs. We have in common that we’d raise your taxes, but probably reform them first so that by the time we got around to raising them they’d actually be cut, we tend to be highly economically literate and find both Marx and Rand equally revolting and we can’t understand why this isn’t a more broadly held sentiment, and we tend to be “progressive on social issues while wary of identity politics but I have noticed a slight difference in tone between male and female Bluedogs on the latter with females speaking on identity politics with much greater caution.
Point is: this is a crowd that I make a special point of saying in polite conversation “I believe child support should be abolished”.
Actually I don’t and that comes out in conversation. The point is to bluntly question conventional assumptions in a way that splashes cold water on faces and gets people to think, especially among those who are fertile ground for the inquiry – fair minded people who just have never thought about it before.
Private agreements between divorced adults that provide for the care of children should be enforceable. A state expectation that a parent who has affirmed his or her parental rights will, in divorce, provide for the care of their children … this is reasonable.
It’s the placement of systematic resource extraction at the center of family law, the systematic legal denigration of fatherhood and the corresponding system of chattel slavery that goes along with all of this that is so objectionable and should be subject to public critique, audit and reform.
If OH’s anecdote was to derail the CS critique I think it had no such affect.
cap,
Russia and China (Russia particularly) are dying. Negative population growth (just 1.4 births per woman) has really brought the hammer down on these nations from a “growth” perspective. You need 2.1 births per woman just to break even, they are not even close to that. Due to alcoholism and what-not, Russian men are dead at 55. Russian women try to sell themselves into Western nations. China tends to abort (well, murder really) all their unborn girl babies. Bad.
This is bad mathematics. And (as a result of this math straight from Satan) there will be some kind of a war. I don’t know how it will manifest itself (probably a civil war) and I hope the United States stays out of it and I hope to God that there are no nukes used by anyone.
RAg,
Most of the US states have gotten out of the alimony game, and the few that remain don’t typically have permanent alimony (only under some extremely rare circumstances.) All 50 still have child support and that is not going anywhere.
Lyn87, … I agree: their list is a manifesto of Orkin pest exterminators declaring their “got hammer, all problems are nails” strategy for eradicating cancer.
Other folks: I’m just a faceless thumbnail on an internet comment section so it’ll probably range from fruitless to evoking the charge of “troll” to say so but ideating about the revocation or rollback of the voting franchise is worse than fruitless, if it has any affect other than keeping your voice underground it will be to retard progress on the legitimate points you make.
Whatever we do, imposing choices on other autonomous beings isn’t the answer. If your answer is a structure that imposes on autonomy then start over, that is a dead end. Gender feminists are wrong when they aggitate for an increase in women’s autonomy as they turn a blind eye to how men remain chained. The answer is to be better than them, not to mirror them.
Did anyone else here catch the film debut of “The Sex Life of a Single Mom” last night on the Lifetime Movie Network (I know, forgive me). It was uncanny in the way it covered almost all of the topics discussed here in the matter of a few hours. I find it disturbing how Dom/sub is being mainstreamed in our current culture but that’s not the only disturbing issue this film normalized.
I’d love to see Dalrock do a review. Its going to air repeatedly throughout the summer so watch for it.
The Plot:
Delaine is a 37 year old married woman and mother of two who’s husband had an affair and she forgave him and took him back. He blamed the affair on her not being interested in sex with him and him wanting her to get breast implants so that he would be more interested in sex with her instead of the other woman. She agreed to get breast implants (but did not because they divorce before that). Her husband comes across as a bully.
In the meantime she has some health issues and a friend recommends an acupuncturist. She tells her husband about it and he says if she goes to the acupuncturist then she has to give up her gym membership. She can’t do both. Her husband comes across as a bully.
She goes to the acupuncturist (Graham) likes the treatment (and him) so much that she goes twice a week. Graham is a young, tall, handsome divorcee and helps her get to the root of her physical pain, which is emotional. She breaks down in his office one day telling him about her husbands affair and how she’s going to get breast implants for him. Graham assures her that she is beautiful as she is and exudes “feminine energy” . He then explains to her that if “the feminine and masculine do not have a spiritual connection then there is no real love there.”
Eventually Graham and Delaine have an affair themselves.
