Asking the wrong question.

Dr. Helen links to a blog post by Neo-Neocon titled: Should men* be allowed to opt out of child support?

As one of the commenters on Dr. Helen’s site points out, Neo-Neocon’s post drifts somewhat aimlessly on the topic.  As I see it though the problem isn’t in Neo-Neocon’s answer, but with the question itself.  A more accurate framing of the question she is trying to answer is:

How should we replace marriage as our organizing philosophy of the family?

Simply put, the purpose of child support is to replace marriage.  Discussing how it should be implemented is discussing how to replace marriage.  Some might argue that this is a good thing, either as a rare exception (say for a husband who abandons his family) or as a rule (as practiced in the western world).  But this doesn’t change the fact that child support is working exactly as designed, and exactly as should be expected.  Child support crowds out marriage, and even in cases where weddings still technically occur the option for the wife to unilaterally convert the family from a marriage based family to a child support based family always exists.  This is part of the threatpoint designed to empower wives and dis-empower husbands.  Men simply don’t have the option to choose the marriage based model over the child support model.

This is why Neo-Neocon’s discussion of the best way to implement child support was destined to be convoluted from the beginning.  Without acknowledging what child support really is and what it does, there is no logical way to discuss it.  This is especially true for Neo-Neocon since she states that she supports marriage:

Wouldn’t it be unconscionable if married men could voluntarily relinquish rights (and duties) to their own children and remain married? And even if they wanted to divorce the mother and live apart and relinquish rights and responsibilities to their children, it would seem as a public policy matter that they should not legally be allowed to walk away from supporting their own children by that mechanism, even if the divorce is not their fault. Children would suffer even more than they do now, and it’s bad enough the way it is.

See Also:

About these ads
This entry was posted in Child Custody, Child Support, Fatherhood. Bookmark the permalink.

162 Responses to Asking the wrong question.

  1. Tom says:

    The better question: should society be allowed to enslave men who never consented to be fathers?

    No means no (to having kids): why is it so hard for some people to understand?

  2. Wouldn’t it be unconscionable if married men could voluntarily relinquish rights (and duties) to their own children and remain married?

    It would also be unconscionable if married men spent their free time levitating over their back yards, but since neither levitation nor relinquishing rights and duties (regarding financial matters which is the presumed topic) are even possible, the point is not just moot, it’s stupid.

    “I’ll pay the mortgage but not the portion for the square footage the kids live in”….same with all other expenses.

    When a point relies on such mental meandering to find traction, the coefficient of friction is zero.

    The unintended consequence of fixing child custody and child support would be lasting marriages. That’s revolutionary.

  3. UK Fred says:

    Surely the problem is not that posed by Neo-neocon, but rather “Isn’t it unconscionable that married women voluntarily relinquish duties to their husband and their own children and retain the financial and child contact privileges of being married? And even if they wanted to divorce the father and live apart and relinquish rights and responsibilities to their children, it would seem as a public policy matter that they should not legally be allowed to walk away from their marriage by that mechanism, especially if the divorce is their fault or deliberate choice without paying adequate compensation to the father of their children.”

  4. Tom says:

    The moral argument here is obvious, but I suspect it will be lost on those who cannot see men for anything other than expendable beasts-of-burden to be exploited for the benefit of society (“society” being: anyone except men).

    However even those who fail to see men as human beings should at least see the unsustainability of a system based on “child support” for it is based on collectivism and coercion. If there is anything that the 20st century taught us, it is that collectivism and coercion by their very nature will always fail to produce any meaningful financial or social welfare. The US could print a trillion of fiat currency, hire a million social workers and send men to work camps and the children poverty rate would still be rising, like it has been for the last 4 decades. A slave will never be as productive as a free man in a free-market society, a social worker will never love children as much as their mother, and a paycheck will never replace a father.

  5. Pingback: Asking the wrong question. | Viva La Manosphere!

  6. Just Saying says:

    If I were a single mother I would give father option of opting out of child support. If he was interested in seeing child and having a relationship with him or her then he could buy directly for the child or pay child support (that would also be his option). If I were divorced with children, situation trickier but ideally shared custody 50/50 then he would be buying directly what the child needed (shoes, clothes).

  7. Solomon says:

    Fact is that government is entirely incapable of managing behavioral dysfunction.

    By deposing and villainizing men, they killed the only mechanism that has hope of being effective- strong families. In a community with strong families run by a Patriarch, they would be able to tend to matters such as these directly and accurately, since they would have intimate knowledge. In the old days, this was the model, in addition the Patriarchs would be able to carry out whatever form of justice was appropriate without having to check with some female ‘family court’ judge.

    Since they beheaded the Patriarchs, they have had to result to ridiculous micromanaging (questionable) justice in a inefficient, poorly-thought-out, disastrous manner such as child support, alimony, VAWA, etc.

    The Patriarch system is surely imperfect, but a damn sight more efficient and effective than the system we have installed in lieu. Not only does the current system not work, it is directly and obviously counterproductive, shielded from logic by “for the children” memes.

    which also distracts from how destructive the current system is to children.

    We can only come to the conclusion that the women are aware of the downside, but are willing to lie to themselves by the mighty hamster so that they can avoid all accountability. “The children” aren’t nearly as important as the woman’s “haaaaapiness”

  8. zykos says:

    @UK Fred: Nailed it. The problem is really that, in the mental exercise of shuffling around rules, laws, possibilities, exceptions, most people never consider to put in question the divorce system itself. It’s becomes a problem where lack of female responsibility is axiomatic: women *will* walk away from marriages, *will* take the children with them, so what do we do now? The solution to “how do we ensure children are cared for” has been found by humans across the globe millennia ago, and it’s simply lifelong monogamous marriage. Anything else is obviously not that optimal, since no civilization (primitive cultures who developed neither written language nor scientific knowledge don’t count) has emerged by using a different social structure. It’s that simple.

  9. an observer says:

    Marriage is a market. Change the rules, and customers reassess the value of the product.

    Marriage is still attractive to women, post carousel, because the legal framework tilts it in their favour. Feminism has changed the marriage cost, devalued the product, yet still expect to maintain the same takeup rates.

    Here’s the problem in a nutshell, however: Value is the issue and [women] fall down badly when it comes to high-value items where they seem to think they have a “right” to 40, 50, or even 100% margins over their cost. 

    This cannot be sustained.

    consumers who enjoy a particular activity but are not hell-bent on participation will simply walk off and spend their money somewhere else.

    Given the societal wide programming, men have largely maintained manning up and marrying the sluts. But for how long?

  10. Johnycomelately says:

    Even if women were forced to remain married and men could relinquish provisioning upon marital dissolution, what would prevent women from refraining from divorce while remaining promiscuous?

    The natural outcome would be a psuedo marriage where women would remain in the marital house (for provisioning) while living a seperate existence.

  11. greyghost says:

    Male birth control pill fixes this. Legal or illegal it will sell. Keep the misandry going A new illegal drug has a market. The customers will be middle class working men and not the low life’s. It would be neat to see a drop in college athlete birth rates or a huge drop in an areas family planning clinic use that is unexplained. http://sartikaherbal.com/home/extract-herbal/gandarusa-justicia-gendarussa?vmcchk=1

  12. Prof. Woland says:

    Men should be able to totally relinquish their responsibilities at any time if the child is not theirs! Nobody but the most hardcore feminists would argue otherwise yet that is still the law in many places. If the kids are biologically theirs then both parents should be equally responsible for the cost and share equally with custody. Problem solved.

  13. warrior says:

    Wow Professor! You solved it! On behalf of all of us, thanks a million.

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    This argument is stupid. At a time when 40% of children in the US are born to unmarried women, Neo Neocon’s vapid fluttery fear is irrelevant, incompetent , ignorant and pointless.

  15. Shameful says:

    Let us presume that the material well being of women and their children is of paramount importance to society. In such a case should not all men be forced at gun point to work 16to hour days 7 days a week year round with only the most minimal provisioning. All excess production transfered by the state to women and their offspring? Would not slavery then be moral?

    This is about enslaving men to the mill stone nothing more. Taken to the logical end game of their argument shows it for what it is, a moral justification for slavery.

  16. thule222 says:

    This whole thing is a scam. The question was why are men abandoning marriage. There were a number of good reasons given. The feminists seized the one that was most questionable because it impacted children and started asking if men should be allowed to do this. It’s a topic shift. Men are never going to get out of child support. In this society? They can’t get even legally get vasectomies. They can’t even get out of paying for child support for kids they can prove aren’t theirs. 14 year old’s are being raped by 30 year old’s who then successfully sue them for support. Women are dumpster diving for used condoms and the courts are backing up their support claims. Men are going to pay child support. That’s the way it is.

    The question is why are men abandoning marriage. Child support laws are one of many reasons. But they’re not going to change. That’s why marriage is dying.

  17. sunshinemary says:

    I really don’t understand why child support exists. Why aren’t virtually all divorces ending with joint custody? And in cases of joint custody, why is child support being awarded? I can’t understand the reasoning behind this. Is there a clear-cut policy reason why child support continues to exist?

    I have a casual acquaintance who has three children by two men, one of whom she was married to. Both men have joint custody of their children, yet she receives child support from both of them and is always taking one or the other of them to court trying to get more (on top of WIC, Medicaid, and other welfare type resources that she receives). I don’t understand why she receives anything from them. It makes me sort of angry.

  18. Crowhill says:

    Men do have the right to opt out. They can run away to another country that doesn’t recognize U.S. laws.

    Rather than focusing on such things, it would be more productive to ask how men can enter a relationship where they are protected. For example, is it possible to structure a pre-nup that essentially re-establishes a more traditional set of terms for a marriage?

  19. Casey says:

    @ Sunshine Mary

    I agree with you, no child support should change hands where there is joint custody.
    However, that is irrelevant.
    Child support exists in ALL cases because women benefit & want it that way. What is ‘fair & equitable’ has absolutely no merit in the current legal system.

  20. Anonymous Reader says:

    SSM
    I really don’t understand why child support exists.

    To benefit women.

    Why aren’t virtually all divorces ending with joint custody?

    Because that would not benefit women.

    And in cases of joint custody, why is child support being awarded?

    For the benefit of the mother, of cousse.

    I can’t understand the reasoning behind this. Is there a clear-cut policy reason why child support continues to exist?

    The Female Imperative demands it and has spoken.

    So let it be written, so let it be done….

  21. Maeve says:

    As I recently found out (yesterday), my state mandates child support based on some magical formula or something (I couldn’t see anything even remotely reality-based). I’m not even allowed to relinquish any right to child support, because it’s technically not for me, but for our daughter – and I don’t have the right to refuse it (even though my H and I have an agreement worked out to our own mutual satisfaction which does not involved formal child support). That just kills me – I, THE PARENT, AM NOT ALLOWED TO REFUSE SOMETHING ON BEHALF OF MY MINOR CHILD. The best we can hope for is to avoid court-ordered support, in which case, we can just do our thing. If the judge does determine that the support will be collected by the court, I’m not sure what we will do, because I am not saddling him with this. The level to which the state/courts can get involved in our personal business is profoundly shocking. I guess there isn’t anything so hideously painful that the state can’t just come on in and add a little more salt to the wound.

  22. Highwasp says:

    slavery never went away – it just got re-legislated.

  23. greyghost says:

    The purpose of abortion to benefit women
    The purpose of the police state is for women (constitution be damned a woman will always vote security over freedom.) Laws of misandry demand that the constitution be ignored and it is. Equal protection under the law is where the father’s rights or lack there of comes from. since women vote there is not a chance of change that is based on fairness or empathy for men or even children, and damn sure not for the good of society.

  24. Hurting says:

    SSM,

    What Casey said. x1000.

    At least in my state, joint custody has to be agreed to by both parties (the courts will not impose it), and I believe this is the rule rather than the exception in most states. There is a movement in my statement for the law to be changed to a rebuttable presumption of shared legal and physical custody.

    It will never happen.

    Because women benefit from the current system. I fought as hard as I could to get custody of my teenage sons, who spend more than half their time with me. The child support order, though, reads like I’m the “every Wednesday night, every other weekend dad”. I am very circumspect in sharing the details of my situation so as to try to protect my (and more importantly my kids’) privacy, but I can promise you your jaw would hit the floor if you actually took the time to look through my case. Like you I live in the Midwest (let’s just say you and I would not get along at all the third weekend in November if you get my drift), and I make a decent living (about $100K). I pay about 1/3 of that amount in combined CS (pre-tax equivalent) for one teenage child and alimony (pre-tax equivalent). I also pay 100% of that child’s private HS tuition (another $10K pre-tax equivalent). My wife works 2 days a week as an RN and the courts, per my attorney, will not even consider imputing income to her.

    Don’t dismay; most people think the way you do. It’s not reality for the reasons stated above. Even where there is shared custody, the higher earner could very well be still paying child support, albeit lower than in a more traditional arrangement, to the lower earner.

