The gospel of child support.

Brother Jed preaches the gospel of child support:

Okay, time to “preach” a little…

…it’s not really “bad” *AT ALL* for a woman to assume financial aid for the provision and security of her bastard offspring if the no-good, dead-beat father doesn’t want to at least “man-up” and at least “take care of *HIS RESPONSIBILITY*” of “providing and guiding” his flesh and blood into adulthood.

So I really don’t put *NO BLAME* on women for expecting child support to the deadbeat men who shirk their responsibilities as *FATHERS* of their *OWN FLESH ‘N BLOOD*.

In fact women are *OWNED* financial support from the father or “fathers” of their children just for the sake of the welfare and development of their children; together or not. Whether the single mom women in check or selfishly “leeching” on the rightful financial support of the father(s) of her children is selfishly using the money for her own selfish purposes does NOT at all ever excuse the living *FATHER* of the children to not keep supporting the mother or “mothers” of his kids financial support: the “absenteeism” of fathers is the real issue causing these problems.

Women left to their own devices can only do so much to rear up children in a *FATHERLESS HOUSEHOLD*: don’t blame them, *BLAME THE MEN WHO HAD CHOICE TO DECIDE NOT TO SLEEP AROUND OR NOT TO MAKE THESE BABIES*!

Women have the “gift to grant sex” to a man, but it’s only the *MAN* who decides to make the *DECISION* to lay down and have sex with the woman which the purpose of sex results in *PROCREATION* of children!

Sex is *NOT* for some “recreational activity” for men to just have with women: it’s *PURELY ONLY FOR REPRODUCTION*; the “pleasure” is merely the “byproduct”!

Men love the “pleasure” of sex only and *NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SEX*!

That’s why I don’t take any “players”, pua, gamers any other lame, “irresponsible men-boys” who just want to “screw” around but don’t take “manhood” seriously: they’re pure jokes in the face of the true sacred Christian Faith that’s been overshadowed by the filth of this sinful world.

It’s truly *NOT WOMEN AT FAULT* here at all: it’s *MEN* here! It’s *MEN* who just want to screw women to *SELFISHLY* pleasure their penises and *NOT TAKE OF THE “REAL MAN STUFF”* of being *HUSBAND*, *FATHER* and *HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD*.

The *MAN* can chose *NOT TO HAVE SEX* with a woman to not have kids to begin with.

It starts with *HIM*, “not here”

In preaching this evil gospel, for the destruction of marriage is evil, Brother Jed is ignoring the only truly innocent party to the process he loves: the children. Child support is designed to replace marriage, and it is wickedly effective at this. The point of the post Brother Jed was responding to was that child support creates a powerful incentive for women to deliberately become single mothers.

You can see part* of the runaway success of child support in Figure 1 from the 2014 NCHS data brief Recent Declines in Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States:

db162_fig1

Over a million and a half children are now born out of wedlock each year in the US alone. Not all of this “progress” is due to the financial incentives Bro Jed loves so much. Part of the credit must go to the moral cover Bro Jed and other conservatives provide for single mothers.  Bro Jed deceives single mothers like the serpent deceived Eve:

So I really don’t put *NO BLAME* on women for expecting child support

…women are *OWNED* financial support from the father or “fathers” of their children .

…don’t blame [women], *BLAME THE MEN…

…it’s only the *MAN* who decides to make the *DECISION* to lay down and have sex with the woman which the purpose of sex results in *PROCREATION* of children!

It’s truly *NOT WOMEN AT FAULT* here at all: it’s *MEN* here! It’s *MEN* who just want to screw women to *SELFISHLY* pleasure their penises and *NOT TAKE OF THE “REAL MAN STUFF”* of being *HUSBAND*, *FATHER* and *HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD*.

Related: We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan

*Child support doesn’t just encourage women to have children out of wedlock, it also encourages women to kick married fathers out of the home.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Child Support, The only real man in the room, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

152 Responses to The gospel of child support.

  1. Novaseeker says:

    It’s also the idea that men need to pay for the sex because otherwise they’re getting a pleasure-freebee, whereas women never have sexual pleasure, never have sex for pleasure, and only ever have sex for procreative purposes, period, so they are always being used by men for pleasure, full stop.

  2. earlthomas786 says:

    I also noticed he made a point of how evil it is that a man will use women for his pleasure (a utility) but seemed to be A-OK over the fact that women will use a men for their money (a utility).

    The child is the biggest loser in this. The child doesn’t really get a father and his mother only sees the child as her money ticket.

  3. Dalrock says:

    @Earl

    The child is the biggest loser in this. The child doesn’t really get a father and his mother only sees the child as her money ticket.

    The only winner is Brother Jed. He gets to pose as the only real man in the room, while avoiding doing what is difficult and uncomfortable.

  4. Anon says:

    The other thing Jed reveals is that he just cannot comprehend that a woman might actually want sex, since he has never managed to find a woman who is attracted to him. Hence, he believes that women never actually want sex. This is really a pain avoidance reaction on his part, as a man that no woman wants.

    Cartoonish chivalry is the result.

  5. Pingback: The gospel of child support. | @the_arv

  6. Russell says:

    Men taking over responsibility for birth control will allow them to avoid contributing to the single mother epidemic. No child support to be concerned with if you’re not the sperm donor to these blood sucking leeches. As far as I’m concerned, becoming a parent should require both parents approval instead of just the mother’s. Men should be allowed to relinquish parental rights and not pay child support unless he willingly decides to do so. If the woman still decides to go ahead with the pregnancy, then it’d be on her dime in the event that the man relinquishes parental rights. I also view that welfare should not be increased for people who have additional children while on welfare. Sorry, you on welfare and can’t afford to have more children and we will not increase your prize money if you decide to do so. Single mother problem would be solved fairly quick.

  7. Not familiar with BJ. I thought that piece was poorly written satire, but apparently he really thinks that? Nutter.

  8. Anon says:

    This is why the cuckservative position on abortion is even more misandric than the Democrat position.

    Cuckservatives don’t care about children. The child is just the sacrificial innocent in their goddess-cult worship of women.

    Cuckservatives think that the way to reduce abortion is to punish *men*. When this doesn’t work, they double down. That is why most cuckservatives don’t think the CS laws are strict enough.

    Think about it – a worldview like Jed’s is the reason they think punishing men is the way to reduce abortions, and how, in 1996, replacing general welfare with woman-specific slavery and imputed income, was a great cuckservative victory in the form of ‘welfare reform’.

    The job of the leftist is to create new problems. The job of the cuckservative is to ensure that they are never fixed.

  9. Trust says:

    Jeb falls in to the socialist, left-wing trap. I do not think Dalrock or anyone here is arguing or would argue with the fact that men should be responsible for their children. What we are arguing is results of taking an individual moral responsibility and making it social policy, creating universal social policy from it, therefore codifying perverse incentives for and entitlements to otherwise decent women to harm their children and families.

    Two of my four groomsmen have been burned by this entitlement program. Most recently was frivorced by a cheating wife, and has child support involuntarily withheld even though she 1) makes more than him, 2) is living with her boyfriend, 3) they have equal custody legally, 4) he has them more than her, and 5) most importantly he is the kind of man that would take care of his kids without legally intercepting his money but she feels no need to coloperate or give credit since the government usurps this.

    My family prepares and serves food at our church’s homeless shelter once a month, and the people we serve are grateful. How many welfare recipients do you know who express gratitude to taxpayers for the money they receive? Likewise, how many mothers are grateful to fathers for the support that is enforced by government?

    They not only create perverse incentives for otherwise decent men, they remove the respect we should have for responsible men.

    This is the problem with evil. It doesn’t come at you with horns and a pitchfork promising ruin, it comes at you cloaked in good intentions and lies disguised as truths.

  10. BillyS says:

    Texas spousal support is similar. A woman should be able to keep her current status of living for some time, according to the law, if she has been married long enough. This is the case even if she is the one blowing up the marriage.

    Logic doesn’t go too far for many today.

    I also used to be of the “make the man pay” camp, but the misuse of that is far worse than any “deadbeat dad” we are constantly warned about. Child support is destroying civilization, so I strongly oppose the automatic assumption that it is due.

  11. Orthros says:

    Who is Brother Jed? Can’t be the same guy who used to go preaching on Ohio State’s campus, can it? If so, that’s truly an about face.

  12. earlthomas786 says:

    They not only create perverse incentives for otherwise decent men, they remove the respect we should have for responsible men.

    Yup. The incentives are the evil.

    Would Bro Jed still be so adamant on his ‘forced child support’ if the wife purposely blows up the marriage because she just wants his money and not the father? How much more often is that the case than the deadbeat dad? How often is the man tricked into pregnancy by the woman because she wants the money (and the merit badge of single motherhood) and not the father?

  13. Anon says:

    Jeb falls in to the socialist, left-wing trap.

    Oh, cuckservatives are the most strident, fervent Communists around. Their only condition is that the transfer always be from male to female. Once that condition is met, they love any and all possible state-backed wealth transfer imaginable. Imputation of income under penalty of imprisonment is their favorite. In their crazed zeal, they also forget that if you seize a man’s passport and driver’s license, you make it more difficult for him to work to generate the output that the cuckservative Communists want to seize.

  14. Anon says:

    Jed sed :

    The *MAN* can chose *NOT TO HAVE SEX* with a woman to not have kids to begin with.

    Heh. I guarantee that if a significant fraction of men made this choice, Jed would be even angrier at men than he is now. As proof, see any content produced by Brad Wilcucks.

    Jed doesn’t understand how cuckservatives think. And no, being a cuckservative does not mean he understands how he thinks. Quite the opposite, in fact.

  15. Jed Mask says:

    “… but seemed to be A-OK over the fact that women will use a men for their money (a utility).”

    Stop right there. I never said that Earl; quit putting your words in my mouth.