One day Delaine tells her husband that the marriage has not been working for a long time and she wants a divorce. He seems surprised and he says, “but we’re happier now than ever”. She says, “I’m not happy and have not been for a long time”. He blames the desire for divorce on her affair with Graham but she insists its not that. She feels disrespected and controlled in the marriage.
They separate and its a bitter one with her husband Robert trying to make her look like the “bad guy” all along and threatening to take the kids.
She is now living with just her two small children, dating Graham the acupuncturist, and feeling happy. One day she tells one of her girlfriends about Graham. The girlfriend tells her that this is the same man who has impregnated one of her other friends and she is due to deliver the baby in three weeks. Delaine doesn’t believe it at first but discovers it to be true. She is devastated and breaks it off with Graham, though she still obsesses over him and compares other men to him.
Her girlfriends tell her to try online dating. She finds it strange and awkward since she hasn’t been in the dating scene since before the internet but joins a site and create a profile just to check it out. She gets lots of messages and looks through the profiles of the guys who sent them. One older man (mid 40s) catches her eye and she corresponds with him and they set up a day and time to meet. She goes to the bar to meet him but he never shows. She goes home alone and disappointed and determined to delete her profile but before she does she sees a new message from a guy named “The Duke”.
The Duke’s profile says he is a “Dom” looking for an “alpha female” to be his “sub”, among other things. She doesn’t exactly know what he’s talking about and finds it strange but intriguing. She writes to him to ask questions and a correspondence emerges between the two. Emails turn into phone calls and before you know it Duke is training her to overcome her doormat status, stand up to her ex-husband’s bullying and become a no-nonsense “alpha female”.
Part of the “alpha female” training is that she has to pursue a man and take full control of her sexuality and their relationship. So she asks a very young 22 year old muscular pretty boy gym rat from the website who messaged her earlier out on a date. They meet and strong, confident, take charge words come out of her mouth that had never come out before. She wonders where the new-found confidence came from as she never had it before, but the young man likes it and is very turned on. They begin dating regularly.
The next project that The Duke gives her is to “go to a sex club and see how alpha females in control of their own sexuality behave and express themselves.” She takes the young boy toy with her and they have sex. Later she phones The Duke and tells him all about it and he is very proud of her and pleased with her progress.
One day the young pretty boy toy gifts her with a pair of diamond earrings and invites her and her children to go camping with him. Its obvious he is genuinely falling for her but she hasn’t even let him meet her kids yet. Its obvious she is keeping him at an emotional arms length and tells him that she doesn’t know where this is going. He is sad and disappointed.
The phone calls with The Duke continue and she becomes more and more engrossed in his world, asking him questions about the “Dom and sub” lifestyle and he explains how its different from sado-masochism in that there is no pain or ridiculous get-ups during sex but there might be a little light spanking if the sub gets out of line and agrees to it. Its about choosing from a place of power to temporarily give over your power to another person.
In the meantime she says all these single and married moms who are not just moms but also “bankers and doctors” and decides she wants to utilize her talents in a career to and starts to ask The Duke questions about starting a business, since he is of course a rich and successful businessman. So now he’s becoming her mentor in that area of life as well.
Well the time rolls around for The Duke and Delaine to meet in person so she flies up to Seattle for Thanksgiving weekend. He of course lives in a large, gorgeous house overlooking a lake and is a tall and “ruggedly handsome” older man of probably late 40s.
During the weekend he trains her further in “alpha femalehood”, “Dom/sub” and business entrepreneurship. They have the best sex she’s ever had in her life.
Over dinner at a fancy restaurant he explains that he’s a “feminist”. She asks him to elaborate on how a “Dom” man can be a “feminist” simultaneously. He says that most people, including “feminists” judge women for their choices. He says that men often judge women for being alpha females in control of their own sexuality as “sluts or skanks” while feminists often judge women for choosing to be submissive. He says he doesn’t judge women for any choices they make, Dom, sub, conventional, vanilla, whatever.
He tells her that most of the subs he’s had have been powerful women, CEOs of major corporations and the like. She asks what would motivate a powerful person to become a sexual sub in their personal life and he says there are many reasons. He says the temporary submissiveness allows them to release and let go in a world where they otherwise have to be in control. She asks if there are people who are don’t have any control over any area of the rest of their life who seek control sexually to compensate and he says that could also be a possibility, but obviously not in his case. She also asks if Doms and subs ever rotate roles and he says yes, that they are called “switches”. She asks if he ever switches and the answer is no. The Duke is “total alpha male Dom”.