    There is a very real reason they call it chilimony or back door alimony.

  25. TFH says:

    What is not discussed enough in the ‘child support’ debate is that it is not even designed with the child in mind.

    1) ‘Child support’ is always a percentage of the man’s income, rather than a fixed amount that estimates what the child would cost. It is perfectly designed for women to pocket the difference.
    2) ‘Child support’ does not allow the man to have any custody rights, even though he is on the hook to pay. It is precisely designed to encourage paternity fraud, trap men, etc.

    ‘Child support’ is just alimony that uses the child as a means to deflect scrutiny. Anyone who truly cared about children would work towards eradicating the industry that profits from separating fathers from children.

    ‘Child support’ is slavery, and it exists in the only way that it could exist without being seen for the slavery it is.

    The main article said :

    Simply put, the purpose of child support is to replace marriage.

    Yet, the Social Conservatives are jealous about strengthening both. They claim to be pro-marriage, but also assisting feminists in the creation of this slavery-masked-as-child-support system.

    Social conservatives are economic leftists, plain and simple. Whether a declared leftist wants a productive earner to pay an 80% tax rate, or a SoCon wants a man to enter into a marriage no matter how rigged the laws are, it is the same thing (and the two groups being attacked by high-tax leftists and SoCons have major overlap already).

    If you are a productive man who could earn a lot and support a woman, both Dems and Repubs want to enslave you, and make you sacrifice everything in return for nothing.

  26. TFH says:

    Anonymous Reader to SunshineMary :

    The Female Imperative demands it and has spoken.

    So let it be written, so let it be done….

    SSM still does not fully see that a democracy has a life cycle, after which it is replaced by a feminist police state. No democracy can avoid this, as misandry follows democracy just as assuredly as gray hair follows youth.

    The reason for this is that while men vote for what benefits all people, women only vote for what benefits women.

    We live in a brief passage in human history where women having the right to vote is considered normal. It was not considered normal in the past, and will not be in the future.

    We just happen to live in a time when this is considered normal.

  27. TFH says:

    Highwasp,

    slavery never went away – it just got re-legislated.

    I read a paper that once concluded that there are only two types of economic systems that can last for extended periods of time : either pure, unrestricted capitalism, or a slavery-based society.

  28. doclove says:

    This disaster will not change. What should happen is what I’ve stated here and elsewhere. Whoever files for divorce first without proving fault should be the one to give up all custody or primary custody of the children and pay child support. It should be equally difficult to prove fault between men and women in a divorce. It should be extremely difficult to prove fault in divorce. Parents in divorce situations and parents in out of wedlock birth situations should be able to deliver a mutually agreed plan as to how they are going to raise the children which the court should agree to in virtually all circumstances. If the child is born out of wedlock then one parent should get 9 years of custody then the other parent get the next 9 years of custody until the child is an adult at age 18. You might also try what Malta and the Phillipines being very Catholic countries do and say that there is no such thing as divorce and annulment is almost impossible too get. I’m not holding breath as any of these sollutions make more sense than what is happening now and would not only be better and more equitable to men but would even be more benefical to children than men, but the female imperative and feminastism and women’s desires need their sacrificial victims to feed Satan’s blood-lust, sin-lust and misery- lust. Why do you think I tell men to wear condoms every time they have sex and to make sure the condoms are properly disposed of?

  29. TFH says:

    The ‘child support’ discussion always exposes two ugly truths :

    1) Women don’t really care about children. In the few countries where the divorce laws are heavily rigged in favor of men (default father custody), divorce rates are still very low. Men tend to be responsible adults that way, putting the family ahead of the self.

    2) Democracy doesn’t really work over time, as I described above. Nowhere is this truth more starkly demonstrated in observing the sinister mechanisms of the ‘child support’ laws.

  30. doclove says:

    I forgot to add that all paternity testing should be done shortly after birth before anyone signs the birth certificate which should be enshrined the law and strictly enforced without exception.

  31. doclove says:

    TFH
    We’re just waiting for the fat lady to sing concerning the end of liberty in the USA. It’s a shame and I don’t like it. To think that I once put on an American Army uniform and served in the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

    You are right about divorce laws and saying that when they favor men, then divorce is low. The USA had a divorce rate of 1% in the 1860s and prior years when men got the home and children in most divorces. When the divorce laws changed in the 1860s to women getting the home and children then the divorce rates shot up to 10% by 1900 in the USA and remember that there was only fault divorce not no fault divorce. Then the USA changed to no fault divorce in the 1960s and the divorce rate shot up to 50% where it has more or less remained ever since. Men initiated most of the divorce before the 1860s and now women initiate most of the divorce to the number of at least 65% since at least the 1970s

    If you need another example in which the fall occurred even faster look to South Korea. It’s divorce rate was 1% in 1990 when men got the home and the children if they wanted them in most circumstances and the wife got shown the door. Then South Korea changed the law to where women got the home and children in most circumstances since 1990. The divorce rate shot up to 45% where it has remained more or less ever since. Before 1990 men initiated most of the divorce and by 2000 and later women initiated most of the divorce to the number of at least 65% since 2000.

    On a more personal note about at least some women not caring about children, here’s a true story. A divorced sergeant in my brigade was supposed to go home for his daughter’s 3rd birthday on rest and recuperation leave from Afghanistan . The mother hooked up with Mr. Thug Life who abused the daughter through repeated beatings in between having thug sex with the mother. The divorce sergeant returned one week prior to his daughter’s 3rd birthday to bury his 2 year old daughter after the funeral on emergency leave because Mr. Thug Life beat the daughter to death. Both mother and Mr. Thug Life were arrested prior to the divorced sergeant returning home and were going to be prosecuted in court several months later after they stayed in jail until the trial. The mother allegedly knew Mr. Thug Life had beat the daughter prior to the 2 year old girl’s death. The divorced sergeant returned to Afghanistan and his company commander, a Captain and his First Sergeant were angry with him. He replied that he would rather be among his comrades fixing the helicopters among the falling enemy mortar rounds than be at home where there is nothing for him now that his only beloved child, his 2 year old daughter, lay dead in a 6 foot grave. This is an extreme case of the mother not caring about her own child.

  32. doclove says:

    TFH
    The divorced Sergeant’s company commander, A Captain, and First Sergeant were angry at him for returning to Afghanistan after they told him that they weren’t looking for him to return to war.

  33. greyghost says:

    doclove
    It is not as extreme as you think.

  34. Chris says:

    Great post Dalrock. Child support and marriage cannot peacefully coexist.

    Every SoCon who supports child support should be asked why they are anti-family and anti-marriage over and over again no matter how many times they’ll try to weasel out of it by denying that child support undermines marriage and the traditional family.

  35. doclove says:

    greyghost
    I know. There are many more children who are abused by a divorced woman’s or out of wedlock birth mother’s THUG LIFE LOVER and live to tell the tale. The Mr. Thug Life I mentioned above probably had no intention of killing the divorced sergeant’s and his divorced wife’s 2 year old daughter, but he did any way after one too many and one too harsh of beatings,

  36. Casey says:

    I know of a woman who sought a divorce, and was receiving a (lower) negotiated amount of child support with her EX when the separated. She made really good money, and the kids did not go without anything.

    However, the judge wouldn’t grant her divorce because the child support was not ‘enough’ i.e. in accordance with federal guidelines

    Not that I am expecting sympathy for this woman (at all), but this is how brutal the current system is towards men. We will grind you up & spit you out.

  37. Casey says:

    Men are the productive class…….so to keep them working, we have to keep them impoverished.
    There’s your incentive of the political class right there.

    Game. Set. Match

  38. earl says:

    “Marriage is a market. Change the rules, and customers reassess the value of the product.”

    Yup…it used to be a great institution for men as God was involved in many marriages. Now with the State getting it’s serpent head into it…the value is terrible for men.

    We may have our dumb moments…but we aren’t stupid.

  39. greyghost says:

    Take a look at this. One of the reasons for the blue pill (the lie) is to mask this stuff. http://www.b2review.com/statistics-on-abuse-including-children-adolescents-mothers-fathers-teens-and-babies-2012/ The us economy will never really recover. Too high a percentage of the children born fall into the broken home stat. The black community as a whole is gone. Individual black people can do well but with 70 percent born and raised outside of marriage and with the deliberate liberal race culture being pushed there is not a chance at all.
    As TFH as stated all of this was voted in with female suffrage and will remain with female suffrage. It will double down with female suffrage because women do nothing not even in their own lives for the benefit of all but purely for the benefit of themselves. It will get worse, for we have crossed the tipping point. There was no reason for Obama getting reelected yet he was. More than half the population is now a leecher. Look at the police state we now have all to keep us safe.

  40. SlargTarg says:

    What a riot quote from the aptly named “Baltimoron”

    First of all, I do disagree with the premise. I actually don’t think that the decline in marriage has anything to do with flaws in the institution that put men at a disadvantage. People never think anything will go wrong with their marriage (until it does). The real cause for the decline in marriage is that its no longer necessary.

    But secondly, even if it did drive people away, so what? A man who can’t make that commitment shouldn’t be getting married in the first place. You can’t maintain an institution by throwing away everything that makes it meaningful.

  41. earl says:

    I also hope people get that a NWO type government…would have men enslaved to women. Children are raised by the state.

    Then once all men are nicely castrated and the children are indoctrinated…Mr. Alpha Tingler Anti-Christ can come about and all the women will worship the tingles he brings them. Then where the women go…so will the castrated beta males.

    Those evil bankers know what they are doing with these laws. Feminists and white knights are just their pawns.

  42. Vektor says:

    The solution is to spread the Word to every young male possible. Every father should have this talk with their sons about the realities of the world we find ourselves in and how to guard their interests. The ‘red pill’ needs to be taken (or at least offered) to everyone.

    It is also WAY past time for better male birth control options. Better reproductive control is absolutely necessary. Women have always been willing to be willfully negligent or just outright lie about their birth control status. It’s about control….control over one of the most important and most pivotal events in life. Currently, a woman can make that choice for you if it is part of her secret life agenda. All she has to do is lie.

    There will be no reforms. The system must collapse before it can be rebuilt….if it can be rebuilt. It must collapse…the sooner the better.

  43. The Rights of Children extend to their right to live in their fathers home FULL TIME. That is how marriage provides for children.

    Any woman who deprives her children of this provisioning is an unfit mother. While I don’t advocate removing the children, we definitely should not be propping up her ability to keep her children. When things get bad enough and she’s living in a gutter with her children, maybe she’ll wake up and realize that her children will be better off being adopted by a REAL FAMILY with a father to provide for them.

  44. greyghost says:

    When things get bad enough and she’s living in a gutter with her children, maybe she’ll wake up and realize that her children will be better off being adopted by a REAL FAMILY with a father to provide for them.

    This will never happen. Wrong approach. Any woman in that position will argue that she needs more child support or a free house from the government. She will argue it is for her impoverish children. Wicked selfishness rules on this one and always has. It was never any different.

  45. …to clarify…the unfit mother would put the kids up for adoption in a case where the father was awol…otherwise she could return the children to their fathers home where they belong.

  46. Novaseeker says:

    I really don’t understand why child support exists. Why aren’t virtually all divorces ending with joint custody? And in cases of joint custody, why is child support being awarded? I can’t understand the reasoning behind this. Is there a clear-cut policy reason why child support continues to exist?

    True joint custody (50/50) is uncommon. Most courts won’t even consider it unless both parties want it, and even then some courts won’t go for it because they think it is too disruptive to the kids unless both parents live in the same neighborhood, etc. But even in cases where joint custody is granted, CS can still be awarded based on income differentials in some states. The policy reason? Better to have dad pay than the taxpayer paying.

  47. Casey says:

    @ LFM

    Unfortunately, it’s never going to happen. Women have been awash in this feminist dogma my entire life (40 + years)

    You cannot find any substantive group of women who see this dogma for what it actually is…….2nd class citizenry for men (slaves).

    If consequences were levied on women for their actions, then divorce rates would plummet like a stone. There are simply too many people who profit from the current structure – government, women, lawyers, psychologists, home builders/renters, furniture sales, appliance sales………all of these (& more) benefit from the destruction of a marriage.

    OH, and trailer sales benefit too……’cause that’s where the guy gets to live.

    It would be nice if consequences were borne by those responsible, but I’m afraid that is a mere dreamscape at the moment.

  48. Novaseeker says:

    Rather than focusing on such things, it would be more productive to ask how men can enter a relationship where they are protected. For example, is it possible to structure a pre-nup that essentially re-establishes a more traditional set of terms for a marriage?