    I never said it’s “okay” for women to use men as a “atm”. It’s not okay for women to use men as atms *LIKEWISE* it is not “okay” for men to use women purely as personal sex objects for self-gratification.

    Smh… I said women will use men as atms so long as men continue to use women purely as “sex objects” to have sex with only.

    If a man only wants to use a woman for sex it’s only “fair” in reality she uses him as atm because of the superficial relationship between them both. You reap what you sow.

    The man sowed “using someone else (i.e. the woman) for sex” thus someone else (i.e. the woman) returns the favor using the man as a tool for money for *HER BENEFIT* just as the man *BENEFITS* from his pleasure in sex. A “fair exchange”. You reap what you sow.

  16. Trust says:

    @Anon

    I probably shouldn’t have said left wing. Socialism is rooted in the belief that micro problems should be solved St the micro level. Conservatives have unfortunately moved far left. There really isn’t a relevant right wing currently. Both major parties have moved to the left. What I meant was they’ve adopted the mindset that the right thing to do for an individual is to be government policy.

  17. earlthomas786 says:

    Which is why I pointed out to him…I have chose to not have sex with those women because I know it can produce children. I still have to pay for welfare through taxes for the children those guys fathered who did have sex with those women. There’s no way you can get around the wealth transfer to irresponsible women even if you are doing the right thing.

  18. earlthomas786 says:

    @Jed

    Yes you did.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/01/17/incentives-matter/#comment-257294

    If a guy just wants to use a woman for sex without giving her any “compensation” to earn that intimate prize; no men should feel “self-righteous” when women in return “use men” as “work slaves, atms and sperm donors” because it’s an “equal exchange”: you get what you pay. You reap what you sow. You sow respect and trust, you get sex. You sow manipulation and self-serving lust, you get it right back at you.

  19. Jed Mask says:

    LOL If you really don’t see how you comin’ across online you’re all “cluckin'” like a buncha henz in the henhouse. Stop this “betaizing” and *BE MEN*!

    You’re all actin’ like a bunch of “beeches”. Get real… Haha.

    “*Child support doesn’t just encourage women to have children out of wedlock, it also encourages women to kick married fathers out of the home.”

    You’re missing the point all along elder brother Dalrock: women can’t really “kick men out of the home” if they don’t want to “physically” leave. The “state” (i.e. “other men”) do that. A man is always a *FATHER* even if the mother of his children doesn’t want him around, she doesn’t have the right to “keep him away” lol . She can try to “physically stop” him in a fight, but he doesn’t leave if he doesn’t want to. Does an Alpha ask “bow” to the whims of a female? No he doesn’t.

    The mass of men here are acting like a “butthurt” bunch of *DEFEATED, SELF-PITYING* beta manboys lol and then trying to “project” all there resentful, defeatist attitudes on me in a “crucifixcion”. Tch…

    An Alpha stands, a beta “falls” under the pressure of “submitting” to a woman’s rule over him.

    Men on here need to “man up GOD’S WAY* and *FIGHT*!

    It’s not God’s Will for men to not be fathers just because the mother of his children doesn’t want him in their life. She doesn’t have that right. A *MAN* is the head over her. When wicked government crosses that line, it’s perfectly *RIGHT* for a man to stand firm in his natural place and properly *REBEL* against the wicked State.

    It’s a *FIGHT* but too many men leave the battlefield early before *GOD WILL FIGHT WITH THEM* and build up the momentum for His Glory.

    Smh… An Alpha wouldn’t be here “reacting” as the butt-hurt “losers” here “complaining like women” about the State.

    An Alpha *FIGHTS BACK*! And he will *DIE FIGHTING* if he needs to!

    Be smart about it though.

    Get your balls up men and *FIGHT*!

  20. Trust says:

    Jed sees the fact that it takes two, which is true for any individual child, and misinterprets that as if it can be prevented if men were more responsible. It can’t.

    While an individual man can avoid this, a woman who wants to conceive will always be able to find a man to impregnate her. Even if 99% of men kept it zipped, the 1% of irresponsible men have more than enough seed for the eggs.

    Worse, the more consequences we inflict on men in general, the more irresponsible the pool of available fathers becomes.

    We all agree fathers should be responsible, but codifying that into law and wealth transfer does the opposite.

  21. Jed Mask says:

    “Which is why I pointed out to him…I have chose to not have sex with those women because I know it can produce children.”

    *WRONG ANSWER* “brother” Earl.

    You *OBEY GOD* not to have sex with women because it’s the *SIN* of *FORNICATION* and/or *ADULTERY*.

    If you are an unmarried Christian man you don’t have sex with any women.

  22. The Question says:

    The idea that women are owed money for sex or to support their child is just as absurd as the idea that a man can force himself onto a woman because he paid for dinner.

    Back in the day, woman had no claim to child support from the father if they weren’t married, but the father also had no parental rights. In my opinion, this is the proper stance. If a woman wants to get money for her child, she needs to get married. If the father wants to have parental rights to his kid, he has to marry.

    Today, women have full claim to child support from the father (or who she has duped into thinking is the father and/or who the court says is the father) and the father still has no parent rights, just privileges bestowed out by the state and at the mercy of the mother’s whims. Joint custody is not joint custody.

  23. earlthomas786 says:

    You *OBEY GOD* not to have sex with women because it’s the *SIN* of *FORNICATION* and/or *ADULTERY*.

    I know it’s a sin. However even in a sinful sexual encounter it can produce a child.

    Having a child in those conditions makes it illegitimate and robs it of a loving family.

  24. Trust says:

    Every father should be responsible for his children, and we should put tremendous pressure on men to do so, especially if they are or are considering walking out on their marriages. HOWEVER, this should not be blanket law that does not consider the circumstances.

  25. Jed Mask says:

    “While an individual man can avoid this, a woman who wants to conceive will always be able to find a man to impregnate her. Even if 99% of men kept it zipped, the 1% of irresponsible men have more than enough seed for the eggs.
    Worse, the more consequences we inflict on men in general, the more irresponsible the pool of available fathers becomes.
    We all agree fathers should be responsible, but codifying that into law and wealth transfer does the opposite.”

    AND YET THAT’S WHERE THE 99% of men of society *RULE OVER* the irresponsible 1% of men and *KEEP THEM IN CHECK* by (patriarchal) government where those irresponsible men can’t just “game the System” without facing serious consequences of *PUNISHMENT*.

    Quit playing the “woe is me” feeling “sorry-for-self” *BETA ATTITUDE*.

    *STRONG MEN* put the weak men in line AKA “President Donald Trump” putting the world’s “liberal fiends” in line.

    I put weak men in check. That’s why they “complain” so much lol. President Trump put them in check. That’s only what’s missing in this wicked society: a lack of *GOOD STRONG MEN OF CHARACTER LEADING THE PACK* there’s too many *BAD STRONG MEN IN RULE OF THINGS* that’s why Feminism progresses and the few “good strong men are outnumbered in the fight against the bad strong men for power”, for the time-being that is…

    Wait ’til the Script flips Trust, and you know the deal.

    ~ Bro. Jed

  26. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Jed Mask: I said women will use men as atms so long as men continue to use women purely as “sex objects” to have sex with only. If a man only wants to use a woman for sex it’s only “fair” in reality she uses him as atm because of the superficial relationship between them both. You reap what you sow.

    No. I doubt that women only lie about the pill to those men who “use” them as “sex objects.” A man might love a woman, seek an emotional as well as sexual connection, but not want children.

    And even in cases where men do “use” women as “sex objects,” it is not “only fair” for the women to lie. If a man is honest about only wanting a sexual relationship without children, then an honest women has a choice. She can agree to a purely sexual relationship and be honest about being on the pill. Or she can say “no” and walk out the door. Lying is not justified.

    So your statement is false both in its premise and in its conclusion.

  27. Jed Mask says:

    “HOWEVER, this should not be blanket law that does not consider the circumstances.”

    ^ That’s what *WE CHANGE*, Trust, not the “government”; we *FORCE THE CHANGE*.

    Be on the *OFFENSIVE*, not the “defensive”. Amen.

  28. Trust says:

    Woe is me beta? I’m a married father of two daughters and have never been cucked. No woe is me to speak of.

    Beating your chest doesn’t make you look alpha Jed. It does reveal what a jackass you are.

  29. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Jed Mask: You reap what you sow.

    Then single mothers (widows excepted) should reap the poverty and stigma that used to come with being a single mother.

  30. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    Compare our modern child support policy to how the US actively discouraged “war children” – children sired by American soldiers and German women – following WW2 by refusing to either provide assistance or compel any American soldier to do so, either.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_children#Fathered_by_Allied_Forces_in_Germany

    “Girls who are expecting a child fathered by an American soldier will be provided with no assistance by the American Army … If the soldier denies paternity, no further action will be undertaken other than to merely inform the woman of this fact. She is to be advised to seek help from a German or Austrian welfare organization. If the soldier is already in the United States, his address is not to be communicated to the woman in question, the soldier may be honorably discharged from the army and his demobilization will in no way be delayed. Claims for child support from unmarried German and Austrian mothers will not be recognized.”

    Short version: if you have a kid out of wedlock with one of our soldiers, you’re on your own. We’re not giving you money or forcing any of soldiers to prove he isn’t the father to avoid paying you.

  31. Jed Mask says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    “No. I doubt that women only lie about the pill to those men who ‘use’ them as ‘sex objects.’ A man might love a woman, seek an emotional as well as sexual connection, but not want children.”

    A man *LEADS* the relationship so he tells the woman. You don’t make it clear of the circumstance of this man’s relationship with the woman: is this a STR, LTR or “marriage”? Those distinctions matter. Since I’m a Christian, I play by *GOD’S STANDARDS* and no the “anything-goes worldly standards”. That’s the difference.