He asks her if her husband tried to make her feel guilty for leaving town on Thanksgiving Day and she says yes. He explain to her that “guilt is a tactic used by beta males to control women whom they fear.”
Anyway, on the last day of the visit Delaine explains to Shane (The Duke) that he has changed her, empowered her, and she is now ready to enter into a relationship with a man on her terms. The Duke says, “then my work is done and there is no need for further correspondence between us.”
It is The Duke’s mission in life to empower women in their personal lives.
Delaine returns home and starts her own business which of course flourishes immediately. With her new found empowerment she seeks to make amends with her ex-husband and help him to be a better father to their children. She also encourages him in his relationship with a new girlfriend. She also finds it in her heart to forgive Graham, the acupuncturist.
She doesn’t feel the need for a relationship because she’s busy, happy and content in her life as it is, but she is open to a relationship if the right guy comes along.
No mention is made of the young pretty boy toy who fell hard for her just weeks earlier.
At a store one day she can’t reach the top shelf and a young, tall, handsome man comes her to aid and flirts with her and gives her his card. There is potential there.
She remains forever grateful to The Duke for opening her eyes and empowering her with regards to all her choices; business, personal, sexual.
Am I morally obligated to support this marriage? (…)
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=886397
Pingback: Blind spot | familyinnocence
bluedog,
The problem I have with a lot of “socially liberal” people is that they ultimately don’t hold life being valuable. Being willing to kill a child because of the “my body my choice” catch phrase is a horrid foundation for a society.
I am strongly opposed to drug laws and such, but not because the alternative has any social merit, but because the powerful central government needed to enforce them is worse than their issues.
That’s hilarious! I have to see this farce of a film, now.
The actual sex life of a single mom, by Boxer:
1. She dolls herself up, loses weight, and puts up a profile on POF, OKC, and other swingers sites.
2. She gets pumped and dumped by low quality playas (who, again, ought to be mocked more often for encouraging the proliferation of fat, entitled babymamas and divorcees with nothing to offer).
3. Eventually her looks go, and she enters her 40s and 50s as a broken out old ex-whore, often with no money and no job prospects, who has to get a disability pension from the government just to survive..
While I’m sure there are exceptions (that millionaire hunky handyman is right around the corner for you snowflakes, fo sho) this is the barebones truth for most single moms.
No matter how cute or sexy they are, they have kids in tow, and men with options don’t want to have to deal with that shit.
Regards, Boxer
That is good to know; I did not know that. But, it does not change my opinion that there is an agenda reason for it. And, I usually put things like that in the propaganda category.
The post makes an excellent and irrefutable point: here cannot be two sets of standards and two sets of laws.
If the man involved in the One Night Stand has to be roped into fatherhood against his will, so too must the sperm donor in IVF, despite what the woman involved says.
This is an inconsistency that has to be resolved by lawmakers.
To Lyn87 and TFH,
How dare you question NMP? They are “secular” therefore, beyond question? /sarc
@Anon 72
One thing about Director Wilcox is he isn’t in the “What? Me worry?” category. He knows something is wrong, unlike the recent Christian Post article and accompanying book which has conservative (modern) Christians so giddy. See his recent article What Could Go Wrong? (great title) article for a helping of stats showing that marriage rates are down.
Cont reply to Anon 72,
I do think there is a troubling sudden lack of interest in producing marriage and divorce data on the part of the federal government. However, I don’t think Obama is trying to hide the falling marriage rate in an effort to keep men marching down the aisle. I think Obama is largely ambivalent about marriage, seeing it as a bourgeois institution even though he himself married. The “Put on a happy face” crowd is the evangelical Christians, who are also the ones with the truly deep contempt for both unmarried men and (especially) married fathers.
“The Sex Life of a Single Mom” last night on the Lifetime Movie Network?” YES.
I saw that atrocity (not proud of it…) and also thought of this site. ‘Lifetime’ to me is like the National Geographic channel of the western female mind. Watching that network gives you direct insight into the mind of the filthy feral western female. It’s like medicine for me, reminds me of why I would never trust one of these whores to be the mother of my children or the highway robber of my hard earned assets, no way in hell.