    Generally not, no. Pre-nups are scrutinized by the family courts on the basis of whether the result of enforcing them would be “equitable” in the eyes of the court. Normally this means that if it gets the woman a worse deal than otherwise, they won’t enforce it. A pre-nup is most likely to be enforced to the extent it relates to clearly segregated pre-marital assets that were fully disclosed prior to the marriage, the agreement was negotiated with both parties having seperate counsel, and was signed well, well in advance of the marriage date. To the extent you try to regulate things like custody and support in a pre-nup, the court will simply ignore it, as well as any kind of “penalties” financially for marital misbehavior, or for initiating a divorce for a reason not stated in the pre-nup.

    Basically, no, you can’t make up your own family law by signing a pre-nup.

  49. c says:

    CHILD SUPPORT MATCHING

    For every dollar the state child support administrator seizes, they get 66¢ in Federal Matching Dollars for “state administrative costs” (judge’s and social worker’s salaries.)

    This was in place before 2008 but was increased and buried in part of the omnibus bill passed to supposedly save the economy with all these shovel unready projects.

    http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cse/incentivesimpact.html

    Earlier in the 2000s I think it was 80¢ to the dollar as part of a social security bill. I don’t know which law the current provision is buried in or exactly how much but I’ve read horror stories how states are changing their laws to make it even more difficult to parents to reconcile and absurd child support exceeding all ability to pay in order to receive more federal matching dollars.

  50. By analogy, what America did when the Landholding Head of Households voted to allow universal suffrage would be like the stockholders of a corporation allowing the general public to vote during shareholder meetings. Voting is a Right that comes from Ownership. Voting is the right to do with your property what you want to do with it.
    If I’m not mistaken, the Constitution is silent about the term “citizen”. It recognized the rights of all people to equal treatment under law, “citizen” or not, but only those who owned part of the pie had any stake in the wellbeing of the country.

  51. sunshinemary says:

    Novaseeker,
    Most of the divorced people I know have joint custody. My neighbor’s children spend one week with her and one week with her ex-husband. Is that unusual? I live in a liberal area, so maybe it is.

    I don’t understand why CS is based on income rather than need. I have an acquaintance who is receiving $125,000 in child support per year. Can it be due to pity from the judge? This particular woman’s husband was an adulterer.

  52. greyghost says:

    125k a year tax free is like working for 200k. She can save 60k and live on 65k and when the last one is out retire and live well. She should try and “work things out when the youngest turns 16 and keep that gravy train running.
    BTW isn’t divorce no-fault? Using higher than normal CS to stick it to a man is not in the spirit of no fault.

  53. Casey says:

    @ Sunshinemary

    No, this has nothing to do with pity………this has everything with getting men to spend their money, keep them impoverished, and keep them working to benefit the aristocratic class.

    In this case, men are spending their money by handing it over to their EX-spouses……where it will promptly get pissed away…….benefiting the ruling class.

    More for THEM (ruling class), LESS for women (’cause they can’t hang on to a dollar so easily earned), definitely LESS for children (broken family & all the problems that go with it), and MUCH, MUCH, LESS for MEN.

  54. Casey says:

    @ Greyghost

    It’s only no fault for the woman.

    For men, everything is their fault in the eyes of the court.

  55. True joint custody (50/50) is uncommon.

    Often the “standard custody order” is referred to as “joint custody”. In the main, across the US these tend to be 35% man 65% woman as to time with the children, the standard every other weekend, alternate holidays, weeks in summer, etc. The “joint” is a nebulous nod to them making the big decisions jointly….medical, education, etc.

    Joint PHYSICAL custody is not common at all.

  56. the feminist movement is a way of seizing the property of men, including their children.

    child support is naught but a way of using woman’s baser nature to enslave men.

    the feminist movement was started by the same bolsheviks who murdered millions of christians.

  57. Casey says:

    @ Empathologism

    Roger that, I worked at the Attorney General’s office for 3 years.
    Joint PHYSICAL custody is RARE!!!!

  58. Novaseeker says:

    Most of the divorced people I know have joint custody. My neighbor’s children spend one week with her and one week with her ex-husband. Is that unusual? I live in a liberal area, so maybe it is.

    That’s quite unusual, actually. As Empath says, “joint legal custody” (i.e., shared legal parental rights) is not uncommon, but joint physical custody along the lines you describe is quite uncommon.

    I don’t understand why CS is based on income rather than need. I have an acquaintance who is receiving $125,000 in child support per year. Can it be due to pity from the judge? This particular woman’s husband was an adulterer.

    It’s generally based on statutory formulae that are calculated as a percentage of net income. The statutes describe it as “need”, based on the living circumstances prior to the divorce (i.e., the children of wealthier parents have a higher “need”). It’s considered more fair to do it this way rather than basing it on actual “cost” because it’s simpler and also reflects the varying incomes at play. As a result, it is, in effect, a flat tax on the payor parent. Most states refer to it as “income share” but that’s a ruse – it operates as a flat tax.

    A few examples.

    Case One
    Combined income 100k, each of H and W make 50k.
    Need defined as 15% of income, so 15k. 15k is split 50/50 based on incomes, so H pays W 7500, or 15% of H’s income.

    Case Two
    Combined income 100k, H earns 70k, W earns 30k.
    Need defined as 15% of income, so 15k. 15k is split 70/30 based on incomes, so H pays W 70% of 15k, which is 10,500. Note that this is 15% of H’s income.

    Case Three
    Combined income 100k, H earns 30k, W earns 70k.
    Need defined as 15% of income, so 15k. 15k is split 30/70 based on incomes, so H pays W 30% of 15k, which is 4500. That is also 15% of H’s income.

    So while it’s true that the percentage of the total amount that is paid by H varies based on H’s income, the percent of H’s income that H pays is fixed and is always the same percentage of his income. It’s a flat tax.

  59. Casey says:

    @ Empathologism

    Where I live, child support is pro-rataed once custody gets to 60-40 (40% for the male)
    Women are incentivised to PREVENT 50/50 so their ill-gotten booty is not reduced.

    (Ties in nicely to your 35% man 65% woman split)

  60. Casey says:

    @ Novaseeker

    And what benefit does the child recieve in shuffling money around from one parent to another?
    Presumably, men would not spend income on their children if left in their hands? (Nonsense, I say)

    Nope………this is alimony in drag.

  61. Novaseeker says:

    Where I live, child support is pro-rataed once custody gets to 60-40 (40% for the male)
    Women are incentivised to PREVENT 50/50 so their ill-gotten booty is not reduced.

    Many states have a similar rule as well, which is another reason why a good number of family courts don’t like joint physical custody — they’re concerned that the reason the H wants it is to reduce his CS cost, rather than actually wanting to parent 50% of the time. So they decide that it’s in the child’s best interest to be primarily with the mother with perhaps 30-35% of the time with Dad (which is the standard one weeknight, every other weekend, few weeks in the summer, alternate holidays visitation schedule, really), and the W gets full CS.

  62. Novaseeker says:

    And what benefit does the child recieve in shuffling money around from one parent to another?
    Presumably, men would not spend income on their children if left in their hands? (Nonsense, I say)

    Nope………this is alimony in drag.

    Of course it is. That’s obvious from the reality that there is no accountability as to how it is spent (none at all), and it is paid to the mother, even after the child is 18. It’s a form of alimony without question.

  63. c says:

    Don’t ask what benefit the child receives.

    Ask what benefit the judges, advocates, and state receives.

    States are receiving federal matching dollars (in my research as much as 80 cents per dollar seized from father.) Some states are using this as the primary source of funding for family courts. Other states are even using this as net revenue generators. Of course they aren’t counting increased costs later on due to reduced earnings of children raised in broken homes and higher crime rates, but it fixes the budget for today.

  64. LC says:

    The answer is to get the State out of marriage completely. Anytime the state interferes in anything whether it be medical care, insurance, marriage, food, drugs, etc., the price goes up and the quality goes down. The taxpayer is taken to the cleaners. Lots of women cannot seem to understand that nothing is free in this world whether it be birth control, abortion, or whatever their pet cause is, because someone must be robbed with threat of violence to pay for it. People should probably enter into civil agreements before ever living together or having children stating there will be joint custody of any children born of the union, that there will be no child support or alimony, the house must be sold and the proceeds divided equally, etc. And don’t get a marriage license from the state.

  65. Casey says:

    @ c

    So the Federal government is bribing states (who dictate family law) to steal as much as possible from men in the divorce/financial rape regime.

    Unbe-f@cking-lievable)

    The aristocrats really know how to employ the useful idiots among us, don’t they?

  66. c says:

    I decided to look at this again since it has been a while. For my state (Texas) in 2012 it seems according to the budget I downloaded:

    Federal funds accounted for $136,438,166 (54%) of the Child Support Enforcement budget. Federal funds accounted for $4,908,451 (45%) of the Child Support State Disbursement Unit budget.

    I didn’t look at what percentage of these are federal matching dollars but the principal is this, the more they transfer, the more their budget grows.

  67. hurting says:

    Nova,

    To clarify the examples you provided, the 15% rate you provide is about right for illustration purposes, but it understates the true magnitude of the issue in that it ignores the tax implications. For example, in scenario 3, the $4,500 paid by the man is taxable to him but not taxable to her. Therefore the real effective cost to him is more like $5,625 assuming a full (federal, state and local) incremental tax rate of 20%. The true hit he’s taking is therefore more like 18.75%.

    As you correctly state, there is no accountability whatsoever as to how the CS is spent, so odds are Dad will end up buying things the CS is supposed to buy, like clothes, shoes, etc. Also, the CS calculations supposedly don’t factor into the specifics of the family’s lifestyle beforehand, such as extracurriculars. Presumably the $100K combined income pre-divorce was paying for all of that, hence the income shares model should account for same, but in practice it doesn’t. So Dad will also be on the hook for some or all of the extracurricular activities.

    This is all a very ugly business of which most people, even reasonably well-informed ones, are woefully ignorant.

  68. Novaseeker says:

    That’s an important point on the taxes regarding CS.

  69. Highwasp says:

    TFH says:
    “I read a paper that once concluded that there are only two types of economic systems that can last for extended periods of time : either pure, unrestricted capitalism, or a slavery-based society.”

    What paper was that? can you direct me to a URL where I may read it as well?

    I presume a transition period of democracy occurs between unrestricted capitalism and a slavery based societies. We are living in that transition period. And this democratic transition period is rapidly slipping into a slavery based society =

    “a democracy has a life cycle, after which it is replaced by a feminist police state. (slavery) No democracy can avoid this, as misandry follows democracy just as assuredly as gray hair follows youth. The reason for this is that while men vote for what benefits all people, women only vote for what benefits women.”

  70. c says:

    @Casey
    Yes.
    The current rate is 66 cents plus bonuses based on ‘performance’ from the federal government to the state for every dollar transferred in child support.

    From the following document:
    http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/olab/cse.pdf
    The Administration for Children and Families’ strategic goal of increasing economic independence and productivity for families requires increasing income through the enforcement
    of child support…
    The federal government provides funding through a 66 percent match rate for general state
    administrative costs. Additionally, the federal government provides incentive payments that are based on state performance. The total amount of incentives provided to states is based on a formula set in statute and is estimated at $519 million for FY 2012.

  71. Krakonos says:

    @TFH
    “I read a paper that once concluded that there are only two types of economic systems that can last for extended periods of time : either pure, unrestricted capitalism, or a slavery-based society.”
    There is no society on Earth where women have all rights to the children / receive resources from unrelated men or society and men slave themselves.
    What we can see (men slaving) is just a transitionary phase into as system when men simply do not care and do not produce.

  72. UK Fred says:

    @Doclove The primary predictive indicator for child abuse, whether physical or sexual is a non-biologically related male who has become the biological mother’s partner (husband/boyfriend/whatever).

    On the matter of who gets custody of the children when a marriage breaks down, why do we not have a fault allocation system in which the partner who is deemed to be less at fault in the divorce gets custody and the house. This is more equitable than arbitrarily allocating the house to one parent or the other.

    Slavery exists when one party to the contract has no rights unless specifically granted by the other party. Governments and some ex-wives want to ensure that others have too much to lose to challenge them and so keep the ex-husband enslaved. If husband cannot save enough to tell his employer to stuff his job when it gets beyond a joke, and a court will not reduce child support when a man loses his job, then the man is enslaved. I believe this was the intention with the subprime mortgages. Give poorer people so much at stake that they could not afford to give it up, but the property crash killed that chicken before they had built up enough of a stake for this to be effective, or perhaps more honestly, the politicians got too greedy and tried to spread it out too far too quickly.

  73. Keoni Galt says:

    Excellent point c, as I was reading this thread, I was going to make the same one.

    In fact, I submitted a post for Mr. Price’s review for The Spearhead on this very topic the day before yesterday.

    Regardless of who or why, the fact remains: it is official U.S. Federal Government policy to fund a State Government level, child support collection and enforcement bureaucracy, in all 50 States.

    We the Sheeple are taxed, and the Federal Government, on behalf of this infernal, family destroying policy – Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.