    If a man’s married to a wife it’s in *GOD’S HANDS* if children result from relations with his wife. That’s the *PURPOSE* of sex “Latecomer”. As I’m sure any “mature” person in a LTR or marriage understands: *YOU DON’T ALWAYS GET THE CHOICE OF WHAT YOU WANT IN A RELATIONSHIP*! Neither is the woman, either. And for good reason: it’s called *LIFE*! And *SACRIFICES* happen on both sides. Grow up man.

    Too bad if the man doesn’t want children; he should remain unmarried and celibate if that’s the case. Sex is *NOT* a “recreational activity” for self-gratification Red Pill Latecomer. I’m sure you don’t like that, right?

    These are *GOD’S RULES* it’s not about what you or I like. Somebody needs to be “responsible” to play by His Rules.

    “So your statement is false both in its premise and in its conclusion.”

    No. Yours is, defeatist.

  32. PokeSalad says:

    “Jed” is a loon, best ignored.

  33. Jed Mask says:

    “Then single mothers (widows excepted) should reap the poverty and stigma that used to come with being a single mother.”

    That what happens to them foo’. I’m only reminding the men who are *FATHERS* to their bastard spawn to at least take care of their own responsibilities.

    The whorish single moms suffer their fates as no good man wants “damaged goods” that’s *ANOTHER MAN’S RESPONSIBILITY* of the *CHILDREN INVOLVED*!

    Quit “deflecting”, “Latecomer”.

  34. Colt Lancaster says:

    Ebonics much?

  35. Pathfinderlight says:

    The idea of men owing child support to women that kicked them out is laughable. It’s punishment for the unforgivable sin of allowing your wife’s Gina tingles to wane. Setting the family up in this way is what causes our families to fail.

  36. Gunner Q says:

    Jed Mask @ 10:40 am:
    “The mass of men here are acting like a “butthurt” bunch of *DEFEATED, SELF-PITYING* beta manboys lol and then trying to “project” all there resentful, defeatist attitudes on me in a “crucifixcion”. Tch…

    An Alpha stands, a beta “falls” under the pressure of “submitting” to a woman’s rule over him.

    Men on here need to “man up GOD’S WAY* and *FIGHT*!”

    Sheesh, the tired “man up” rant. I don’t even get angry at it anymore. Tell you what, Jed. You go around publicly showing us masses of men how to keep women in line and in return, my tax money will pay for your cell.

    Off-topic, I just had a routine physical and got to talking with the doctor about pull-ups. He mentioned in conversation that he didn’t know why the Marine Corps has different physical standards for female soldiers because “women are as strong as men and every position is now open to them”. A licensed doctor. It was one of those did he really say what I just heard? moments.

  37. earlthomas786 says:

    Sheesh, the tired “man up” rant. I don’t even get angry at it anymore. Tell you what, Jed. You go around publicly showing us masses of men how to keep women in line and in return, my tax money will pay for your cell.

    Isn’t it funny the people who yell ‘man up’ the loudest…have no actual proof they’ve done anything to man up themselves.

    What exactly will you be fighting when you man up, Jed? Have you been put in a prison cell or persecuted fighting the good fight?

  38. Kevin says:

    I thought Brother Jed was trolling/joking because he said so many ridiculous things.

  39. earlthomas786 says:

    He mentioned in conversation that he didn’t know why the Marine Corps has different physical standards for female soldiers because “women are as strong as men and every position is now open to them”.

    I wonder if he’s ever been to a gym.

    A man benches 90 pounds…he’s pretty weak. A woman does it, she’s fairly strong.

  40. The Question says:

    @earlthomas786

    Jed is free to set an example for us all by manning up and marring one of those poor gals who can’t get child support from one of those meanie cads who took advantage of her, thus demonstrating he is the only real man in the (court)room.

  41. Ras al Ghul says:

    earlthomas786 says:

    “I still have to pay for welfare through taxes for the children those guys fathered who did have sex with those women. There’s no way you can get around the wealth transfer to irresponsible women even if you are doing the right thing.”

    There is the rub for those advocating that a man should be able to “walk away” and is a good part of why people want to make the deadbeat fathers pay. “Why should I pay when someone else plays”

    You want to restore marriage and headship you get rid of child support and you get rid of welfare.

    Marriage was a contract: men’s labor for the fruit of women’s loins. The children of marriage belonged to the father, the children out of marriage belonged to the mother.

    Child support and welfare completely undoes that.

    As for Jed, he’s like a lot of men that expect other men to sacrifice themselves, while thumping his chest with empty noises.

    He’s a coward.

  42. The Question says:

    @ Kevin

    To be sure, it’s getting hard to tell the difference between a troll and a sincere fool nowadays. I make no assumptions either way.

  43. Kevin says:

    @Trust

    In our modern world a woman can abort a baby without the fathers permission. This is a great evil, but in a world of great evil for the law to be equal men should be able to abort their legal responsibilities to an unborn child in the same way. We did not make this evil world, but if the law wants fairness than the decisions should not be unilateral – but if they are going to be than it should work with both ways. So, I will argue that in the current mess we are in, men should have the right not to take any responsibility for their children – just like women can. If a woman drops her baby off as a 3 year old at a safe harbor sight, we don’t go after her with the expectations that she should woman up and provide. Men should have equal rights in this regard until we can get back to a world that is less grotesque.

  44. earlthomas786 says:

    Jed is free to set an example for us all by manning up and marring one of those poor gals who can’t get child support from one of those meanie cads who took advantage of her, thus demonstrating he is the only real man in the (court)room.

    It would be quite easy for him to do so. I went to a wedding recently where this was the case. Only problem was I could see she was already in disrespect mode to him. Nothing better than manning up to all us lowly betas and getting disrespected by your promiscuous wife.

  45. Jeff Strand says:

    There is a growing trend around the world to force the father to keep paying “child support” until the “child” is financially independent. This just resulted in a case in Spain where the father was unable to have support terminated, even though his “child” is now around mid-30’s! (And not mentally or physically disabled either, merely “not financially independent”)

    Not sure if things will get that extreme here in the States, but we’re def trending that way. It’s very mainstream now to advocate for laws that require support payments until age 26, or until the kid has competed his college career, whichever occurs LATER.

    Keeps getting crazier. Though on the other hand, I have read that a number of states have done away with lifetime alimony, and others are considering following suit. So maybe a glimmer of hope there.

    P.S. Anecdotally, I know two men who are either divorced or about to be. In the one case (Illinois), he has to pay child support until age 18 or high school graduation (whichever is later), which isn’t bad. But my other friend is getting divorced in New York, and state law there is child support till age 21.

  46. Embracing Reality says:

    Lol.. Jed’s argument is so weak that his defense has become insults.

    God’s law always held both males and females accountable for their behavior! Have you read your Bible Jed? Where’s the scripture that blame sexual sin exclusively on men? Did God not send a flood that destroyed all men and women except those on the ark? Do you not even understand basic biology?

    Unwanted pregnancy is the problem here right? In a field full of bulls, there’s one cow? How many pregnancies do you get? In a field full of cows you put one bull. How many pregnancies to you get? Human females aren’t animals, they are capable of overriding their base impulses, just like men are. Even if most men were honorable unless most women were also honorable it only takes a few dishonorable men to fornicate with all of them.

    With biological reproduction control is always directed on the female side. That’s where the womb is. Do you understand that?

  47. Jed Mask says:

    “I know it’s a sin. However even in a sinful sexual encounter it can produce a child.
    Having a child in those conditions makes it illegitimate and robs it of a loving family.”

    That’s why we don’t do it brother Earl. Cuz, guess what?: It’s *OUR OWN FAULT*! Duh!

    And it’s the woman’s “fault” as well for *HER SIN* but guess what?: we *FOCUS ON OURSELVES AND OUR SIN AND NOT “DEFLECT” THE “ATTENTION OF OUR SIN” ON THE WOMAN WHO IS TO PAY FOR HER ON SIN TO GOD.

    Just like the “woman caught in the act of adultery”: the man was at the same fault as well.

    Didn’t Jesus say, “Where is the man?” because he was involved too. Jesus forgave the woman the whole crowd was willing to stone, but in that scenario they gave the “other guilty party”, the man a “free pass” when he’s just as guilty or more so.

    You wanna know why, because we as *MEN* are the “head” and women the “weaker vessel” more subject to naievette and manipulation just as the Serpent had to deceive *EVE* to get to *ADAM* because *ADAM* as a *MAN* was “too strong” for the *SERPENT (THE DEVIL)* to confront and deceive “upfront”. The Serpent had to “sneakily” go from the “backside” of corrupting the woman whom the man Adam loved, to destroy the Adam and corrupt the human race.

    Weak men repeat this same old cycle day-by-day to this day since the Beginning by “losing” to the Devil’s “smokescreen” strategy tactic of using the “woman” to attack the “man” hence why men are “complaining” so much about Feminism.

    Feminism is “Serpent Eve Deception on Adam” 3.0. Only *WEAK MEN* fall for this “Narrative” time-and-time again!

    Are you a “weak man” Earl? I’m a *STRONG MAN*!

    Who had the “upperhand”, David or Bethsheba in the scenario?

    I guess by most men’s accounts lil’ “Bethsheba” “overpowered” and “manipulated” poor lil’ Davie into committing adultery lol.

    King David was an “Alpha” who had this one *WEAK MOMENT* of “character flaw” who let his power get the better of him. Happens to many strong, powerful men in power who let the “power” get over their heads.

    Did David have to screw another man’s wife while he’s livin’ it up in the castle with his multiple wives and harems? No he did not. He should’ve went out to war with the other kings at the time.