Boxer, the movie is based on a memoir book which is based on a true story!
“When my book, The Secret S*x Life of a Single Mom, was just a manuscript, a few people (including two literary agents) told me they thought it would make an awesome movie. I took it with a grain of salt, assuming every author thinks the same of his/her work. Nonetheless, when my publisher, Seal Press, bought it, I held onto 100% of the movie rights “just in case.”
I signed the one-year option. I was paid well for it, too. Producer Pierre David was EXTREMELY excited about the movie, and immediately got screenwriter Christine Conradt to adapt it. Over the next year, she had to modify three versions of the screenplay before Lifetime finally accepted it – Lifetime’s Standards and Practices thought the first two versions too risque and hot.
Lifetime is very excited about this project because it pushes their envelope in terms of erotic feel and content. Also, totally by coincidence, there’s a Fifty Shades of Grey angle to my story. Moreover, because my story is true and I am just a regular, everyday woman/mom, they see it as being meaningful and relevant content to their primarily female demographic.
I’m not allowed to disclose how much I am earning off this movie. But, I will tell you it’s exponentially more than the advance I received on my book from Seal. My three children and I are sitting nicely for the next year or so. Talks are already in the works for a potential trilogy at Lifetime.”
Delaine Moore is an author, journalist, speaker and Mars Venus Relationships Coach based in Calgary, Alberta. Having partnered with Dr. John Gray, author of Men Are From Mars, Women Are Venus, Delaine coaches individuals and groups on how to successfully shed their married skin, date with confidence, and pursue passion and success in all areas of their lives.
The former COO and Executive Editor of Divorced Women Online, Delaine’s expert articles have appeared on Bell Media’s The Loop, The Huffington Post, Your Tango, BlogHer, MSN’s GLO, First Wives World and The New York Time’s About.com. Her essay, “Less Than a Bump and a Grind,” won the Readers’ Choice Award in Novelette.com’s essay competition on the topic of men, and she has appeared on radio and TV shows across North America.
http://writersweekly.com/this_weeks_article/008375_01292014.html
I think Obama is largely ambivalent about marriage, seeing it as a bourgeois institution
That would seem to jibe with the attitude of most Americans, Boomers through Millennials, whrther they call themselves liberal or conservative, churchian or secular.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/372978/what-could-go-wrong-w-bradford-wilcox
This is rather concerning:
If today’s events in Europe, not to mention of the last century, tell us anything, it is that a generation of young adults “unmoored” from the institutions of work, family, and civil society, and distrustful of their fellow citizens, can end up succumbing to the siren song of demagogues, especially if the economy dips into a depression. It’s for that reason, among others, that policymakers, civic leaders, and business executives, not to mention young adults themselves, need to redouble their efforts to revive the American economy and better integrate today’s Millennials into the nation’s economic, familial, and civic fabric.
@TFH
[Cue Music] ‘Je Ne regrette rien’.’ That’s enough TFH, bring on the ye ye girls’.
W. Bradford-Wilcox seems a bit off: He asserts that the rise of Golden Dawn is due to Greek unemployment, yet Spain with a 25% unemployment rate evinced not one Eurosceptic party at the recent elections. Meanwhile low (8%) Unemployment Great Britain has a clutch of Euro-sceptic parties one of them emerging as the most successful party at the said elections (as if AmRen were to beat the Republicans and the Democrats into 2nd and 3rd place in 2016). In the 1930s massive unemployment in Britain did not lead to Fascism (we are just too indolent and laugh at Jackboots) – I need not comment on Roosevelt’s New Deal. France now leads the Fascist charge in Europe yet does not I think have high unemployment. Bradford-Wilcox needs a rethink.
re: Lifetime movie. It sounds like just another Eat Pray Love thing. Over and over and over, women have proven that given their choices, then this is what results.
re: that Lifetime movie. It seems like women’s version of men’s reality (she didn’t want to have sex, so he had an affair) tends to get spun as if HE didn’t want to have sex with HER.
‘Non. Non rien Non je ne regrette rien’
‘Fermez la bouche Cavalier Cinq, Attendez les demoiselles “ye ye”.
RE: Okrahead and receiving child support from his ex wife
CS is at best a necessary evil, required because parents couldn’t or wouldn’t remain together and make a marriage work. It would be better for parents to remain together “for the children”.