    In short, there is a formula based on a number of factors determining how much Federal Matching Funds under Title IV-D for which each State’s Child Support Enforcement (CSE) programs can receive.

    Here are the variables:

    * The paternity establishment performance level.
    * The support order performance level
    * The current payment performance level
    * The arrearage payment performance level
    * The cost–effectiveness performance level

    The more Fathers a State’s CSE program can identify as financially liable to children born out of wedlock, the more matching funds the CSE program receives.

    The more support orders that are issued to non-custodial parents — both Fathers of out of wedlock kids who’s LEGAL paternity is established and those issued to non-custodial parents of Divorces — the more matching funds the CSE program recieves.

    The more payments are collected from non-custodial parents, the more matching funds the CSE program receives.

    The more arrearage payments they collect, the more matching funds the CSE program receives.

    Finally, The cost-effectiveness performance level for a State for a fiscal year is equal to the total amount collected during the fiscal year under the State plan approved under this part divided by the total amount expended.

    Taken as a whole, all 50 States have Government bureaucracies who’s sole incentive is to get as many non-custodial parents (MEN aka “Establish Paternity”) issued support orders and collected from, so they can receive the maximum amount of funding from the Federal Government under Title IV-D.

    Excerpt my pending Spearhead article:

    “There are no financial incentives from the Federal Government that reward State social work bureaucracies to resolve marital differences or reconcile separated couples.

    There are no financial incentives from the Federal Government that reward State social work bureaucracies that restore children to two parent homes.

    There are no financial incentives from the Federal Government that reward State social work bureaucracies that act with reason, temperance of compassion in reviewing the personal and financial situation of non-custodial parents charged with child support obligations . It’s pay the imputed income judgement or go to jail.

    There are no financial incentives from the Federal Government that reward State social work bureaucracies for discouraging divorces, nor resolving child custody disputes.

    …hundreds of thousands of jobs, careers and livelihoods of the people who make up the work force of the Family Court bureaucracies and Family Law professions in all 50 States, depends on a steady supply of divorces and out-of-wedlock births so that matching funds from the Federal Government can fund the Child Support Enforcement regime.

    It is a beast designed to feast and grow on the most personal level of the citizenry and the foundation of civilized society – the family.

    Still Proud to be an American?

  74. LiveFearless says:

    @c @Casey You’ve posted a gross underestimate. The figure is in hundreds of Billions (with a B).
    That’s higher than hundreds of millions.

    Example:

    Which number below represents the most dollars?

    A. $500,000,000
    B. $500,000,000,000

    (The Correct Answer is B)

    It’s explained in easy to understand detail in this book a friend sent me: http://amzn.to/12mURnY

  75. Jack Schitz says:

    There is really a very easy answer to this. Move back to a fault based system of divorce where either 1) there is a presumption that custody will go to the father (or perhaps after age 5ish) or 2) the party not at “fault” gets the presumption of custody (personally I think 1 is better so as to avoid the likely increase in false accusations leveled by the mother).

  76. hurting says:

    Returnng to “fault-based” divorce won’t solve anything either, because fault will be determined on the flimsiest of grounds, most notably the exeedingly specious emotional/verbal abuse accusations. These won’t in any way be considered false by the divorce-helping profession industrial complex, and no man will ever be able to argue them anyway due to his male privilege status.

    The problem is not no-fault divorce per se, but the residual application of alimony (which by definition is implicitly fault-based; it is essentially compensatory damages) in “no-fault” divorces coupled with presumed maternal custody and the faulty economics of the income shares model of child support which is based (and only loosely) on the average total cost of raising children as opposed to the incremental cost of raising children assuming that both parents have to maintain a household to support the time they spend hosting the children (e.g., Dad needs essentially the same type of domecile as Mom even in the typical visitation arrangement; he can’t live in an efficiency apartment.).

  77. Adobe says:

    The question really is secular vs. religious. If you believe marriage has a higher function than the contractual aspects become less important. If you believe it is a secular institution then the institution is defined by the legal aspects. Sure you can believe that there are intangible rewards to marraige but that is still different than believing in a higher purpose for the institution. If you believe the intangibles are not there in a marriage you are more likely to divorce.If you believe the intangibles come about with sufficient faith you are more likely to persevere.

    This is the problem with “gay marriage”. it is entirely a creature of the government and its definitions will always be defined by where the individual interfaces with the state (law and courts). Reduce heterosexual marriage to the same denominator and you have the same issues.

  78. Casey says:

    @ Jack Schitz

    None of what is prescribed here is likely to ever be filled by the Pharmacist.
    BUT
    I would like to see 50/50 custody the statutory mandate for the starting position of ALL marital breakdowns….and NO child support by either party (regardless of income).

    Divorce rates would drop like a stone.
    The same would occur for ‘at fault’ scenarios as you described.

    Unfortunately, the only way this gets resolved is with a MAJOR societal reset (which is coming)….many single & divorced women will NOT survive the reset.

    Once it becomes self-evident that men are clearly necessary for a woman’s survival, and co-operation is suddenly a requisite; we will be able to state our terms.

  79. greyghost says:

    Jack Schitz
    Cool name. The fathers custody will be easy to back up with the statistics on mother’s custody. It will never happen because with the vote women can have a say so in the law. A far better approach would be a male birth control pill and a requirement that all boys and girls 16 and older be required to have a civics class in family law. VAWA. no fault divorce, rape laws, child custody, DV laws, CS and how it is enforced, father’s rights and mother’s rights etc. and tied in with how it is enforced and practiced daily. An example would be how a false accusation in court is not punished if it is the woman doing it, or how a woman cannot be charged with DV against a male. These type of things are lied about under the feminine imperative believing the lies and living your life with a lie as a foundation is living under the blue pill.
    All need to understand. Any solution to this madness that requires the nature of women to change is futile and irresponsible. Women do not care about anybody but themselves it is normal and is natural and they vote. No woman will stop this because everybody but women pay the price.

  80. Anonymous age 71 says:

    @Maeve
    So collect the child support and give it back to him. If it is less than 13,000 a year call it a tax free gift and report it on your income tax as such. If he becomes unemployed there will be a deficit but the minute he starts to pay again you can start sending it back to him which makes is possible to catch up.

    @UK Fred
    >>@Doclove The primary predictive indicator for child abuse, whether physical or sexual is a non-biologically related male who has become the biological mother’s partner (husband/boyfriend/whatever).

    Are you sure of that? In the US more than half of child abuse is done by the bio-mom. Next in line is Bill The Biker. Least likely to commit abuse is the bio-dad.

  81. hurting says:

    greyghost,

    The educaiton program you describe will never take place through conventional channels (e.g., the schools, churches) as the interested parties will never allow it (they’re the ones who’ve leveraged these assets in their propaganda campaign).

    It is because the situation is so ridiculous and so lopsided that change will never occur. I myself was wholly ignorant of what lie on the dark side until just about three years ago. I simply never in a million years would have thought that, for example, I’d be paying my wife almost 20% of my income in alimony regardless of fault in the matter. It simply defies credulity.

  82. Dalrock says:

    @hurting

    Returnng to “fault-based” divorce won’t solve anything either, because fault will be determined on the flimsiest of grounds, most notably the exeedingly specious emotional/verbal abuse accusations. These won’t in any way be considered false by the divorce-helping profession industrial complex, and no man will ever be able to argue them anyway due to his male privilege status.

    The problem is not no-fault divorce per se, but the residual application of alimony (which by definition is implicitly fault-based; it is essentially compensatory damages) in “no-fault” divorces coupled with presumed maternal custody and the faulty economics of the income shares model of child support which is based (and only loosely) on the average total cost of raising children as opposed to the incremental cost of raising children assuming that both parents have to maintain a household to support the time they spend hosting the children (e.g., Dad needs essentially the same type of domecile as Mom even in the typical visitation arrangement; he can’t live in an efficiency apartment).

    I think this is true. The problem with the current system is the incentives are all wrong. Women are given incentives to destroy the family, and as you point out the system is only too eager to find a rationalization to facilitate it. Under the previous system women had a strong incentive to 1) Avoid marrying the irresponsible bad boy, despite the fact that he is so much more attractive than boring old Steady Eddie. 2) Remain married to and remain amicable with the man she married. She had a strong incentive to invest in keeping the relationship a positive one. What we’ve found over the last 40+ years is both of those incentives were crucial to a working family structure. The divorce/child support revolution was launched under the mistaken premise that (as Glenn Stanton puts it) “Women want to marry and have daddies for their babies.” and it is men who want to avoid commitment.

    I think given the reality of the system the best we can hope for is a movement to curtail the worst abuses of the system. This would mean reducing child support to a bare minimum, and ending the “imputed income” nonsense. Right now this is all but unthinkable, because as we have seen conservatives are as invested in the excesses of the current system as feminists are. However, as marriage rates decline, and especially with the availability of male birth control eventually we could see opinions start to shift here.

  83. RichardP says:

    A philosophically sound idea can actually be pure rubbish when compared to the reality of day to day living. “There is a presumption that custody will go to the father.” Seriously? To the father, that person who is gone from home about twelve hours of every day in order to keep that job which pays for the expenses of the wife and children? Small children in grade school or earlier, custody of whom is given to someone who is not home? Which court are you familiar with that is going to accept that situation as standard, as “what’s best for the children”? Compared to a mother who does not work and is thus available at all times for all of her children’s needs (on paper anyway).

    The thing that is wrong is not the way custody and payment requirements are arranged. The reality of day to day life makes that the most practical arrangement when children are involved (custody to the person who is actually going to be physically present for the children; payment for this setup required from the person actually earning money). What is wrong is the no-fault part that allows the woman to block the payor from participating in the family life that his work efforts make possible.

  84. feeriker says:

    highwasp said: slavery never went away – it just got re-legislated.

    Another addition to my “Quotable Quotes” collection. Thank you!

  85. Keoni Galt says:

    “There is really a very easy answer to this. Move back to a fault based system of divorce where either 1) there is a presumption that custody will go to the father (or perhaps after age 5ish) or 2) the party not at “fault” gets the presumption of custody (personally I think 1 is better so as to avoid the likely increase in false accusations leveled by the mother).”

    “I think given the reality of the system the best we can hope for is a movement to curtail the worst abuses of the system. This would mean reducing child support to a bare minimum, and ending the “imputed income” nonsense.”

    Ya’all need to understand the point of C’s and my post here….

    There’s no FIXING the problems associated with the entire regime of Marriage 2.0 and the divorce/child support system. That’s because it’s doing precisely what it was intended to do.

    THEY don’t WANT strong, happy, independent nuclear families headed by a Father and a Mother.

    THEY don’t want happy marriages – mainly because happy marriages are bountiful marriages that produce lots of children.

    Which is why they designed a system for which the Federal Government pays state entities to ESTABLISH PATERNITY, ISSUE SUPPORT ORDERS and COLLECT PAYMENTS and ARREARAGES.

    The Federal Government subsidizes State Government Bureaucracies to promote divorce and out of wedlock liabilities for Fathers.

    Child Support is not really FOR THE CHILDREN.

    It’s for feeding the beast that is the State Government bureaucracy. Social Workers, Court Officers, Judges, lawyers, para-legals and any other career associated with the Family Court system is dependent on a steady stream of divorce and out of wedlock child births.

  86. 21 year father says:

    “Simply put, the purpose of child support is to replace marriage.” NO. It’s to replace fathers.

  87. The One says:

    Seems the solution is not to pay at all. Render unto G-d what is G-d’s. Marriage belongs to G-d. If you are afraid of going to jail CH has a good piece up about immigrating.

  88. Rollory says:

    Congratulations on the instalanche. You’re well overdue for wider recognition.

    [D: Thank you. Here is what it looked like in the little hourly hit graph wordpress shows at the top of my browser. For those who want to see the referring page, it is here.]

  89. Keoni, I have to disagree to an extent. That the effects do all those things, that the perverse incentive is there, and is rendered is all true. There is no consciousness behind it all. There may be a loose sum of tiny consciousnesses, but not a thing of one or of a mind actively asserting these objectives. It/they are stupid and brilliant at the same time because they reap the benefits of the mess you rightly describe but they are not exactly sure how or why.

    At some local level, and as aptly described by Baskerville, indeed you see people motivated by the largess of the incentives, no differently than teachers unions and other public workers sucking the tit. So I think its worthy to describe as you have but not to assign a sort of sentience to it. This is more than a distinction without a difference.

  90. hurting says:

    RichardP says:
    July 11, 2013 at 1:39 pm

    RichardP,

    The “father as single earner / SAHM” model only works in today’s society in a comparatively small fraction of intact marriages. It is well nigh impossible for a very high percentage of all marriages in the U.S. to even remotely entertain a SAHM (or SAHD) scenario in the event of a divorce. Put simply, and for all practical purposes, all but a statistically insignifcant percentage of broken marriages are going to end up with both parties working full-time, if only to keep both covered by group health insurance. Besides, those who’ve set in motion the current system place no value whatsoever on SAHP’s as SAHP’s get in the way of the state’s indoctrination of children.