    That’s why God *PUNISHED* David for his *SIN* more than Bethsheba. Bethsheba “suffered” for her sin in the adulterous affair that resulted in the death of her husband Uriah on the BATTLEFIELD (DAVID SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEADING HIS MEN ON HIMSELF SHOULD I MENTION BUT HE WAS TOO BUSY FOOLING AROUND WITH ANOTHER MAN’S WIFE THAT IS), and I’m sure in other ways not “disclosed” in the Word; but that never deflects responsibility David had as a man and more importantly as *KING* over his people. David had *EVERYTHING GOING FOR HIM IN HIS SITUATION*. His “flaw” is he got too “greedy” and suffered for his lusts the rest of his life in the “strifes of his family” we read later in Scripture.

    As *MEN* we CHOOSE to “lay and play” or go about our business. *MEN* or *MATURE MEN* understand the *POWER OF CHOICE* to do or do not. To do responsibility or to shirk it.

    “Immature men” and/or “boys” only think in terms of “lay and play” and don’t handle their business; which is why they suffer as “losers” in the world of men.

    The saying of what “separates the men from the boys” in reality.

    Know *YOUR POWER AS A MAN* and be the *VICTOR* of your life and not the wimpy, defeatist “victim” like so many loserish, defeatist men of the ” male henhouse” here on Dalrock like to be unfortunately. 😦

    Misery loves company.

    That’s the difference between men and women: we take the *RESPONSIBILITY* for our actions as God Intended.

    Christ the Bridegroom nobly *SACRIFICED HIMSELF* for His Bride the Church; even though He didn’t have to. He could have said “screw them” and start from fresh: how “horrible” for us, if Christ actually did that…?

    *FEW MEN* can “love as Christ LOVED HIS CHURCH” (I’m only talking about the “Christian brothers” here; many “unsaved men” don’t live on this higher level of purpose and only *GOD* through *JESUS CHRIST* in your life can give you the *POWER* of the *HOLY SPIRIT*. I’m not expecting “unsaved natural men” to understand the *MINDSET* of a *SPIRITUAL MAN IN CHRIST*. See, that’s the *DIFFERENCE*.): that shows how *SELFLESS CHRIST ACTUALLY IS*. While He our Saviour could have just let us all die and go to Hell and start over again with a new creation of His Making He took *RESPONSIBILITY* over us, His Creation as *SAVED US FROM OURSELVES*.

    Now I went “over the point” in the “spiritual perspective” but if you a “real discerning brother in Christ’ this shouldn’t be hard for you to understand.

  48. Embracing Reality says:

    I wonder where the dog lies in this fight for Jed…

    Does he think women will like him if he blames men exclusively when women also sin? Is this about a slutty girlfriend, wife, mom, sister, daughter? He trying to justify women’s sin for some reason. I expect it’s personal.

  49. feministhater says:

    Yawn. Just another pithy attempt by a tradcon to shame other men. It’s just such a waste of time.

    Cuckster Jed can stick a fork up his ass. The fault lies with tradcons and giving women the right to vote. The Duluth Model, no fault divorce, mother custody, alimony, child support, biased family court judges, the whole pile of stinking bile belongs to the tradcons who did fuck all to stop it; all they have left is shaming. Just like the feminists they worship, they are reduced to an ash heap.

    Seems like he also shares at similar sentiment to Vox Day.

    It’s not God’s Will for men to not be fathers just because the mother of his children doesn’t want him in their life. She doesn’t have that right. A *MAN* is the head over her. When wicked government crosses that line, it’s perfectly *RIGHT* for a man to stand firm in his natural place and properly *REBEL* against the wicked State.

    Oh, what do you propose a man do? Fight the state by himself. I believe we’ve all been down this road before with Vox Day’s screed that fathers should be like Roman Patricians.

    The truth is that men often suffer the legal order they deserve, because they tolerate it. Would any Roman patrician have meekly submitted to being made an indentured servant at the whim of his wife and the word of a judge?

    – Vox Day

    The similarities are uncanny.

  50. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘Didn’t Jesus say, “Where is the man?” because he was involved too.’

    Not in any bible I’ve ever read.

  51. Embracing Reality says:

    Apparently those of us who are Godly men should be *STRONG* and somehow stop the *WEAK* sinful men, that even church girls are giving sex to, from having sex with them or something. A real *ALPHA* church dude stops slutty church girls form giving *SEX* by strutting around his *RESPONSBILITY*. I guess slutty single moms at church find that all *SEXY* and *ALPHA*.

    Should I just give these *WEAK* men an *ALPHA* speech if they don’t stop sex slutty church girls or should I shoot them or what? Never blame the slutty women right? I got that part, thx.

  52. earlthomas786 says:

    He trying to justify women’s sin for some reason. I expect it’s personal.

    That’s what I’m getting too. Even when the woman sins, it’s still somehow the man’s fault.

  53. PokeSalad says:

    His gibberish reads like Brad Willcuck’s material delivered by GBFM. Strange.

  54. Gunner Q says:

    earlthomas786 @ 11:32 am:
    “He mentioned in conversation that he didn’t know why the Marine Corps has different physical standards for female soldiers because “women are as strong as men and every position is now open to them”.”

    “I wonder if he’s ever been to a gym.”

    He was a veteran who claimed to have learned to lift in the service. Looked it, too… athletic body, firm handshake, suntanned skin, seemed knowledgeable about gym habits. Not a soyboy academic type, which is why his comment was so shocking. I expect scrawny men to believe women are as strong as men because in their case, it’s true.

  55. Heidi says:

    Hey, Embracing Reality, you forgot to add “smh.” Otherwise, I think you’ve got it.

  56. Daniel says:

    Jed comes across as a raving lunatic.

    Repeating my late comment from the previous thread:

    – Conservative: If you get a girl pregnant, you have to marry her.
    – Bible: If you take a woman’s virginity, you have to marry her. You don’t get to walk away just because she didn’t conceive. If you fall into temptation and lie with a harlot (unmarried, non-virgin) you are under no obligation to marry her. Repent of your fornication and stay away from her.

    – Conservative: If you get a girl pregnant, you are responsible for that child.
    – Bible: If you are married, the children you produce with your wife belong to you. Your wife may leave you, but the children remain yours and stay under your roof. You provide for those living under your roof and you will not provide for those who don’t. When a harlot has a child, it is hers alone. Her lover neither claims it, nor is responsible for it.

    – Conservative: If your wife commits adultery, forgive her – there are no sanctions. The extreme of this: even if you are literally cuckolded, forgive her and accept that child as your own.
    – Bible: In Israel the adulteress and her lover were to be put to death. Today we do not enjoy the benefits of that civil law. But the adulteress is defiled, and you must divorce her. To take her back is an abomination in the sight of God.

  57. Embracing Reality says:

    Jed doesn’t read her bible or likely even have one. Just a churchian feminist troll I expect. Probably fat, single mom. Then again it could be a churchian dude dating or married to a fat single mom, her child fathered by a *WEAK LOSER*

  58. earlthomas786 says:

    A real *ALPHA* church dude stops slutty church girls form giving *SEX* by strutting around his *RESPONSBILITY*. I guess slutty single moms at church find that all *SEXY* and *ALPHA*.

    Nothing turns the irresponsible on like responsibility.

    Should I just give these *WEAK* men an *ALPHA* speech if they don’t stop sex slutty church girls or should I shoot them or what? Never blame the slutty women right? I got that part, thx.

    I mean look how many converts Jed has here already. Surely the slutty women will follow.

  59. earlthomas786 says:

    Remember when Mark Driscoll said this and all those weak irresponsible men were snapped out of it and sluts became an all time low.

  60. stickdude90 says:

    I mean look how many converts Jed has here already. Surely the slutty women will follow.

    Never underestimate the “power” of a few *WELL-PLACED* “quotes” and *ALL-CAPS” words.

  61. feeriker says:

    Is there some reason you guys are responding to Jed’s incomprehensible ravings? Let him get back on his meds and become coherent first …

  62. Scotty says:

    If one agrees with the premise that parents are responsible for their children financially, then that premise is and shall ever be UNIVERSAL. Therefore, there is zero reason for a woman who has 1, 2 or even 3 kids, who are in public schools all day–to not be working to support her own children, regardless of whether or not she receives child support.

    Thousands of women across the US (maybe millions?) do not honor their children BY WORKING TO SUPPORT THEM, like mothers do in “intact” families…what makes single mothers so special? And by the way, if the poverty line is X in any given state or locale, how could one NOT conclude that mothers are simply living off their own children’s child support to support themselves, if they are not even working to support themselves, alone (as they would be if they were just a single person)?

    Child support, despite what women and cucks go around preaching, has become a defacto form of welfare–regardless of where women fall on the spectrum (some working a LITTLE, some some, some none).

    The day I will care about single moms is the day the state establishes an OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT AND EMPLOYMENT ACCOUNTABILITY, and viciously enforces, TO THE PENNY, financial support and accountability for their own salary (let along Child Support they receive on so-called “behalf” of their children) to the degree they have against men for decades. Including arrests for voluntary underemployment, or failing to properly account for every penny received in Child Support. If you were an executive or officer of a company and you absconded with your fiduciary responsibilities as thousands of women do every year, you’d be charged, convicted and thrown in prison.

    IF CHILDREN ARE DUE FINANCIAL SUPPORT AS A LAW/RULE…THEN THAT LAW MUST BE UNIVERSALLY TRUE OF BOTH THE FATHER AND THE MOTHER.

  63. Crude says:

    While Jedcuck may be raving and doing his best imitation of a folksy fire-and-brimstone preacher who’s taken a few tire irons to the head, his presence does raise an important question.

    Fine. We get that cucktastic ‘Christians’ like this are giving rotten advice, and are Churchian rather than Christian.

    But how should they be responded to?

    The usual advice is “ignore them”. But if you ignore them, you’re just leaving them free to put on their show, uninterrupted. And slower or weaker people may get taken in by them. I don’t think “If someone falls for that schtick it serves them right” is a good response.