When parents separate and divorce, someone has to have primary residential custody of children of the marriage, and someone has to pay for it, because children are young, cannot support themselves, and must be cared for . Kids of course have day to day and long term needs; and parents have to provide for that. Of course, all those things cost money and time. The usual child support from dad to mom and custody with mom reflects, or is supposed to reflect, the manner in which those things were delivered during the marriage – dad/husband supplied the money; mom/wife supplied the time and the actual hands-on parenting from day to day and minute to minute. And yes, parents have a moral obligation to support their children, both with their time, attention, love, and resources.
The problems always arise, though, because people (mostly moms and divorce lawyers) found ways to game the system. Many times, mom wants the kids because she loves them; but she finds also that child custody carries with it an enormous financial benefit. The custodial parent is guaranteed a hefty income stream in the form of child support.
The true evil of CS is that it’s just about the money and the “freedom”. Many moms want custody of the kids for this reason alone – for the money. My friend whose wife frivorced him after 17 years wanted custody of their sons solely and only because she wouldn’t have been able to make ends meet living on her own without the CS that would come from child custody. Without CS she is unable to support herself. With CS, she can support herself AND her sons (just barely). Mom can live “independently” with the CS money (“independently” meaning, of course, that she relies on her ex H for money, but doesn’t have to have sex with him or live with him or take care of him).
This is the evil of CS – it completely corrupts its recipients and embitters its financiers.
@ Deti
The easiest “solution” (or action that eliminates the most problems) is for fault divorce only. Unfortunately, that will probably never get passed.
Likewise, to award child support and/or custody to the non-filing spouse in a no-fault divorce situation. Unfortunately, that will probably not get passed either.
But that would go a long way to mitigate the current situation(s).
One interesting side note about W. Bradford Wilcox’s past family status. This was noted at the end of another one of his _National Review_ articles (the one referencing Adam Lanza):
Deep Strength:
Yeah, I bet that if nofault divorce were eliminated and a woman had to prove fault to get a divorce, a lot more wives would make a go of things.
I bet that fault divorce only would cure a lot of unhaaaaappiness.
“re: Lifetime movie. It sounds like just another Eat Pray Love thing. Over and over and over, women have proven that given their choices, then this is what results.”
Oh yeah. All three men in her rotation; the sensitive new age acupuncturist Graham, the young pretty college boy toy, and finally the Alpha Dom “Duke” – were far above average, exceptional men straight off magazine covers. The human drive is toward increased freedom, not less of it, and if freedom can be shared with hot people, who in their right (average human) mind would not go for it? I do believe that we have to really, really convince ourselves, even if subconsciously, that lifelong monogamy is what we want. I don’t think that its something most humans would choose in a perfect fantasy world where nothing could go wrong, disease and jealousy did not exist and no baby could potentially starve to death.
“re: that Lifetime movie. It seems like women’s version of men’s reality (she didn’t want to have sex, so he had an affair) tends to get spun as if HE didn’t want to have sex with HER.”
The movie portrayed him as not being attracted to her already C cup boobs.
And it also showed her living financially large during the separation and after the divorce, all without working a job. The only reason she started a business was to express her creativity. It was a hip and fun business, going into “rich people’s homes” (that terminology was in the script) and decorating them for holidays and birthday parties and then going back in when the holidays and parties ended to take down all the decorations.
Reality was not even hinted at in this science fiction disguised as drama movie.
No fault divorce with default father’s custody of the children based on statistics of how children fare in father headed households.
From The Secret of the Sperm Bank:
http://therationalmale.com/2014/01/29/secret-of-the-sperm-bank/
“The first of course being what Anonymous Reader observes; the fact that a repository of ‘Elite’ men’s genetic material would exist at all is the final indictment of the Alpha Fucks / Beta Bucks dynamic (case closed). ”
Surrogate mothers are also elite women: young, pretty, healthy, fertile, fit.
Funny innit? That when humans are forced by necessity to bear children in an unnatural manner, they do it in the correct manner: they choose good, solid genetic material rather than just rely on their “feelings” like they do in choosing a sexual partner. So why don’t we do this when choosing our sexual partners?
Thanks, Dalrock, for comments and links above.