    I’d go further and say, with alacrity, that a women who frivorces her husband and subjects her children to the aftermath (which will be worse for almost all of them than had their parents stayed together) has forfeited her right to SAHM-hood even if it were economically possible. The father deserves to be put on an equal, nay superior footing becuase he is the more important parent of the two. That sounds harsh to blue pill ears, but it’s the truth. The incredulity of the assertion that women are more nurturing than men is readily refuted by seeing their proclivity to subject their children to the pain of divorce.

  91. hurting says:

    Dalrock says:
    July 11, 2013 at 1:32 pm

    I wish I were more confident that even the most egregious abuses of the system will ever be addressed. Fully 50% of the electrorate (women) benefit directly from it, at least by way of the benefit of ‘threatpoint’; even if only 10% of men benefit from the current arrangement (5%), you have a 55-45 solid majority locked in against change.

  92. Keoni Galt says:

    There is no consciousness behind it all.

    You think this is all incidental? You ignore the historical records of the Frankfurt School & the cultural Marxists who deliberately implemented their “long march” through the West’s cultural institutions? That the Communist Manifesto itself declared as one of it’s primary goals was the destruction of the Nuclear Family?

    Or, hell, to put it in even starker terms…from a Christian viewpoint, the consciousness behind this all is surely the lord of lies himself! OF COURSE this state of affairs is deliberate!

  93. The state of affairs is deliberate. The state of specifically child support was blundered into, not hatched like a plot, though it ushers the plot along like an actor who is good at extemporaneous improv lines added that enhance the script what WAS INDEED prepared.

  94. Dalrock says:

    @hurting

    I wish I were more confident that even the most egregious abuses of the system will ever be addressed. Fully 50% of the electrorate (women) benefit directly from it, at least by way of the benefit of ‘threatpoint’; even if only 10% of men benefit from the current arrangement (5%), you have a 55-45 solid majority locked in against change.

    When the pain gets to be too much, the unthinkable has a tendency to suddenly become possible. We certainly aren’t there today. Right now (excepting Black women) nearly all women in the US can expect to marry, and the “oops” out of wedlock pregnancy rate is only growing. If current trends hold and women (especially White women) start seeing marriage as unlikely or at the very least much harder, the support for the current abuses will start to soften. Effective male birth control would have a similarly profound effect on the support and custody incentives around out out of wedlock births. The other essential issue is the harm these things are causing to our economy, tax base, and Social Security, as I covered here.

  95. Wow Dalrock, you need to increase the height of that area or those normal hour averages will begin to look like points the size of tips of needles instead of bars.

  96. Keoni Galt says:

    I’ll have to agree to disagree, empath. It’s one thing to advocate for child support when in the “bad old days” of Patriarchy, a man often could divorce his stay at home wife and leave her bereft of support…but the passage of Title IV-D of the SS act deliberately included child support measures for out of wedlock children and emphasizes the establishment of paternity.

    Prior to all the social engineering of the Cultural Marxists, no man was liable for any children born out of wedlock…which is why there was tremendous social pressure for Men to “do the right thing” and get married if he knocked a woman up.

    The old marriage contract was a man trading his provisioning surplus for a woman’s reproductive abilities. Children born of marriage where HIS. Out of marriage, they were HERS.

    Once this old contract was rendered void, marriage 1.0 became marriage 2.0. Now, the children are almost always HERS, and the financial obligations are almost always HIS. (There are outliers and exceptions to the rule, but the general rule sticks).

    That state of affairs was quite deliberate.

  97. Pingback: “The purpose of child support is to replace marriage.” | Junior Ganymede

  98. All due respect but that didn’t advance the argument at all. You made lots of spot on correct statements that are all observations of what happened…all true…and someone reading it and not being careful will think yea that’s all correct. It is. But it didn’t speak to our little debate until your last sentence which simply restated it.

    I’d suggest that a motive if not the motive is no different that what drives white knights and useful idiots. These issues feed the political social agenda you mention but they are individually motivated by fear of women and quest for the lift.

  99. hurting says:

    Dalrock says:
    July 11, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    D,

    I meant to qualify my statement by saying “within my lifetime”, or more pertinently, within my sons’ realistic window for marriage. Fully agree that the unthinkable can become reality in fairly short order. I do suspect that this transformation will be pretty painful for all involved and that the beneficiaries of Marriage 2.0 will not go quietly.

  100. Seven Dials says:

    Absolutely right. Child support replaces marriage. That was the idea. Don’t forget that until recently (like 1980 or so) elites on the left and right wanted to downgrade marriage and remove it. Different reasons, same result. The only reason they don’t talk about it now is that they achieved their aim. Look at the UK now: a £150 per partner tax break is “encouraging marriage”? Does anyone believe the government believes that? Of course not, it’s an empty gesture.

    But consider what happens if the children go to the partner with the highest income. That’s mostly the man. The wife who wants out, then gets out, but with no money, since he gets the children. On leaving the courtroom, she has nowhere to live and little chance of finding anywhere, salaries and rents being what they are, so she’s back with parents or sofa-surfing. She has a job, or not, and might make the child-support payments, or not. Women would divorce a lot less and mostly under three circumstances: personal violence; she can afford it; she’s so chaotic, she doesn’t care. More of them would stick around and make hubby’s life hell, so that he worked late, stayed out as much as possible and slept on the couch.

    This just swaps one hell for another. Any other arrangement will do the same. Because the mistake was marrying and having children with her in the first place. You know the stats by now. Forty per cent of women don’t want a long-term live-in relationship with a man. They want the respectability of having been married and now being divorced (divorce = the no-relationship relationship) with or without children depending on her mothering genes (mothering is not wife-ing). Many of those women, at least in the UK, make reasonable divorces and settlements and don’t behave like That Bitch. But even so their ex-husband is still paying over for a house he doesn’t live in, via the fungibility of money marked ‘child support’.

    There never was a time when those forty per cent of husbands and wives Toughed It Out and Got Along. That was always BS. In the past at least forty per cent of marriages were after some point a wearisome hell for the man, at the mercy of constant guerilla warfare from his wife, who thought that the conflict and drama was the very stuff of life itself. And sexless. Totally sexless. If the old-school way had worked even remotely well for most people, nobody would have used feminism as an excuse to destroy it. Instead it sucked. Badly. So nobody bothered defending it.

    If you go with the flow, you won’t have any problems. You’ll be single, living on your own, and Sunday mornings will be lonely until you hit fifty or so and stop noticing, but you won’t be forty per cent divorced, in a sexless marriage and paying for a house you don’t live in or doesn’t feel like home, being constantly sniped at by the ex. YMMV, but that’s how people in these blogs say it is. Eventually this stuff will turn around, but not in our lifetime. Even when it does, forty per cent of marriages will still be miserable. Always was, is now, always will be. That’s people, not Family Law.

  101. LiveFearless says:

    @Keoni Galt @Empathologism Yes. Deliberate. Scripted. Philosophical concepts intentionally put into motion. You’re correct it has been written about in the past and the freight train of destruction is on course. There’s a reason broadcast station managers (that obey and implement directives) during the buildup have carried titles like ‘Director of Programming’ even before the age of computers. The Programs now live in most thoughts, ideas and feelings of the majority of people on earth. Let them continue to say they think for themselves. Carry on watching your TV, listening to the info on the radio and believing the hosts you trust aren’t controlled.

  102. Pingback: Dalrock: asking the wrong question | Something Fishy

  103. Johnny Caustic says:

    Child support makes no sense at all. The parent who loses custody has incurred a huge penalty–their children! Why should the parent who incurs this penalty have to pay an additional financial penalty???

    Separating parents should bid for the children. Custody should go to the parent who is willing to pay the most for the children (with the proceeds going to the parent who loses them). It makes perfect sense that one’s children are a privilege and that one should be willing to pay for them. It makes no sense at all that the person who loses them should have to pay for that loss, and I don’t understand why anybody thinks that makes sense. Isn’t it totally obvious that the parent who gets custody should be the one to pay? Why does anyone think otherwise?

  104. MikeMangum says:

    Maeve said:

    “I’m not even allowed to relinquish any right to child support, because it’s technically not for me, but for our daughter – and I don’t have the right to refuse it (even though my H and I have an agreement worked out to our own mutual satisfaction which does not involved formal child support). That just kills me – I, THE PARENT, AM NOT ALLOWED TO REFUSE SOMETHING ON BEHALF OF MY MINOR CHILD.”

    That’s because for every dollar the *state* collects in child support payments, the Federal government pays it 66 cents. That’s why the state government doesn’t want you and your ex husband privately handling the details yourselves…it wouldn’t get its cut. That is also why states have an incentive to set support payments as high as possible.

  105. Maeve says:

    @ Anonymous age 71 – we have discussed this as a possibility. I still feel that it puts him in a precarious position as his income is highly volatile and I see no reason to add additional pressure. I just find it so offensive that I have appeal to the state to put its “blessing” on something which should not be anyone’s business but my H’s and mine. It’s insulting and degrading and demeaning. OK – rant over.

  106. greyghost says:

    Keoni Galt
    The whole purpose of no fault was feminism. All of the little details that add up to what you describe were just added to get the results women wanted to be “happy” The rest is unintended consequences. The fact that nothing will change makes it look like it was by design but I think white knighting for women is the biggest motivation. Every one of the things you listed is also a “gain” women have made in the quest for equality. All was meant to allow any woman to play house with out risk. Even abortion was to allow a woman to avoid to avoid the burden of motherhood. (I believe it was actually written just like that in an opinion from a justice) All of the collateral damage was incidental. The fix for the damage was a double down of feminism and a further removal of legal female agency all in the name of equality for women.

  107. Dalrock says:

    @hurting

    I meant to qualify my statement by saying “within my lifetime”, or more pertinently, within my sons’ realistic window for marriage. Fully agree that the unthinkable can become reality in fairly short order. I do suspect that this transformation will be pretty painful for all involved and that the beneficiaries of Marriage 2.0 will not go quietly.

    This is a good point. One thing I know some commenters have read into my statements in the past is that I’m suggesting “Don’t worry about the risk of getting married, it will be solved in x time” or “Don’t worry about delaying marriage. If you wait x years the problem will be sorted out and you can marry under 1.0″ I have no idea how long the process will take, and I certainly wouldn’t factor it into any plans either way. But I do think some level of change is not only possible, but even inevitable over the long term.

  108. does anyone realize the facts:

    1. neocons are trotskyites
    2. trotskyites are bolsheviks
    3. the bolsheviks instituted the same child-support welfare systems in communist russia
    4. the bolsheviks murdered millions of christians
    5. the abolition of the family is a goal of communism
    6. the classical biblical family justly distributes risk and reward
    7. the bolshevik state transfers a man’s wealth and labor to the state
    8. women are used as pawns to grow the state, promised alpha fucks if they help collect beta bucks via divorce/alimony
    9. the communists/bolsheviks are winning
    10. the neocons pretend not to know their true intent
    ,

  109. the reason why
    i like miley cyrus
    better than all the
    bolceheivik neoe neo ocnz
    is that miley is both
    hot and honest

  110. TFH says:

    greyghost,

    All of the little details that add up to what you describe were just added to get the results women wanted to be “happy” The rest is unintended consequences.

    Women don’t understand cause and effect very well.

  111. feeriker says:

    Keoni Galt said:
    THEY don’t want happy marriages – mainly because happy marriages are bountiful marriages that produce lots of children.

    That’s one of the reasons they don’t want happy marriages, but the MAIN reason “they” (TPTB) don’t want happy marriages is because these lead to stable families. Stable families represent a source of God-given authoritah that challenges that of the humanist secular State. The State is a jealous god that does not like challenges to its authoritah. Ergo, the State harnesses all of its resources and power to do everything it can to undermine and destroy the nuclear family. The feminists were the first wave of useful idiots (this phrase being one of the few beneficial contributions to humanity that we can thank V.I. Lenin for) in making this happen.

  112. freebird says:

    Why do women hate men so much that they are always destroying one whilst entrapping the next?

    They are seemingly incapable of bonding.

    Only men bond,the fools,women are malicious opportunists.

    It is not enough for them to extort,they feel the need to destroy.

    I think deep down they hate being female,they want to be males,and never will get there.

    So they cause as much pain as they are able too.

    The void where their soul should be is as expansive as the void between their legs.

    Men are so stupid/enslaved to the pleasure of sex:
    They never hold women to account as they do men.

    Well,the tide is turning,more and more men are choosing to be alone.

    Those who say men need sex are liers.

    We like sex,and would love a lifelong relationship with offspring,but smart men will not fall prey to predators and the system that serves them as well as they ass-rape men.