    So what should be done? Humiliate them? Defy them openly? Show other people they CAN be defied?

  64. Jack Russell says:

    Jeff Strand:But my other friend is getting divorced in New York, and state law there is child support till age 21.

    If the “child” decides to move out at 18 does this mean he can pay the support to the child rather than his ex? Would make sense as the “child” is no longer living with Mama and the money should go to the person who it was intended for.

  65. Pingback: The gospel of child support. | Reaction Times

  66. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘So what should be done?’

    Insulting doesn’t work, ignoring doesn’t do much….

    The easiest thing you can do is refute.

    Sure you may not convert the person you are debating…but it gives the audience who isn’t talking but watching both sides of the equation.

  67. thedeti says:

    Jeff, Jack Russell;

    don’t know if child support ends when the child “moves out” even if the order is for support to age 21.

    It’s common for courts to order divorced parents (usually breadwinner fathers) to pay as part of, or in addition to, child support:

    –health insurance (carry the kids on dad’s health insurance at his expense. This is especially expensive, and can be long lasting since Obamacare requires insurers to offer coverage for kids of of policyholders to age 26. And the breadwinner dad must pay it.)
    –car insurance
    –college tuition, room and board, expenses, etc.

    That ends if the child gets married before age 21, which almost never happens. In most states, child support ends when the child reaches age 18, but most of the time, ordered support continues when the court orders Dad to put the kids through college and pay for mandatory insurance coverages. And Obamacare requires you to purchase insurance or pay a fine. Most states require you to carry auto liability insurance.

  68. thedeti says:

    And, today, it’s just a reality that most people in their early 20s are not financially independent even if they have college degrees and even if they’re working and earning money.

  69. Lost Patrol says:

    @ Crude

    So what should be done?

    I have no blanket answer for that but at my own level I take the time to find whoever is promulgating this stuff and point out the incongruities in it. Dalrock and commenters do the work for me and package it up. I take it to the individual or small group and air it out.

    I’ve encountered subdued hostility, bewilderment, grudging acceptance, and open acceptance according to the personal proclivities of the person or group in question. Whichever way it goes, all those men have had to think it over, at least for a minute.

    I have no grand plan unless it’s to never ignore it. Somebody within earshot is going to hear a counterpoint from me. It’s a tiny battlefield, but it’s my battlefield.

  70. Dalrock says:

    @Crude

    While Jedcuck may be raving and doing his best imitation of a folksy fire-and-brimstone preacher who’s taken a few tire irons to the head, his presence does raise an important question.

    Ha! Good description. He reminds me of the scene in Blazing Saddles with “authentic frontier gibberish”. Now who can argue with that?

    Fine. We get that cucktastic ‘Christians’ like this are giving rotten advice, and are Churchian rather than Christian.

    But how should they be responded to?

    The usual advice is “ignore them”. But if you ignore them, you’re just leaving them free to put on their show, uninterrupted. And slower or weaker people may get taken in by them. I don’t think “If someone falls for that schtick it serves them right” is a good response.

    So what should be done? Humiliate them? Defy them openly? Show other people they CAN be defied?

    Lost Patrol has a good response to this. To his comment I would add to look for the same patterns Bro Jed exhibits, albeit in more subtle forms. Note that while Bro Jed claims his interest is in fostering Christian sexual morality and protecting the children, his focus is entirely on punishing the bad cads. This is purely an emotional position for him. My suggestion would be to point out the millions of children who suffer from the incentives we are offering women to have children out of wedlock. Also point out the cruelty of his position to the very women he sees himself as the champion for. Realistically, most people don’t want to think about either of these things. They want to jump on the pro cad or anti cad bandwagon. But the advantage here is that very few have ever considered the issue beyond how they feel about cads.

  71. Gunner Q says:

    Crude @ 2:30 pm:
    “…Slower or weaker people may get taken in by them.”

    In this case, Jed is sufficiently illegible that anybody with poor English is safe from him.

    More generally, a man’s beliefs are a composite of experiences and ideas. One or two bad opinions aren’t going to send him off the rails if he has any kind of mental stability. Which is why the Left popularized trigger warnings; they’re so batspit crazy that one badthink can put them in seizure.

  72. Spike says:

    I just saw Bro Jed’s comments yesterday and thought I’d better stay out of this one, because on this Blog, he’s going to get his arse (Australian English spelling) handed to him.
    Statistics, history and commonsense align with one thing about the family: The biological father is the best provider and protector of his children. He always has been, since civilization was formed to protect humanity from everything from the predation of wild beats and neighboring tribes right through to providing food and clean water*. the family WAS the welfare system. It provided nurture for children in infancy and in turn those grown children provided comfort for elderly parents. A family unit needed discipline, with the father in charge because he knew more about supply than the rest of the family.
    There have always been children born out of wedlock. Often bar-wenches and prostitutes had children, but their lives were precarious and survivability doubtful due to the lack of a provider.
    We seem to forget this in the age of the welfare state. Indeed it is important to note that the Left-Communists did NOT invent welfare. It was in fact invented by the first Chancellor of Germany, Otto von Bismarck, to provide a cushion between FAMILIES and market forces, so that people would not turn Communist.Since then however Bismarck’s original idea has been expanded, co-opted and corrupted.
    *It is estimated that in Biblical times, 90% of household income was spent on food provision. When Jesus said, ”Give us today our daily bread”, He wasn’t joking. It was hard work. Anyone cultivating land by hand without mechanical help, anyone making wine without modern equipment would know this as self-evident. Fresh water in the household was provided by women going to the well and collecting it. That was their job.You can see where Jesus provides water and turns it into wine demonstrates His immense power over the elements in the parable of the wedding at Cana.

  73. craig says:

    Crude says: “While Jedcuck may be raving and doing his best imitation of a folksy fire-and-brimstone preacher who’s taken a few tire irons to the head, his presence does raise an important question. …So what should be done? Humiliate them? Defy them openly? Show other people they CAN be defied?”

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/373421.php is timely and apropos to this discussion. If the answer to Fake News is to ridicule fake news purveyors and refuse them their self-anointed social status, then the answer to Fake Christianity is much the same. Sure, go ahead and spell out for others reading how Fake Christian rantings are unjustified by either Scripture or Tradition, but do not fall into the trap of thinking that someone can be reasoned out of a position he didn’t reason himself into. Once upon a time, I didn’t understand how the Church countenanced the burning of heretics, but seeing the current fruit of social manias instigated by SJWs and cucks, I understand now.

  74. RICanuck says:

    Hardly any comments on this thread, once you scroll past Jed.
    Damn, I miss insanity bytes.

  75. Boxer says:

    “Jed” is a loon, best ignored.

    Agree. Obviously, I like to argue with people here; but if I wanted to write an over-the-top caricature of someone I hated, it would be impossible to top this:

    If a man only wants to use a woman for sex it’s only “fair” in reality she uses him as atm because of the superficial relationship between them both. You reap what you sow.

    My guess is that “Jed” is a feminist, he knows he is lying (this blog is replete with so many similar stories, as both posts and user comments, it’s impossible to miss them) but that’s beside the point.

    Many of the divorced bros here were sincere men who did everything they could, and despite their best efforts are facing a long period of punitive sanctions for it, through no fault of their own. Sure, there are bad husbands, but the mainstream news and pop culture harps on them non-stop, whereas a place like this is really the only forum for a frank discussion about bad wives, told in the first person, by the fathers and husbands who have been through the meatgrinder.

  76. Trust says:

    Jed’s assertion that virtuous men can pool their power to control the cads is ridiculous. A man getting a sex smorgasbord certainly won’t give up vagina because Jed and his choir of celibate and monogamous Joes say so.

  77. Trust says:

    The only way to stop cads sexual dominance in the sex market is to quit removing the consequences of the cad carousel.

    I think we’re past the point of no return, but I would be a hefty sum that if we ended child support, alimony, allowed legal paternal surrender, and ended social programs to prop up single mothers… illegitimacy, divorce, and the cad carousel would drop dramatically overnight.

    I don’t think extramarital sex, illegitimacy, divorce, or the carousel should be illegal. But I don’t think they should be incentivized by the awesome power of government either.

  78. Trust says:

    @Boxer: Many of the divorced bros here were sincere men who did everything they could
    ______

    They there, brother.

    I think the core problem is the wives had very specific desires in a husband, and her behavior lined I’ll behind those goals. Yet, once the state guaranteed the support, she no longer needed to continue the behavior.

    It’s unfair too of chest beaters to tell such husbands to solve it by being more alpha. They entire reason the wife married them was there loyal beta qualities. Qualities we should promote, not punish, in husbands and fathers.

  79. rocko says:

    You’re so full of crap. Donald Trump let his daughter marry a leftist.

  80. Jed, stop. Stop trying to shame men. Go back and re-read focus of this topic. Dalrock is calling you out for NOT calling out the evil that is the child support model for family formation. You are instead playing the “cuck” (the only REAL MAN in the room.) Everyone stopped listening to you the minute you did that.

    The topic is child support, not cads. Stay on topic.

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Rollo

    Heh. Bro Jed has already seen that link – it was the subject of the previous thread here.
    It’s the one that set White Knight Jed off in the first place.

  82. greenlander says:

    Wow, I can’t recall the last time I read so much circular logic. It was entertaining, Jed. Thanks!

  83. Random Angeleno says:

    You’re missing the point all along elder brother Dalrock: women can’t really “kick men out of the home” if they don’t want to “physically” leave. The “state” (i.e. “other men”) do that. A man is always a *FATHER* even if the mother of his children doesn’t want him around, she doesn’t have the right to “keep him away” lol . She can try to “physically stop” him in a fight, but he doesn’t leave if he doesn’t want to. Does an Alpha ask “bow” to the whims of a female? No he doesn’t.