The hoax that Christians have a lower divorce rate is very simple. What they did was re-calculate it for those who went to church in the last week. Big, hairy deal.
When women divorce, they are less likely to go to church for a while. Out bangin’ late Saturday night. And, when men get tossed out of their own home by their wives, and then are told in church it’s their own fault, they very often stop going to church, sometimes forever.
Bad science. Boo! Hiss!
The original data is correct. This is what I talk about when I mention agenda based data.
deti says:
June 2, 2014 at 10:00 am
Ending no-fault divorce alone would not solve the problem much, I suspect. My attorney told me that no-fault laws were promulgated at least in part as a practical measure to keep people from perjuring themselves in court. Women would just revert to making up abuse claims (even moreso than they already do), and you can be sure the courts would go right along with it.
The divorce industry needs the current combination of relatively predictable outcomes so as to advantage the primary players. The most pernicious of these outomes is default maternal custody which leads to reliable income flows via the horribly flawed CS formula.
Something akin to a rebuttable presumption of physical and legal custody going to the non-filer would be a start.
My first neighbour who was reasonably cute – at least sufficiently so for her own Doctor to risk debarment to shag her on occasion – so she said, had two children by two different men. I never saw a man come to her home. She told me she always wanted children but never wanted a husband; of course, it might be rationalisation for being successfully pumped and dumped twice. I remain shocked and sometimes wonder what the male equivalent would be. Toban Morrison – I always wanted children but never a wife, so I hired a surrogate? Yet somehow I feel it has to be (if one can) I always wanted to sleep with a different girl every day but never wanted marriage – or I always liked porn/prostitutes but did not want to commit to any one woman. I think that would shock women the more as it at least has some genetic basis whereas Morrison is previously unknown to animals human or otherwise.
@TFH
Really interesting that the clinic is not interested in female eggs other than between 20 and 27. This is of course when women are at their hottest and when most children are indeed born. Men instinctively prefer women in that age range: if one feels that one is too old for women in that age range, then marrying a woman outside that range would be settling for second best, and perhaps single-dom would thus be preferable.
I wish I had known all this when I was younger but no one: teachers. parents or peers said anything, presumably because with young marriage and low divorce it was simply unnecessary.
You will be pleased to learn that yesterday my blue-pill buddy suddenly said to me for no obvious reason that women (he was thinking about his wife) were not good at seeing beyond the end of the week. I thus quoted you (but without attribution) in response.
“bar unmarried women from using the services of sperm banks, and only permit married women to use them with the written consent of their husband ”
And obviously, since it the condition and not the choice which is unacceptable, children must be taken from any raising a child without benefit of a spouse, for whatever reason…
The “man who donated the sperm” to an unwed mother whether accidental or deliberate, he already made the choice. While I think women should bear the responsibility at the same extent of the men, isn’t that how society should treat this matter? The marriage is intrinsic to having a child, but we are well beyond that point. It is wrong to have single motherhood, but adopting out is not favored and it should be noted that less women are having abortions.
The sleeping around before marriage is the primary problem. I don’t know how you can avoid discussing this issue and go straight to the responsibility of the woman. The horse left the barndoor gates as they would say.
A quick way to mitigate divorce doesn’t necessarily even have permanent ramifications. Barring of course the extremes (few that they are) the one filinig must immediately vacate the home and for some period, 3,6,9 months, become a “visitor” to the kids.
Actual custody etc. has some effect, but women do not react to delayed consequence….at all. They just know they need relief. She files, the next day her life has no changes, except “the jerk” is photoshopped out, and an army of church husbands are cutting the grass and church wives dropping off three bean casseroles and dropping the kids at oboe practice.
empathalogicalism,
Actual custody etc. has some effect, but women do not react to delayed consequence….at all. They just know they need relief.
Hmm. TFH would observe something about women, and cause & effect…
Dalrock posted a few years back text from women who had frivorced as part of a larger article. One phrase that stuck in my mind: the woman who basically wanted a “neutron bomb” to drop in her home, where the building and everything in it would remain while whats-his-name was just vaporized out of the picture.
She files, the next day her life has no changes, except “the jerk” is photoshopped out, and an army of church husbands are cutting the grass and church wives dropping off three bean casseroles and dropping the kids at oboe practice.