  113. Mark Minter says:

    All I can tell all of you is stay with us. Hang in there. And keep the faith baby.

    You need to continue to read the major blogs. Even if you are most religious and you follow the scripture and obey it, read even the most raunchy of blogs. You must read and contribute in any way and form that you can. It all adds up. There are subtle points being made about the reality of women, the nature women, explanations of the actions of women.

    And it is changing you in ways that are both detectable and undetectable to you. Every piece you read, every time you think and compose a comment, it alters you and it alters the collective consciousness that we have as men.

    Take this piece today, the idea gets reinforced that some other system has replaced the marriage system. It is subtle idea, but it is a plank, it is a brick, and it is building a new consciousness and a new paradigm in you.

    And the other major blogs are hammering baby, and they are hammering in the hugest way to change, first, the way the collective of men thinks about men, the role of men, and about masculinity, and second, and most importantly, it is affecting you, how you feel about yourself, how you think about women, their place in the world, and most importantly, their place in your life.

    And it is changing what you expect from, women what you will accept from them, what you will demand from them, what you will tolerate from them.

    And and most importantly, it is changing what you view as the true cost of them,.

    And it teaches you that you do, and I insist that you do, have alternatives to them, in the form of another woman or in the form of no woman. It teaches you how to recognize the signs that this one before you is not worthy of your time, your work, your devotion, your dedication, and certainly does not deserve your children and that you will not risk your future nor the welfare of your children on women that exhibit these signs merely for the cheap trade to gain sexual access to this woman.

    Listen to me, and listen to me well, they stand in judgement before you. They can continue to act as they do, do what they do, but they cannot escape your judgement of them. And slowly but surely the moral cost and the moral reality of their actions is percolating to the surface.

    And thanks to the efforts of men, these men like Dalrock, and the great writers of our community, we are all able see things we could not see before; we judge as we could not before,

    And trust me, if you stay with us, your eye becomes better, you see that which you could not see before, and you see it in a way that you did not see it before. And never underestimate the power of stacking small item, upon small item, then one day, a piece slammer piece comes in and makes sense of those other small items.

    So to steal from another movement, this men’s community is a 1000 points of light….

    that is beginning to slowly coalesce into a single glaring, blinding beam that will show the truth.

    Even if it has no great social nor cultural effect, it does and it will have an effect on your life.

    It already had an effect on mine. I see can as I never could before, I do not accept what I thought was acceptable before. And has deeply changed me.

    For the better. At least as far as I am concerned.

    Hang in there.

  114. Alec Rawls says:

    My proposal: “To a rough approximation, the level of support that a divorced woman with children should enjoy should be half that of a married woman’s, and that level of support should be halved again for a never married woman.”

    That provides incentives both for getting married and for staying married. My full post, excerpting my 1995 Stanford Review article on the matter, is at my link (with hat-tips to Instapundit, Neo-neo and Dalrock).

    Check it out Dalrock. I believe your central insight is correct: that child support is a replacement for marriage and to the extent that it exists will tend to undermine marriage, but by keeping that reality in mind, it may be possible to design a system of support that gives the most important increments of support to children while avoiding those levels of support that most undermine marriage.

  115. an observer says:

    Highwasp,

    I know not which paper tfh was referring to. But i am familiar with some related references. Hans Herman Hoppe wrote a book titled Democracy, the god that has failed. It covers similar ground. Review of the book here:

    http://attackthesystem.com/democracy-as-tyranny/

    Couple of good quotes here:
    http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/98317.Hans_Hermann_Hoppe

  116. Robert in Arabia says:

    Doclove,
    I repeat. Write your book.

  117. Drew says:

    Two posts in a row linked by the blog father (“he’ll make you a link you can’t refuse”). Doesn’t hurt that both posts are about his wife’s book he is working hard to promote, but I get a deep suspicion that Glenn keeps a close eye on this blog, Dalrock. That is because of the consistently good content. Looks like you made a fan, congratulations.

  118. UK Fred says:

    @Anonymous aged 71
    This is the case in the UK. Usually mother is found guilty of being an accessory or failing to report/ seek medical care for the child. However, it may well be that the damage caused by a man with much more physical strength is such as to be more likely to result in serious harm to the child than the harm perpetrated by the woman.

    @freebird
    This is back to the oft-quoted statistic which shows that after a woman’s n>1, there is a problem with bonding. Perhaps what men need to do is insist that their wives are virgins to get female bonding . They may have to drop from 7′s or 8′s to 5′s and 6′s, but better a faithful 5 than a slutty 9.

  119. lzozozoozo

    congrats on da instapundit linkz!!

    true story–i hung out with the founders of pjmedia and know da original inevertsorsz and a lot of da bloggerz and teh original cto/technology advisor was my friendz :)

    but back den da gbfm didn’t blodgz so much as i hadn’t found my niche nicnh iche nichce zllzozozo

    anywho, i think that dalrockas and heartistes inspired da gbfm–when you guys happened, i finally heard a more pertinent, real, conservative, christain, classical, manly voice and was inspried to help out iwith my humblez talelelzozlzozl te talenetzlzlzozzl as best i coudld zlozozo

    dalrockraz should wirte a bookz!!! it woudl be aweosme witha ll his greatest hits !!!

    in factz dalrock, heartrsiets amnd da gbfm should wirte a zboozkz togetehrz

    THE THREE PILLARS OF MANHOOD (lzozoomg big pillazrsz lzozoz)
    by HEARTISTE and DALROCK
    with an Introduction from da GBFM, Ph.D. lzozozolzozozo

    da book would sell like hotcakeez and we wouldd finally all three of us get to meet megyn kelly on TVZ and YOUTUBESZ and da GBFM would sign a copy of da new book for her and ask her outaz on air live to da worldz !!!!! SCOREZ!!!!!

    when i sign da bookz i give to her it will say “da gbfm is a big fanz of yoru work twerk lzozozozo lotass occkas 4u my hotel room at da waldorf astoriaz midnightz zlozolzlzol” swooosh every time!

  120. In my state, as is the case in most states I believe, the amount of child support is determined by a formula which takes into account the amount of parenting hours each parent gets, and the amount of income each parent has. In my case when I got divorced I got joint custody of my son. My ex would have had to pay me $21.00 per month based on the incomes at that time. I turned down the $21.00. To this day my son’s mom and me split the costs of everything, other than she being responsible for the provision of medical insurance. It would have been a sad event in my life if the judge did not affirm my getting joint custody and having my son half the time. My heart goes out to those men who want to parent their children, but cannot legally do so. To me it seems like the government kinda aborts children from fathers if fathers are not legally awarded the children half the time.

  121. lzozozozoz

    old people being interveiwed about TWERKINGZ reminds me of kay wymowitz et al. tring to write books out and for menz zlzlzoozozzlo

    lzozozozozoozoz

  122. Casey says:

    @ Vascularity777

    That is the point…….the state does not want fathers involved. They want as much money as possible funnelled over to the woman in the equation.

    You were very, very LUCKY; probably a 1 in 50 shot.

    I can only presume your EX-wife did not fight you on the 50/50 custody arrangement (if so, good on her). Otherwise, the state would be OH-TOO-HAPPY to assist her in taking your son from you.

  123. Novaseeker says:

    They may have to drop from 7′s or 8′s to 5′s and 6′s, but better a faithful 5 than a slutty 9.

    For the average guy (male equivalent of a female 5) it’s more like dropping to 3s-4s from 5s. This is due to hypergamy, however, and not promiscuity. Female 5s are no less promiscuous than female 9s are, and are often more promiscuous because they deploy sex as a currency to get access to attractive men (men higher than their peer male 5 equivalents). Dropping down in looks doesn’t buy you more faithfulness, necessarily, unless you are already hypergamously attractive (i.e., 1-2 SMV steps higher) … which for average men means female 3s and 4s.

  124. greyghost says:

    The Real Peterman
    Women don’t have the capacity to love. It was always about gina tingle. Other motivations such as social status ,and the herd are what allow a woman to “love” a Christian beta. Gina tingle is influenced by those factors believe it or not. (that is why “game” works so well. The hamster allows her to FEEL it was the right thing to do. Civilization was made to civilize female hypergamy not tame the male beast. Looked at like that and the solution to feminism becomes clearer.

  125. does anyone here realize
    taht when they decontrsucted THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN
    which teach of and exalt FATHERHOODZ
    on the college campus
    they deconstructed and destroyed FATHERHOODZ?

    and yet here i have witnessed many churchians
    raging and seething against HOMER and MOSES and JESUS
    labeling the words of JESUS NOISE
    teaching that JESUS CAME TO ABOLISH THE LAW (FATHERHOOD)
    and then wondeirng why
    the children are being seized and fatherhood is being sdetsoryed destoryed

    you churchians are no different from the women
    who turn 30
    and wake up one day and ask 2 questions:
    “Where have all the good men gone?” and
    “Why is my butt sore?”

    lzozozozozozoz

  126. Pingback: With more football, Trayvon would be alive (Odin Lloyd still dead) | Feminism is Empathological

  127. HanSolo says:

    This whole child-support plus welfare plus affirmative action for women scenario enables women to be hypergamous and get pregnant from men they perceive to be superior but can’t marry and have enough enforced mechanisms to have the children provided for.

    This diminishes the role of the “beta” provider husband that would stick around.

    Higher-value males love today’s system. They’re banging tons of women. Yes, they do have to pay a buttload of child support if the woman gets pregnant and has the child but as long as they can use a condom, or have the woman on the pill, or have her get an abortion then they can have sex without being tied down to any kind of commitment. Women today are largely freed up from needing a provider husband and are free to have sex with whomever they want and the promiscuous portion of the top-value men are loving it and cleaning up with dozens, hundreds or even thousands of women.

    You can see my analysis of this in the link in my username.

  128. everyone is missing something fairly grand.

    the major civilizations arose because women’s base natures, incapable of honor and integrity, were ruled by men, honor, church, god, and integrity.

    this allowed culture, science, religion, philosophy, and technology to emerge–which are the TRUE ALPHA TRAITS. the cenrtal bankerstsr teach recast the true ALPHA TRAITS–the GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ And al the sicnece and tehcnology are BETA TRAITSZ. and they teach that gamma traits such as thuggery, drug addiction, irresponsibility, hard work, character, HONOR, and fortitude are beta traitsz.

    such is the way they dumb-down society.

    and one can see why neoconsz womenz are celebratde celebrated for publishing and promotoning butteockkersz and cocockers odf da buttehx, which is the exact opposite of classical conservatism.

    all those female-centered welfare cultures, rooted in butt and gina tingelzlolzolzo, never arose beyond da jun babboobzz babbooonz.

    lzozozozozoz

  129. HanSolo is a fuciing idiot mangina butethxter butctcoekrasz:

    “HanSolo says:
    July 12, 2013 at 2:29 pm
    This whole child-support plus welfare plus affirmative action for women scenario enables women to be hypergamous and get pregnant from men they perceive to be superior but can’t marry and have enough enforced mechanisms to have the children provided for.

    This diminishes the role of the “beta” provider husband that would stick around.”

    Fucktard-iit actually increases the “beta” role, as they are taxed to support the offisping you FUCKTARDZ.

    HanSolo writes, “Higher-value males love today’s system.” And by higher-value he means buttcockerz like tuker mwexax rhyems iwth godlman sax instaed of newtons and einsteinez zlzozozo.

    HanSolo writes, “They’re banging tons of women. Yes, they do have to pay a buttload of child support if the woman gets pregnant and has the child but as long as they can use a condom, or have the woman on the pill, or have her get an abortion then they can have sex without being tied down to any kind of commitment. Women today are largely freed up from needing a provider husband and are free to have sex with whomever they want and the promiscuous portion of the top-value men are loving it and cleaning up with dozens, hundreds or even thousands of women.”

    So you can see how HanSolo HATES JESUS CHRIST, as HanSolo considers JESUS to not be a “top-value” man.
    HanSolo is a soulless little, christ-haiting buttcocker zlzozoz — a typical small cocked churchian.

    lozozozozozozzlozzlo

  130. If a man has already given a woman the gift of his sperm, then why should he be obligated to give her even more gifts???

    And in the cases where the woman has stolen his sperm through fraud, why are the courts not compelling her to compensate him for the very valuable commodity of his sperm. She could get on a payment plan, and make monthly payments for the privilege of having his child all to herself.

    As we all know, children are very valuable. The Bible even says so, and people even go to court to see who gets the privilege of having the child around.

    Normally, a woman would be required to submit her whole self, and become a mans lifetime helper, for the privilege of having his child. That just shows how valuable children are. Children in exchange for herself.

    So how much should a woman have to pay a man for his sperm? What would be a fair monthly payment?