    When she can call the force of the state on her husband with a restraining order and the cops to enforce it, good luck with that. A father’s rights go straight out the door with him in that scenario.

    smh …

  84. Scott says:

    My eyes glossed over at *CUZ*

  85. Scott says:

    On a more serious note, I have a word of advice for our featured commenter.

    Jed, for the past several years I have been almost entirely focused on one thing. That is, doing everything I can as only one guy to help men in general, and married fathers specifically reclaim the place of honor in their homes that they are due (according to scripture).

    I do this in every interaction where I am able. In person, online, at church, at work, homeschool coop meetings, with neighbors, friends, colleagues, etc. And judging by the emails and comments I get, and and even in the real-life impact it has on my fellow father friends around me, it is a good strategy so far.

    I don’t conern myself with “dead beat” dads because I have literally never met one, (once I get into the weeds of the story, which is usually some complicated, drawn out drama of stupid crap that every party was doing).

    Do everyone a favor and go sell “man up” stuff somewhere else. We are busy here trying to do something good.

  86. bdash 77 says:

    @scott
    you do not get any pushback?

  87. Elspeth says:

    Does it matter if one gets “pushback” for speaking the truth?

  88. Scott says:

    I get a lot of hate mail. But the small amount of men who write and say their lives have improved because of something I wrote (or discussed in private settings) is worth a million of those.

  89. bdash 77 says:

    @elspeth how do you have the courage? I feel like we are in such a minority. Most Christians when they hear what we believe mock us and call our beliefs sinful

  90. Elspeth says:

    @bdash77:

    People are always going to think that your beliefs which diverge from theirs are wrongheaded at best, sinful at worst.

    Yesterday in fact, in the midst of a conversation about the horrors of an Oprah presidency and the mess of #metoo, I said, point blank, “Well give me patriarchy and you all can keep this mess we have going on here.” I was able to say that partly because I am a black woman. I know I hold a trump card. But I was also able to say it because I’d already established a point of common ground with the women I was conversing with. Namely, that the current state of affairs is VERY bad for all of our children.

    I did get pushback: “Well, you mean good patriarchy though, right [Els]?” So I asked if her if there were any other kinds, which injected some humor into the dialog? I was unwilling to cede the ground to “good patriarchy” because what the heck does THAT mean? It’s not as if there aren’t abusive men in the world right now.

    Of course, I am also protected by the fact that someone else is providing all my material needs. But he is not afraid to speak truth either, and he does it much more often and bluntly than I do. He gets pushback -by that, I mean disagreement and occasional incredulity that he actually believes what comes out of his mouth- but has decided that Truth is more important than offending someone else’s sensibilities.

  91. Heresolong says:

    So apparently women have no agency. They are completely unable to foresee the consequences of their actions. There they were, walking through the mall shopping and suddenly they slipped on an orange Julius and got impregnated by some irresponsible man.

    Good grief. Who listens to this guy?

  92. earlthomas786 says:

    So apparently women have no agency.

    It’s one of the biggest errors of our times.

  93. BillyS says:

    Elspeth,

    They are afraid of the rare bogeyman and therefore accept the mess instead. They remain a serious part of the problem, even if they lament its impact/outcome.

    Few today are good at really considering all the risks. Patriarchy has risks, but we are hip deep in the results of other risks now and people can’t accept that maybe the current system is far worse.

  94. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Women have the “gift to grant sex” to a man, but it’s only the *MAN* who decides to make the *DECISION* to lay down and have sex with the woman which the purpose of sex results in *PROCREATION* of children!

    So women do not have volitional agency? They can’t decide so they can’t give assent or descent? Who knew? This is going to overturn rape laws because only the man can decide to accept the gift sex. Why is it that women still get to choose to kill babies when they are not responsible enough to be able to make decisions to have sex? You can’t make this stuff up and you can’t fix stupid, but Dalrock can expose it.

  95. Paul says:

    The mess we’re in is caused by the involvement of the state in marriage and divorce.
    I do understand we want some “safety net” for people who are not capable to support themselves, but current child support is slanted against men. I also understand that if you have children you do not put the (financial) burden upon other tax payers.

    We could at least try to improve the situation. Let’s first establish some reasonable requirements:
    1. You only need to support *YOUR (proven!)* child
    2. If you support your child
    a. you have the right to have (quality) time with your child
    b. you have the right to make decisions for your child

    I would suggest in case of a separation, that the division between decision making rights and quality time are decided based on the amount of child support each partner contributes.

    This should also be applicable the other way around: if for some reason the father has no decision power, and no quality time, he should have to pay nothing in child support.

    The only thing left then is to decide how to determine the amount of child support needed for each parent to pay.

    And I would say, in case of a no-fault divorce, the partner being divorced against his/her will, gets the children (unless there is a severe (physical) abuse situation, but not according to the current criteria, which are unfair to men).

  96. Oscar says:

    “Men on here need to “man up GOD’S WAY* and *FIGHT*!” ~ Jed Mask

    So…. we’re back to murder-suicide again?

  97. DR Smith says:

    I wish it could be a simple as Bro Jeb makes it seem; however, Darlock and Rollo have correctly ointed out in other posts that Alpha males suffer no consequences for their behavior, it is only Beta and other men- so to tell basically to “Man-Up” does not work, because Alphas never will – that is why they are Alphas. The inner cities of the West are full of single woman with multiple children by multiple males….but whom is paying for that? Not the Alpha males.

    My wife are I got into a discussion about similar topic; she tried to make excuses for the single mom on TV with three kids by saying “…she could have been divorced, etc, etc”. My reply? Really – an inner city single Mom (she was from Detroit) divorced? Even if she was, what does that prove – only that divorce is too easy in this country.

    No, I agree the only way to cure this disease on single woman victomhood is to make the woman at least 50% responsible for the court figured monetary cost for the children’s upkeep. Within 5
    to 10 years, there would dramatic changes in behavior for the better of children.

  98. earlthomas786 says:

    No, I agree the only way to cure this disease on single woman victomhood is to make the woman at least 50% responsible for the court figured monetary cost for the children’s upkeep.

    A lot of the problem, which has been pointed out here before, is trying to rationalize women have no agency, responsibility, or even sinful tendencies. It’s easier to put that all on the man.

  99. RedPillPaul says:

    Patriarchy is the natural state of order. It is God ordained and modeled after God the Father. The only “risk” to patriarchy is that there will be order. That is a risky proposition if one likes chaos.

  100. Elspeth says:

    No, I agree the only way to cure this disease on single woman victimhood is to make the woman at least 50% responsible for the court figured monetary cost for the children’s upkeep.

    It varies state to state, of course, but this is often -perhaps even most often- already the case. It has been since Clinton signed the welfare reform bill in 1996. Child support alone has never been enough for most women to provide for their kids. It used to be child support plus government subsidization, which has largely gone away. Most single mothers work full time. Even when their children are babies.

    Not sure how it works for those women in the UK article referring to 18 years of “easy money.”

  101. Boxer says:

    Not sure how it works for those women in the UK article referring to 18 years of “easy money.”

    The UK, like the US, provides additional incentives to skank-ho single moms, aside from child support. They get (admittedly crappy) housing, food and energy assistance, etc.

    As you point out, this is hardly attractive to even a moderately successful woman, but to a member of the underclass, who lives as a teenager with her own single-mom, it can be seen as a way to establish some independence, and begin greater opportunities for partying and a life of shiftlessness.

  102. Hawk&Rock says:

    According to Jed, Vox, and other assorted nit wit trad cons with zero real life experience about that which they purport to counsel, the true alpha father is either: 1) happily married or 2) dead (preferably by a hail of police bullets).

    Idiots.

  103. OKRickety says:

    “No, I agree the only way to cure this disease on single woman victimhood is to make the woman at least 50% responsible for the court figured monetary cost for the children’s upkeep.”

    “It varies state to state, of course, but this is often -perhaps even most often- already the case. It has been since Clinton signed the welfare reform bill in 1996.”

    Is there a difference between child support depending on divorce or never married? I ask because child support after a divorce in Oklahoma is significantly dependent on the ratio of the parent’s incomes and the percentage of time the child spends with each parent. For a woman to be 50% responsible would require, for example, that her income is equal to the father’s (seldom true) and that the child live 50% of the time with the father (almost never true in the official judgment). In other words, it would be rare for the woman to be “at least 50% responsible” for the child’s upkeep.

    If child support is indeed a larger financial cost for the mother never married to the father than the mother now divorced from the father, then this would be an additional incentive for women to marry as it would effectively be “child support insurance”. That is, the divorced woman would get more child support if the children were born in wedlock. Is this true?

  104. Boxer says:

    Dear OK Rickety:

    Is there a difference between child support depending on divorce or never married?

    In theory, there shouldn’t be. Read around here https://www.acf.hhs.gov/css for the guidelines. In practice, well, it sorta depends.

    Child support in many places is offset by visiting time, in which the noncustodial parent is presumed to be supporting the child directly. If you are an unmarried man, the courts often set your visiting time to be something nonsensically low – like one hour a week. This effectively raises your bill significantly, even though it’s likely the babymama will be leaving junior at your house, whenever she wants to hit up the biker bar. Being unmarried also means paternity is not automatically assumed. This may be something of an advantage for some men.

    Your own state’s worksheet should be up on the internet someplace. They’re usually not complicated (plug in income, number of other children, run it through an algorithm, get the standard default judgment).

    If you need legal advice, you should seek out a pro in your area. I can answer the general question, just because I’ve done some reading, but this won’t help you if you’re asking about a legal problem. I’m not admitted to the bar, anywhere, and there’s no guarantee that any bona fide attorney here is admitted in your state/prov./county.

    Best,

    Boxer

  105. elspeth says:

    OkRickety:

    Down here (FL) there is a calculator. In fact, I have known mothers who -after the calculator finished and based on their income relative to the father’s- were declared to be 55% or 60% financially responsible for the child’s provision and the father 45 or 60%.