A co-worker is part of the leadership at his church. The leadership and some of the men go out a few times a year to do work on the houses of “widows” – maybe just turn on the furnace and clean gutters, or maybe some repair work (plumbing, drains, etc.). They include the divorced women, and the single mothers. I asked him one time for a Bible quote on the notion that a never-married woman with one or more children, is the same as a widow, or a never-married woman. He basically shrugged, and mumbled about “mission of mercy” and that was it.
The topic will come up again, I’m sure. Maybe i’ll ask him, “Say, would you consider a woman who murdered her husband to be a widow in terms of that whole ‘mission of mercy’ thing?”. Or maybe I’ll just ask him why he believes that rewarding bad behavior is a good idea.
The topic will come up again, I’m sure. Maybe i’ll ask him, “Say, would you consider a woman who murdered her husband to be a widow in terms of that whole ‘mission of mercy’ thing?”. Or maybe I’ll just ask him why he believes that rewarding bad behavior is a good idea.
One of two responses are likely:
“Well, you know, um … she’s our sister in Christ who, um, deserves our mercy because, um, she’s … you know, um, our sister in Christ.” (Usually stated sotto voce or mumbled incoherently).
OR
“How dare you deny mercy to a Sister in Christ, you sanctimonious hypocrite! Like you’ve never sinned! How dare you judge her! Now, man up and get busy on that ‘honey do’ list for her!”
Tom Perkins says:
June 2, 2014 at 5:52 pm
““bar unmarried women from using the services of sperm banks, and only permit married women to use them with the written consent of their husband ”
And obviously, since it the condition and not the choice which is unacceptable, children must be taken from any raising a child without benefit of a spouse, for whatever reason…”
No, just unmarried mothers, with exceptions for widows (where the children were either conceived in or born in marriage). Father-only-parent homes do okay, as do (most) widow-headed homes. The other single-parent homes (nonwidow Mom) are the ones that needed ending ASAP.
No, just unmarried mothers, with exceptions for widows (where the children were either conceived in or born in marriage). Father-only-parent homes do okay, as do (most) widow-headed homes. The other single-parent homes (nonwidow Mom) are the ones that needed ending ASAP.
It’s particularly vital to remove infant boys from maternal custody ASAP. If anything deserves elevation to the status of indictable crime, it is this.
@ Dalrock
Did you see #3 from the same report?
3) Help young men become marriageable men
Again, all the responsibility is loaded on men to become better marriage material.
Where is the bullet point on ‘Help young WOMEN to become marriageable women’.
Oh, that’s right………women are defacto marriageable material in our present culture.
ala Pastor Mark Driscoll (clown).
Or better yet………here’s #8
8) Engage Hollywood
“Our nation’s leaders, including the president, must engage Hollywood in a conversation about popular culture ideas about marriage and family formation, including constructive critiques and positive ideas for changes in media depictions of marriage and fatherhood.”
Although I suspect that type of marketing would work over the long-haul (as women are suckers for marketing), it unfortunately is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN……EVER!!!
These same characters are the ones who have buried marriage 6 feet under.
What sells is what will be manufactured. Feminism is currently what sells.
Don’t look for a change of heart by Hollywood to suddenly ‘get religion’ and do the right thing.
The National Marriage Project’s will never reach large numbers of men. They think young men are not marriageable – as stated in their third suggestion “Help young men become marriageable men”. This tells me they are clueless about today’s society. Men are not getting married because they are not marryable – ITS BECAUSE THEY AREN’T INTERESTED. Most men realize divorce court is anti male. Marriage is too risky. If a divorce happens men know they will be screwed over. Also, there are only 9 states which have outlawed paternity fraud
http://antifeministsite.blogspot.com/2014/05/a-reason-why-marriage-is-bad-deal-for.html. What about the other 41! What makes Marriage Project think men want to raise somebody’s else’s child?
The National Marriage Project wont change anything. They are unable to relate to men.
“Our nation’s leaders, including the president, must engage Hollywood in a conversation about popular culture ideas about marriage and family formation, including constructive critiques and positive ideas for changes in media depictions of marriage and fatherhood.”
Ever notice how any Hollywood movie which depicts a strong bond between a parent and child shows the parent either divorced or widowed/widowered? The movies wherein the child has both parents living and married shows a conflicted parent-child relationship.
Pingback: the Revision Division