  131. @Liberty, Family, and Masculinity

    All child support & welfare is stealing sperm by fraud

    In fact theres no such thing as child support, its really alimony or enslavement to government for using one of their legalised prostitutes

    Which is all women are today, legalised prostitutes

    This is basically what no fault divorce & welfare’s turned women into, legalised prostitutes

    You pay the government for use of their barren wombs & walking uterus

    This is what the government planned all along, make women the property of government & force men to pay for use of their whores …

  132. Just Saying says:

    Let’s say men no longer have to pay child support and they are getting custody at least most of the time, then men would have to pay the child care costs which can be $200 a week for one child. So how would having custody financially benefit men — at least low to medium income men — they probably don’t pay $800 a month child support for one child — I think it’s more like $400 a month for one child.

  133. HanSolo says:

    @GBFM
    Regarding your diatribe against me, it was so illogical and ill-founded that it actually made me laugh.

    My comment was an affirmation that hypergamy is real in women and that the men that are perceived to be of high value by women (rightly or wrongly) are getting tons of pussy. Not sure what exactly you’re disagreeing with since you tend to argue with things I didn’t say. Anyway, must have hit close to the mark to get you all riled up like that.

    I said the role of the beta husband that sticks around is diminished (in the eyes of the wife). That is incontrovertible since the woman can get aid from the state, family, her own job, etc. Nothing to argue there so I’m not sure why you’re talking about taxing men as if I didn’t mention the welfare state. Oh, I actually did mention the welfare state. I’m simply saying that at the individual level the provider guy isn’t needed by a woman precisely because she has the other avenues of support, like welfare (food stamps, housing assistance, etc.). Of course men are given less gov’t benefits and are being taxed to pay for the welfare state. So I’m really not sure why you’re arguing with me because I am totally aware of how men are being used as work horses to support society, the difference with ages past being that they are at great risk of being divorced and stripped of half their assets and locked into excessive child support payments if they have kids.

    By higher-value men, I’m meaning in the eyes of the women. We can argue about whether such men should be valued or not but there’s no denying that women are valuing such men more for sex. And your example of Einstein is pretty bad in terms of him not being sexually valued. He was quite the cheater and the lady’s man, meaning that lots of women found him to be of high enough value to have unmarried sex with and he WAS out looking for lots of pussy, just like the pussy-chasing apex political or business alphas that you are so quick to point out. From the article “6 Famous Geniuses You Didn’t Know Were Perverts,” we read:

    Even though he was married twice (once to his cousin), he cheated on both of his wives with about 10 different women. Though in his defense, he presented his first wife with a list of rules, one of which was “expect neither intimacy nor fidelity.”

    Yes, he was a profound genius and one of the greatest scientists ever but he was devoid of some of the virtues I imagine you would claim should be part of a high value man, or at least a man of high values. But if faithfulness is not one of the high virtues in your mind then I guess we can give cheating Einstein a pass.

    I point out the simple fact that is obvious to anyone with even a smidgeon of intelligence that women have been freed up by the pill, welfare and making their own money to unleash their hypergamy. A simple observation of fact. No judgement of whether it is right or wrong.
    Then I point out that the portion of the top males (as valued by women) that are promiscuous are cleaning up. True fact. Look at Wilt Chamberlain and Warren Beatty with their thousands of women. Now, these men don’t want to get the women pregnant, for the most part. But sometimes they slip, or the condom slips, or she intentionally slipped on taking the pill for a while, and pregnancy results. True facts. Also look at the rich men who father children out of wedlock and are forced to pay huge child support. Again, simple statement of fact. I just made simple observations that get repeated over and over throughout the sphere and even here on this blog and he concludes from that that I hate Jesus Christ. Talk about a non sequitur. Talk about fallacies.

    From my simple observations about about the current situation, he concludes that I consider Jesus not to be a top-value man. Well, Great Fallacies For the Ignorant, I actually consider Jesus to be a top-value man so you were dead wrong in your speculations about my beliefs.
    It sounds like Great Fallacies needs to spend a little more time on the great books he claims to love. And even before that, a little remedial tutoring on reading comprehension and logic 101.
    What an utter joke.

  134. lzozozozoz

    “@GBFM
    Regarding your diatribe against me, it was so illogical and ill-founded that it actually made me laugh.”

    GBFM: to HanSolo (soloing with his hand), logic, reason, and clasical morality = DIATRIBE lzozozozo

    “My comment was an affirmation that hypergamy is real in women and that the men that are perceived to be of high value by women (rightly or wrongly) are getting tons of pussy. Not sure what exactly you’re disagreeing with since you tend to argue with things I didn’t say. Anyway, must have hit close to the mark to get you all riled up like that.”

    GBFM: NOW YOU MODIFY YOUR COMMENTS, SAYING, “My comment was an affirmation that hypergamy is real in women and that the men that are perceived to be of high value by women (rightly or wrongly) are getting tons of pussy.” EARLIER YOU WROTE, “Higher-value males love today’s system. They’re banging tons of women,” meaning that YOU CONSIDER MEN WHO BANG A LOT OF WOMEN TO BE HIGHER-VALUE.

    “I said the role of the beta husband that sticks around is diminished (in the eyes of the wife). That is incontrovertible since the woman can get aid from the state, family, her own job, etc. Nothing to argue there so I’m not sure why you’re talking about taxing men as if I didn’t mention the welfare state. Oh, I actually did mention the welfare state. I’m simply saying that at the individual level the provider guy isn’t needed by a woman precisely because she has the other avenues of support, like welfare (food stamps, housing assistance, etc.). Of course men are given less gov’t benefits and are being taxed to pay for the welfare state. So I’m really not sure why you’re arguing with me because I am totally aware of how men are being used as work horses to support society, the difference with ages past being that they are at great risk of being divorced and stripped of half their assets and locked into excessive child support payments if they have kids.”

    GBFM: WOT?

    “By higher-value men, I’m meaning in the eyes of the women. We can argue about whether such men should be valued or not but there’s no denying that women are valuing such men more for sex. And your example of Einstein is pretty bad in terms of him not being sexually valued. He was quite the cheater and the lady’s man, meaning that lots of women found him to be of high enough value to have unmarried sex with and he WAS out looking for lots of pussy, just like the pussy-chasing apex political or business alphas that you are so quick to point out. From the article “6 Famous Geniuses You Didn’t Know Were Perverts,” we read:

    Even though he was married twice (once to his cousin), he cheated on both of his wives with about 10 different women. Though in his defense, he presented his first wife with a list of rules, one of which was “expect neither intimacy nor fidelity.”

    Yes, he was a profound genius and one of the greatest scientists ever but he was devoid of some of the virtues I imagine you would claim should be part of a high value man, or at least a man of high values. But if faithfulness is not one of the high virtues in your mind then I guess we can give cheating Einstein a pass.

    I point out the simple fact that is obvious to anyone with even a smidgeon of intelligence that women have been freed up by the pill, welfare and making their own money to unleash their hypergamy. A simple observation of fact. No judgement of whether it is right or wrong.
    Then I point out that the portion of the top males (as valued by women) that are promiscuous are cleaning up. True fact. Look at Wilt Chamberlain and Warren Beatty with their thousands of women. Now, these men don’t want to get the women pregnant, for the most part. But sometimes they slip, or the condom slips, or she intentionally slipped on taking the pill for a while, and pregnancy results. True facts. Also look at the rich men who father children out of wedlock and are forced to pay huge child support. Again, simple statement of fact. I just made simple observations that get repeated over and over throughout the sphere and even here on this blog and he concludes from that that I hate Jesus Christ. Talk about a non sequitur. Talk about fallacies.”

    Yes–you do hate Jesus Christ, as you teach that higher value men bang a lot of pussysysysyz and bunghoelzozo while our LORD JESUS CHRIST teaches against buttehxt and fornication and sex out of wedlock. Our LORD JESUS CHRIST teaches AGAINST FUCKING MULTIPLE WOMEN. Ergo, HansSolo (soling with your hand lzozozo), because ye teach that HIGHER VALUE MEN are those who fuck more women, while OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST teaches the opposite, you hate the teachings of CHRIST and thus CHRIST.

    “From my simple observations about about the current situation, he concludes that I consider Jesus not to be a top-value man. Well, Great Fallacies For the Ignorant, I actually consider Jesus to be a top-value man so you were dead wrong in your speculations about my beliefs.
    It sounds like Great Fallacies needs to spend a little more time on the great books he claims to love. And even before that, a little remedial tutoring on reading comprehension and logic 101.
    What an utter joke.”

    HanSolo, if you truly believe that JESUS CHRIST is a top-value man, should you not teach the Gospel, and state ASSERTIVELY as CHRIST DID that fornication by MEN and by WOMEN is a sin?

    In the eyes of CHRIST, men who buttcock and bang a lot of women, and hypergammous womenz who bang and buttcockesz a lot of men, ARE NOT HIGH-VALUE PEOPLE, as you state they are.

    HanSolo writes, “Anyway, must have hit close to the mark to get you all riled up like that.”

    GBFM: Actually no, you missed my bunghole by a country mile, but the very fact that you’re aiming for it troubles us all.

    Now go forth, and sin no more.

    Teach as Jesus taught–that high value men are those who abstain from fucking and sucking and buttcockingz, and then maybe the womenz of your churchians z churches might follow your MANLY LEAD, and they too shall refrain form suckcingz and cuckdidngs and buttccokingz, once it is taught that such activities does not make one a “high value” man nor a “high value” woman as HAnSolo originally asserted.

    And all ye churchians wonder why yer churches mean nothing and yer families are imploadingsz zlzozozooz

  135. earl says:

    I’d like to congratulate Miley Cyrus and her mind controlling overlords for the symbolism in that video.

    We get it…one eye, sex, mirrors, alter egos. Come up with something new, man!

  136. AdmiralBenbow says:

    they should not legally be allowed to walk away from supporting their own children by that mechanism, even if the divorce is not their fault.

    Another neo-con supporting the frivorce culture. If divorce is not your fault, how can you then be forced to pay a penalty for said divorce?

  137. Maeve says:

    @ Just Saying,
    While it is true that child care costs CAN be astronomical for very young children, once they are school aged, the after-school programs are quite affordable and could easily run less than a monthly CS payment (when my kids were younger, they ran between $60-$80/week/kid – so not awful). Summer day-care can be a whole other matter, but is only a couple months out of the year. Besides, unless mom is home sitting on her ass, she too would be paying the childcare costs in order to work (and if she’s not prepared to be employed full time, well that should be a huge red flag to any Judge). I know my case is a little easier because my children are older and although they live with me, one has her driver’s license and they take off to hang out with their Dad all the time. I guess what I’m trying to say is that men should not let potential child care costs dissuade them from pursuing a more aggressive share of custody.

  138. hurting says:

    Maeve says:
    July 15, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    Maeve:

    I would guess that the main reason men don’t take a more aggressive approach to pursuing custody is that it’s pointless (they’re probably going to lose anyway and it costs money to fight). It is likely not a red flag to a judge to see a woman working less than FT (it certainly wasn’t in my case, and my kids were both teenagers at the time of our divorce); the system is designed to reward women and severely penalize men who don’t demand that their wives maximize their earnings outside the home.

  139. Maeve says:

    Hurting,
    I suppose you are right. I guess I’m still wearing my big thick rose-colored lenses. But now that I think about it, maybe the attorneys are part of the problem too. Mine seems to want me to be vindictive. He keeps pushing me to make/consider demands and restrictions. Do I look for someone else? Are they all going to be like that?

  140. Hurting says:

    Maeve:

    What you are experiencing is the adversarial nature of the process coupled with a serious problem with the perverse incentives of the at play. On the one hand, your attorney is duty-bound to protect your interests, most notably your financial ones. This alone will make it seem like ‘hardball’ because that’s what it is. The whole affair will be a less than zero sum game for you and your husband (the only people who ‘win’ are the insiders who run the divorce-industrial).

    Attorneys would have you believe that their code of ethics is enough to protect you from their self-dealing, which manifests itself in them advising you to be petty or vindictive, demanding things for which the cost of obtaining them far exceeds the benefit. The perverse incentive is the billable hour concept. Every time one attorney picks up the phone to talk to the other, that’s a billable hour (in tenth hour increments).

    If you want to be reasonable and nice, don’t get divorced. I have heard of the amicable divorce, but cannot imagine what one looks like. If you can quietly and quickly resolve the thing, it suggests to me that either you didn’t have much invested in the first place or that you could make it work.

    It is going to suck. Relatively speaking, it’s going to suck more for your husband than you unless your situation is the rare unicorn.

  141. Maeve says:

    Hurting,
    Thank you for your insights regarding the process. I’ve been feeling like I’m stumbling around blindly and everyone seems to have an agenda (and none of them feel particularly benign). I would love to not get divorced, but you see, my husband left me for someone else and they now have a child together. He isn’t coming back. I guess I feel the need to quietly and quickly resolve things because it would just be a little easier on us all and because I am uncomfortable with confrontation.