    My husband on the other hand (he was not divorced) was declared anywhere from 60-70% financially responsible for his child’s provision and often paid significantly more than a few divorced fathers he knew.

    So in some states, it comes down to whatever numbers the computer spits out. Then the judge makes adjustments within certain percentages as allowed by law based on extenuating circumstances. Unless there is a long marriage with a SAHM (a minority among MC couples) or a wealthier couple, it kind of shakes out similarly.

    One thing is for certain: single mothers are not just sitting around collecting checks. Especially if they desire any quality of life for themselves or their children.

  106. Boxer says:

    One thing is for certain: single mothers are not just sitting around collecting checks. Especially if they desire any quality of life for themselves or their children.

    Actually, some of them do pretty well…
    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/11/18/divorce-court-follies/

  107. ManlyMan says:

    Thank You, thank you, thank you “Brother” Jed…… for providing proof positive once again that TradCons and Feminists are one and the same!

  108. feministhater says:

    One thing is for certain: single mothers are not just sitting around collecting checks. Especially if they desire any quality of life for themselves or their children.

    One thing is for certain: women will have to start paying their own way from now on. The tides have changed and most of the damage divorce intended to do has been done. Men have adjusted, that means making less money and being less productive. Either women now step up and pay for their kids or society diminishes, slowly at first and then suddenly.

    Here in Cape Town, we have our own problems, funnily enough two women are in charge, Helen Zille and Patricia de Lille … it would be funny if it weren’t so dire.

    We’re down to fifty liters of water per day per person. Once the taps go off, we’re down to 25 liters a day having to wait in queues to receive our daily ration. Ain’t life grand!

  109. feeriker says:

    We’re down to fifty liters of water per day per person. Once the taps go off, we’re down to 25 liters a day having to wait in queues to receive our daily ration. Ain’t life grand!

    So South Africa is trying to imitate Venezuela? Dear God, I hope not!

  110. feministhater says:

    It’s a massive drought here in the Western Cape, feeriker. South Africa is a pretty arid country and we have normal droughts every 10 years or so. Every 30 to 40 years these drought tend to get rather bad..

    The lack of infrastructure development for water since 1994 plus the influx of people into the cities, has caused massive strains on the water infrastructure. Leading to the dams only being 28% full in the greater Cape Town region.

    They knew about this, the predictions had been made 10 or more years ago. Pure statistical analysis predicted the exact problem we’re now facing.

    http://coct.co/water-dashboard/?ca_source=Website&ca_medium=affiliate&ca_campaign=Home%20page%20trends%20-%20Day%20Zero%20Dashboard&ca_term=Day%20Zero%20Dashboard&ca_content=Day%20Zero%20Dashboard

    Now they’re playing catch up with water desalination plants, drilling into aquifers and recycling of water. In May we will probably reach the last 10% of water left in the dams, at that point they will turn the water off and we will be forced to stand in queues to get our daily allowance. I’ve already brought quite a bit of drinking water and stored some rain water and other alternatives as cleaning water for the few months we will be without until the rainy season comes again..

    Pray for us, we’re going to need it.

  111. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth
    One thing is for certain: single mothers are not just sitting around collecting checks. Especially if they desire any quality of life for themselves or their children.

    Well, I have known a few. Section 8 housing plus various EBT / WIC funds, plus some sort of child support from one or more men, plus being a “charity case” at one or more churches can piece together a pretty comfortable ride. At least for a while. In the long run, it can get ugly, but that won’t surprise you I am sure.

  112. feeriker says:

    Pray for us, we’re going to need it

    Will do, brother!

  113. Elspeth says:

    @Boxer:

    I thought I stipulated exceptions for women whose children’s fathers are wealthy men.

    @AR:

    I have seen some of the more ugly cases but those have decreased dramatically since the mid-90 s as has unwed motherhood as a whole.

  114. Vektor says:

    “The gospel of child support”

    Jed. Fuck you. Fuck child support.

    Child support is modern day slavery for men. Financial enslavement + parental heartbreak. Slavery.

    Heartbreak and indentured servitude. Women are not noble. Women are worthy of the dirt.

    Men like you are the problem.

  115. feeriker says:

    Men like you are the problem.

    Very generous of you to lump Jed in with “men.”

  116. OKRickety says:

    Boxer/Elspeth,

    I am glad to hear that child support does not depend on marriage or not. That makes sense.

    I asked because it did not, and still does not, appear to me that women are “at least 50% responsible” financially for the children. For what it’s worth, I am divorced and did have a period of child support so I am familiar with the general process and the on-line calculator for child support in Oklahoma. In my case, I was married for 21 years with a SAHM. I realize that is outside the norm in the middle class (which is what I believe I was and am).

    It is my understanding that most divorce agreements set child custody to be 12 overnights with the mother to 2 overnights with the father (one weekend every fortnight) so that puts the major burden on the father even if the incomes are equal. If I am right on the typical child custody ratio, then I find it highly unlikely that the mother’s income is going to be so much larger than the father’s income to overcome that handicap  and result in the mother being “at least 50% responsible” financially for the children. If the mothers are actually held that responsible, then I am missing something.

  117. Just Saying says:

    Men love the “pleasure” of sex only and *NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SEX*!

    This is why I prefer women that are in relationships looking for some on the side – there is another guy that will handle any “issues” that may crop up, and women will hide you as long as they have another scapegoat. Use women’s own tendencies to protect themselves to protect you – they don’t want it known they cat around, so go to places like that. You would be amazed how easy these women are, and they come to you. I could name the things that I do, but why would I want the competition? 🙂

  118. Keith says:

    Child support laws are by design based on the lowest and basest fathers the bottom few percent of men. This dead beats are not going to pay for the child if they live with the mother or are outside of marriage. In the house or out of the house the kid is never gonna benefit from the father.

  119. SkylerWurden says:

    Wait…wait… Wait.

    Let me get this straight. Jed’s idea of an ideal Christian man and father is Donald Trump? Really? I like Trump as President, but as far as a moral ‘role model’ for Christian men… No. He’s a thrice-married admitted adulterer who is hyper-focused on material goods. He’s an ‘alpha’ sure, but not a very good model for Christian fatherhood.

  120. Pingback: Kind words from The Other McCain | Dalrock

  121. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2018/01/21) - Social Matter

  122. Evan Turner says:

    Wow i used to like reading the blog and comments on here but this is a true “jump the shark” moment for me. Child support is evil? Really? And while it’s true that some men have been cuckold this is certainly not the norm. The vast majority of men who are paying child support are paying for children they have fathered.

    I can also tell you aren’t familiar with the average and median wages in this nation because child support payments aren’t enough for a woman to sit out home and do nothing except cash in the support payments. Having known friends and coworkers who are in this situation tells me that most people here are ill informed.

    Everyman who has sex knows the risk, if they don’t want to pay for 18 years don’t have sex. We all know that there are consequences for every action. For Christians here to give cover to irresponsible men is disturbing. If there were no child support laws here and your underage daughter got pregnant what would you do?

  123. feministhater says:

    Yes Evan, the child support model of family is evil, it rewards bad behaviour, it promotes destruction of families. It gives women rewards for tricking men, it rewards rapists and child molesters. It rewards women who inject themselves with semen.

    A model based on punishment and coercion is not a way to build society.

    You jumped the shark. If you don’t like reading the blog or the comments, don’t. Fuck off instead.

  124. feministhater says:

    If there were no child support laws here and your underage daughter got pregnant what would you do?

    It’s not as if this has never happened before ‘child support’ was a thing, right? It’s not as if ‘shotgun weddings’ were never a thing.

    You miss the point entirely, society used to balance the responsibility if placed on men with benefits of being the head of the family and king of his own castle. Now though, he’s merely a walking wallet.

    Truly though, men are taking your advice and leaving women entirely alone. Support MGTOW, it’s doing exactly what you demand men do.

  125. Gunner Q says:

    Evan Turner@ 3:48 pm:
    “Child support is evil? Really?”

    Yes, really. It allows the mother to eject the childrens’ father from the family with no financial drawback. If the man is paying for the kids then he should have custody of the kids. If you disagree then I thank you for volunteering to pay off my car loan.

    “And while it’s true that some men have been cuckold this is certainly not the norm.”

    It is the norm and you can find easy proof of it in political opposition to paternity testing.

    “If there were no child support laws here and your underage daughter got pregnant what would you do?”

    I would force her to put the child up for adoption then prosecute my own daughter for statutory rape. If she didn’t go to juvenile hall then I would put her under house arrest. Either way, on her 18th birthday I would disown her publicly, legally and loudly for being a whore. I would not blame myself for her behavior. I would not hunt down the Chad Thundercock she whored with. I would make her suffer for the crime SHE chose to commit. No more pussy pass.

    Teenage pregnancy isn’t something that just happens, like the flu. Society doesn’t need more bastards and it’s the females that have the babymakers.

  126. David says:

    Evan said,

    this is a true “jump the shark” moment for me. Child support is evil? Really? And while it’s true that some men have been cuckold this is certainly not the norm. The vast majority of men who are paying child support are paying for children they have fathered.

    i) No, you have not been a regular reader of this blog or related blogs. Otherwise, you would know how ‘child support’ works, and be very familiar with how it really has nothing to do with the welfare of children. Quit the phony ‘I used to like this blog’ schtick.
    ii) Since you obviously don’t know what the law is, and how it encourages the worst behavior in women, you have no business commenting on this topic.
    iii) You believe that women have no agency, and also believe that women never deliberately get pregnant for financial gain. You are obviously clueless about the concept of economic incentives.
    iv) Single motherhood in the US rose from 10% not long ago to 41% today. Of course, you think this is the fault of men, since you are a feminist with left-wing economic views.