  142. Pingback: A Provocative Claim | askblog

  143. hurting says:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/asking-the-wrong-question/#comment-86928

    Maeve,

    Truly sorry to hear what you’re going through.

    You are absolutely correct that everyone in the process has an agenda, most directly and noticeably the attorneys. In my earlier comment I meant to add that a code of ethics (more specifically, ethical behavior) is a necessary but not sufficient (not even close) criterion to get people to act in another’s best interest; the incentives (or lack thereof) are far more important. I work in accounting/finance, and the industry has codes of conduct and ethical standards, but it recognizes and advocates for incentives to avoid self-dealing.

    One of the challenges with domestic relations attorneys, as opposed to your business’s counsel, is that you only get shot to evaluate them, unless you’re dumb enough to get married and divorced again. Another is the amount of activity that goes on outside of your earshot (ex parte communications). How do you really know how well your attorney is representing you when he’s in conference absent you with the judge and opposing counsel?

    You need to figure out a way to get over your aversion to confrontation because you are in a pitched battle.

  144. Maeve says:

    Hurting,
    I will give great consideration to what you have shared. There really has been no one with whom I have had any discussion about my misgivings regarding the whole divorce process. My friends/family are all seething with fury at my husband, and I just want no part of it. But you have given me much to think about, and I’m confident that I can stick to my guns and insist that we proceed as planned. And if this attorney has heartburn, well, then I’ll just find another who can make it happen and move on as best I can. I have to believe that it’s possible to find some happiness in the future.

  145. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/07/17 | Free Northerner

  146. Maeve says:

    Hurting,
    Thank you, Sir, and to you as well.

  147. Opus says:

    That’s right: blame the Attorney. There he is, your poor Attorney asking you to focus your mind on the matter at hand, and as you, Maeve, say ‘pushing me to make decisions’ as if he can decide what it is you want. He could always just let the matter slide, and when asked by the Judge what you want, reply that he has no idea because he never bothered asking and was anxious not to run up billable hours. He might as well shut up shop and go and work in some other less stressful line of legal work which come to think of it is exactly what I did.

    I have known it: women whether Respondent or Petitioner, unwilling or unable to decide; in short behaving as they do in real life where butter would not melt in their mouths and generally playing hard to please.

    In terms of financial reward, over here, Matrimonial work pays worse than anything else with the sole exception of Criminal law. If you can’t blame your Husband., then there is always your Attorney, and if you think that exaggerated I was in the Fish and Fries Shop a few months back when I received a volley full of abuse from a man I may have represented a quarter of a century ago complaining that I had wrecked his marriage and his life generally – no idea why. Perhaps I slept with his wife. How can I remember that?

  148. feeriker says:

    Opus, are you a family law attorney (I ask that in all seriousness, out of genuine curiosity, no sarcasm intended. If you’ve identified yourself as such in previous posts, my apologies in advance for not having seen them)? If so, I can definitely appreciate your perspective from an attorney’s POV in response to Maeve’s post. In all fairness, however, and based on what she’s described of her situation, she’s going through one of the most painful and destructive events anyone, husband or wife, can ever face: spousal abandonment. Putting myself in her shoes, I don’t think I’d be exactly clear-headed about how I’d want to emerge from such a mess either, or what I’d want to ultimately gain out of it the form of compensation. On the one hand, part of me would be seething with well-justified rage and resentment at not only having been abandoned, but having my spouse start another family behind my back. On the other hand, there’s one’s own children to think about, knowing that going the “scorched earth” route could ultimately backfire and do more harm than good. It’s a situation that requires some serious contemplation, along with a lot of emotional support that many people don’t very easily find under such circumstances (to paraphrase an old saw, happiness and good fortune are the belles of the ball, but misery and misfortune are ugly duckling outcasts. “Fair weather friends” and all of that).

    @Maeve: Echoing hurting’s sentiments about your situation. I’ve never been there, but have a close friend who has. NOBODY deserves to suffer something like this. Hang in there, and good luck to you!

  149. Opus says:

    @feeriker

    The position is that I used to (and for all I know may do so again).

    I have thus heard it all, and of course I do look at it from the point of view of the Attorney, which means that to be effective I have on one level to be entirely indifferent (even as I express my sympathies) to my client’s misery – much like a Doctor, I would guess.

    I would say that any competent Attorney would be like that, and he is neither trying to cheat his client nor make your life miserable – the sooner it is over the sooner he may have a happier client – and the sooner he will get paid! – amazingly, and contrary to popular opinion, he does not have a machine in the back room that prints dollars. He has done it many times before, but (in the main) that cannot be said of his client who is doubtless a bit shell shocked. My experience however is that the male clients are infinitely more decent than the female and always keen to do the decent thing even as they are being shafted by their wife. My other observation is that the women to whom one applies ones very best bedside-manner are the ones who will be least grateful – don’t ask me why that is, but I rather got the impression that Maeve was like that – all that blaming her Attorney for asking her to make a decision which only she can make. Even when one obtains the best possible result it often happens that the client will still blame the Attorney – women enjoy misery, or so it seems.

    Of course it is always difficult from a blog to see exactly what is going on.

  150. hurting says:

    Opus says:
    July 17, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    Opus,

    Did I miss something where Maeve complained overmuch about wanting her attorney to make decisions for her? A quick read back through her posts reveals to me a concern over strategy (wanting to play hardball vs. “being reasonable”) as opposed to specific decisions.

    I would reiterate my comment about very serious problem with the perverse incentives of the system. These coupled with the fact that as you acknowledge, most people only go through this horrible process once (and are hence largely ignorant of how to assess their attorney’s performance) combine to produce an environment that is ripe for abuse and self-dealing. This situation is exacerbated by the fairly wide discretion judges are accorded in the US.

    The situation exists as it does due to an example of public choice theory: a fairly small group of players derives immense benefit from the current system (namely the divorce-industrial complex regular players but extending to divorcing women and ultimately all women by way of threatpoint) while the costs associated therewith are diffused over the larger population of men and children.

  151. Opus says:

    @Hurting

    Well, I thought she was complaining, which was what motivated my comment.

    I agree that it is almost impossible for her to accurately assess her Attorney’s performance – because she would not know what to look for or how to judge it. Only a fellow lawyer can adequately do that, and it is my experience that most are much of a muchness, that is to say perfectly competent. I have got to say further that I never noticed any abuse of the system and the worse one occasionally got was a lawyer of deeply Christian persuasion attempting to interpret the standard practice in a way that was different from his fellow lawyers. This merely wasted time and money as he was going to get nowhere.

    It may of course be different in the U.S.A.

    Amongst my other general observations to add to the two above:

    1. Although most Petitions for Divorce are issued by women, when a woman is on the receiving end she is usually much prettier and nicer than the average divorcee, and I attribute this to the fact that being attractive she married an attractive man with options – which he then utilised – perhaps Maeve is of this type.

    2. Some women love divorce because, for the first time, they have endless people making a fuss of them – Judges, Social Services, Lawyers etc.

    3. Female tears are usually borrowed from Crocodiles – the worst case I can recall of that was of a woman who within a week or so of her tearful drama was shagging one of my more distasteful acquaintances.

    One has to be dispassionate (hence my callousness) and I can tell you that had I been asked to represent George Zimmerman I would happily have done so as easily as I would have represented Trayvon Martin. Had I represented Zimmerman I would have been pleased with the result, but trust that within an hour or so I would have forgotten about it as ones next case – the next day – may not have provided equal success and success or failure usually says little about ones ability.

    Law never made me rich – nor does it most people – at least not here – and if I had my time again would have stayed well clear – got pushed in by parents.

  152. Hurting says:

    Opus,

    Totally understand the need to be detached and certainly understand the agency relationship.

    My experience with the process is I’m guessing pretty typical for men in my position (primary breadwinner as defendant) – it sucked royally and can not be reconciled with any common understanding of fairness as understood by reasonable, rational people.

    Please note that I do not believe for a minute that my attorney milked me (I kept meticulous records of all of our conversations, etc.), but I am certain that was not the case with my wife’s attorney. He allowed her to waste time and money proffering proposals that had no chance of succeeding with me or the judge. I can not count the number of material errors I found in various filings prepared mainly by her lawyer (there were a few by mine).

    I had entertained law school after getting my MBA, but if I had to practice domestic relations law, I’d pass.

  153. Doogie Howsier says:

    At the end of the day, what is Fair is to require a Father to pay the average monthly cost to raise a child in the U.S.A. Outliers should be thrown out, so if its $150 per week to raise a child than a Father should only pay $600 per month. It should be the same for every state and county. This BS of a husband paying a percentage of his Gross (not net) income is completely out of control and un called for. I am a recent divorce and I am just absolutely appalled that I pay a percent of my Gross income vs Net income or the average cost to raise a child. As a result, my ex wife is getting a huge paycheck every month and using that money to go shopping for herself, get her nails done, etc.

  154. Hurting says:

    Doogie,

    Welcome to the jungle, my brutha.

    Embrace the suck.

  155. Maeve says:

    @Feeriker – thank you, Sir, for your kind words of support.

    @Opus – Sir, your comments made me realize that in my fear and anxiety over this process, I had lost sight of the fact that my attorney is not my enemy. He is, in fact, a very good man and is concerned about protecting my interests. I have given your posts great consideration and realized that I was being defensive with him (it’s no excuse, but I literally have no one who is supportive of my position – so, not only do I feel defensive, but I’m also second-guessing my decisions) . We had a meeting today and I took the time to clearly reiterate my desired outcome. And then I shut up, let him talk, and listened. He feels that we can work out an agreement that will come very close to the terms that my husband and I are looking for. He doesn’t totally agree with all of them, but he does understand why I need to go this route. Thank you and best to you.

  156. Luke says:

    Doogie Howsier says:

    July 20, 2013 at 3:41 am

    “At the end of the day, what is Fair is to require a Father to pay the average monthly cost to raise a child in the U.S.A. Outliers should be thrown out, so if its $150 per week to raise a child than a Father should only pay $600 per month. It should be the same for every state and county. This BS of a husband paying a percentage of his Gross (not net) income is completely out of control and un called for. I am a recent divorce and I am just absolutely appalled that I pay a percent of my Gross income vs Net income or the average cost to raise a child. As a result, my ex wife is getting a huge paycheck every month and using that money to go shopping for herself, get her nails done, etc.”

    Fairer yet would be for ex-husbands without custody at all levels of income to only have to pay what their state pays foster families to house, feed, and clothe foster children. As that’s what they’ve determined is the REAL cost to cover NEEDS of the child, what could be fairer? That’s typically only a few hundred dollars a month, I understand.

    I will add here that I prefer near-automatic FATHER custody of weaned children in the event of divorce, or at least 50/50 (with NO C.S.).

  157. Pike says:

    GreyGhost hit the nail squarely on the head earlier – and yet none of us really understand the profound nature of the thought he has raised:

    One of the core precepts of our fucked-up society is that women hold the keys to reproductive rights. All I hear about is the “women’s right to choose.” All we see in the contraceptive industry is geared towards the enablement of a woman’s right to choose.

    What about a man’s right to choose?

    Don’t give me the dumb-assed first response about going down to the drugstore and getting condoms. We all know that:

    a> condoms are primitive and desensitize.
    b> condoms can and ARE used against our wills to harvest sperm when we aren’t looking.
    c> women will manipulate the situation in such a way as to persuade us not to use them, and in so doing increase the probability of pregnancy to her own advantage.

    But think about a world in which a man had the choice of a contraceptive that would kill sperm without any side effects? Think about a world in which a man would have the choice of conception without having to sheath, without having to deal with the emotional blackmail of a female who was trying to deceptively get pregnant anyway?

    Why are we not collectively banging on the doors of Big Pharma to create an effective male contraceptive!?!?!?! I have just as much right to control my reproductive rights as any female.

  158. LiveFearless says:

    @SunshineMary Your voice is always refreshing.

    You have written..

    “I have a casual acquaintance who has three children by two men, one of whom she was married to. Both men have joint custody of their children, yet she receives child support from both of them and is always taking one or the other of them to court trying to get more (on top of WIC, Medicaid, and other welfare type resources that she receives). I don’t understand why she receives anything from them. It makes me sort of angry.”

    Part of the problem is that most people would refer to her as “a friend” … There’s a sentence quoted by many of the uber successful friends I keep in life. “You’re the average of your five best friends” or “You’re the average of the five people you spend the most time thinking about” or “You’re the average of the five people you spend the most time with” … To your credit, she is a casual acquaintance. Most people will not tell her that what she is doing is wrong. Then, since this is @Dalrock’s blog – there is a large percentage of his readers that have been reared with a lot of influence from organized religion. ALL “Christian Churches” with attendance of more than 25 people encourage the kind of behaviors your casual acquaintance enjoys

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s