    You, sir, are a cuckservative. You may think you are ‘against leftism’, but you are a useful idiot in favor of it.

  127. earlthomas786 says:

    Having known friends and coworkers who are in this situation tells me that most people here are ill informed.

    Why did the friend and coworkers choose to have a kid under those circumstances? There’s nothing more dense than not realizing single motherhood and poverty often go together. Having a kid out of wedlock presents its own negative consequences and even child support doesn’t cover them up.

  128. earlthomas786 says:

    For Christians here to give cover to irresponsible men is disturbing.

    What about the irresponsible women choosing to get pregnant by the irresponsible men? How come that never comes up? Most of the time the women are making the choice to have sex with men.

    If there were no child support laws here and your underage daughter got pregnant what would you do?

    Same thing my dad told me if I ever got a girl pregnant…that’s your responsibility and I’m not bailing you out. So it would be either a shotgun wedding or an adoption.

  129. David says:

    Evan Thomas claimed,

    Wow i used to like reading the blog and comments on here but this is a true “jump the shark” moment for me.

    I am quite certain that you are not a long-time reader here. I bet Dalrock can search your IP address and name and not find a single comment associated with either. You will then claim that you lurked for years, but that is obviously false. No one lurks forever without commenting, particularly when Dalrock has had dozens of articles detailing the evils of ‘child support’.

    Your phony attempts to rebuild the mound and engage in cowardly cuckservative whiteknighting don’t fool anyone.

  130. BillyS says:

    I did used to be a fully cuckservative who believed that men should pay for having free sex. I still don’t think the modern system is good in that area, but the punishments hit the good guys, not the bad ones and reward bad female behavior, so I am against that.

    I am against things that tear civilization down, however good sounding they may be up front Evan. Get a clue if you are more than a troll.

  131. Evan Turner says:

    Well after reading a these responses to my comments I’m really detecting the Christian “love” hear, nothing like name calling and cussing someone out to prove one’s Christian bona fides.

    I’ve seen that i have been misunderstood or people have assumed i have said things that i have not said. I would recommend that those who have issues reread my comment.

    @feministhater
    Yes women are tricking men to get pregnant and collect that $430 month average (not median) in child support per month so she can get that mcmansion and luxury car. You said a model based on punishment and coercion is not a way to build society. If that’s the case then you hated the patriarchy of ancient Israel.

  132. Evan Turner says:

    @gunner q
    You are confusing child support with divorce not everyone who pays it was married.

    Can you give me some source material that proves men being cuckold is the norm?

  133. Evan Turner says:

    @David
    I never said women have mo agency
    I’m sure some women have a financial motives. Groupies have been around forever chasing mem with money to get a child support payday. But this is not the norm the vast majority of men will not have this problem. I already gave the average child support payment in an above comment.
    I’m well aware of the increasing out of wedlock births.

  134. Evan Turner says:

    @earlthomas786
    I should have been more clear i mean i know men who are friends and coworkers who are paying or have paid child support. And the amount they pay is around the average.

    Irresponsible women are punished by raising a child by themselves not an easy thing to do, unless they find a guy to help them. But most of them won’t marry and will bounce from guy to guy working at some low wage job plus having to pay for daycare in addition to the other responsibilities for about $430 a month. And of course this single mom will witness her child more than likely in up single and pregnant or if it’s a boy have a problem with authority and father children out of wedlock himself.

  135. Evan Turner says:

    @billys
    You mean like the ancient Israelites? Those men had to pay for free sex it was called the virgin dowry which was paid to the father even if he didn’t marry her or if she had a child by him. And this dowry wasn’t cheap either it would take years for a man to pay this. Of course a responsible man would save ahead of time and marry.

    Do you think an irresponsible man in ancient Israel would have sex with a virgin without marrying her again after having to pay the virgin dowry or having to work off the debt for several years? Likewise a man who is paying child support for 18 years will think twice about being irresponsible again. I know some of these men who learned the hard way.

  136. Anon says:

    Evan Turner,

    You either have no idea that the ‘child support’ laws do nothing for the benefit of children, or you are absolutely enthusiastic about replacing marriage with child support.

    If you really are a long-time reader here (you obviously are not), you would know that Dalrock has identified ‘child support’ as the means to replace marriage altogether by disenfranchising the man and using the child as an object via which cuckservatives can feel good about forcibly transferring wealth from men to women.

  137. Dota says:

    @ Evan Turner

    Well after reading a these responses to my comments I’m really detecting the Christian “love” hear, nothing like name calling and cussing someone out to prove one’s Christian bona fides.

    Name calling? You mean like “You brood of vipers!”, “snakes!” “blind fools”? He may have been the Messiah but he wasn’t a particularly nice guy. Nice guys seldom change the world.

  138. Dota says:

    Even Turner

    Refusing to confront evil is no sign of love, it is at best cowardice and at worst, evil itself. Remember the woman from John whom Jesus saved from stoning? After saving her he also told her to “go sin no more”. Most pastors do not hold women up to any moral standards whatsoever (and neither does society at large).

  139. feministhater says:

    Shaming tactics do not work here, Evans.

  140. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘And of course this single mom will witness her child more than likely in up single and pregnant or if it’s a boy have a problem with authority and father children out of wedlock himself.’

    So I ask….why is she choosing to have sex out of wedlock with a man she doesn’t know and putting herself and her children in that position.

    It’s because they care more about having out of wedlock sex than the consequences to their children.

  141. feministhater says:

    If that’s the case then you hated the patriarchy of ancient Israel.

    Restore fatherhood custody and father authority within marriage and you have a point. Do it not; and you’re just another dipstick pretending to care.

    Child support is wrong, it is based on coercion and punishment. It removes authority and turns fathers into slaves. It turns men who married into slaves when their wives divorce. You hear that? It turns men who took the responsible route, who took care of their families, who did everything you said they must do, as per your ‘ancient Israel bullshit comment,’ and were punished for it.

    It rewards older women who sexed underage boys with child support from the same boy. If you’re going to place responsibility on a underage boy, as you no doubt will support, you damn well better do it for adult women. Which society does not do and gives them every opportunity to dismiss their responsibility. Child support punishes the victim and rewards the criminal.

    This is the point, you cannot on on hand demand men step up, without placing that same responsibility on women. Until that happens and until the authority of the father is restored, you have no point.

    You support evil, Evans. You are not some supporter of this blog who found himself disgusted by what he read, you’re just another POS in a long line of dickwad shamers who couldn’t stand to see their beloved systems criticised. Child support is evil. Go fuck yourself.

  142. feministhater says:

    You mean like the ancient Israelites? Those men had to pay for free sex it was called the virgin dowry which was paid to the father even if he didn’t marry her or if she had a child by him. And this dowry wasn’t cheap either it would take years for a man to pay this. Of course a responsible man would save ahead of time and marry.

    Do you think an irresponsible man in ancient Israel would have sex with a virgin without marrying her again after having to pay the virgin dowry or having to work off the debt for several years? Likewise a man who is paying child support for 18 years will think twice about being irresponsible again. I know some of these men who learned the hard way.

    Well, the flaw here is that the only dowry to be paid or women to be married were virgins. Haha! Fucking hell, what a laugh!

  143. feministhater says:

    Evans being duped again. These men were not paying child support, they were paying a bride price to the father… It was the father to whom the monies were owed. The object here was her virginity and the loss thereof causing direct loss to the father who would have married her off in future gaining the dowry.

    Loss of virginity without a marriage equals loss of dowry. Whores will be whores as they have been throughout time. They were not rewarded then at all, the father was. They were to be treated with contempt. A non-virgin carried with her no special privilege, no child support, no dowry. She was to look after herself and her bastard offspring.

  144. earlthomas786 says:

    These men were not paying child support, they were paying a bride price to the father… It was the father to whom the monies were owed.

    Don’t let facts get in the way of deeming how virtuous it is to pay child support.

    Besides the bigger problem is the idea many still have of ‘free sex’…i.e. sex (outside of marriage) without consequences. No amount of welfare, child support, or man bashing is going to stop the predictable consequences of sex outside of marriage. A child grows up without a father either because the woman was dumb enough to have sex with a man she doesn’t know or kicks him out for divorce is going to have negative consequences for the kid. Money can not replace the importance of the father-child relationship.

  145. Dalrock says:

    @Evan Turner

    Do you think an irresponsible man in ancient Israel would have sex with a virgin without marrying her again after having to pay the virgin dowry or having to work off the debt for several years? Likewise a man who is paying child support for 18 years will think twice about being irresponsible again. I know some of these men who learned the hard way.

    Won’t someone think of the children? You are obsessed with whether other men are getting “free sex”, and your obsession is causing you to lose sight of the millions of fatherless children the system you love is creating (see the chart in the OP). You can’t encourage single motherhood without discouraging marriage and creating fatherless children. This was the point of the OP. I’m no more on team cad than you are. I’m on team marriage. Our disagreement comes because you are on team single motherhood. Even worse, you are preaching the moral superiority of team single mother over team marriage.

  146. Pingback: Won’t someone think of the children who want to become single mothers? | Dalrock

  147. Pingback: Catalog of Errors I: Bring Bastards Back | Things that We have Heard and Known

  148. Isabelle says:

    Is ” brother” Jed one of those numerous fake brothers and wolves predicted by the Bible 2000 years ago ?
    This quack is probably not aware that NON VIRGINAL brides were put to death according to God’s law in ancient Israel . Mr Jed wants to ignore the fact that a virgin sleeping around was a CRIME !
    And not so long ago , in our Western civilization , virgins who had sex out of wedlock were regarded as whores .
    This super quack equals virgins WILFULLY sleeping around – thus guilty according to God’s moral standards – with the Deuteronomy case . But this case was a rape case : the man forced himself on the virgin . She was then NOT guilty of having sex out of wedlock since she had been raped .
    However , since she was neither married or engaged , the man did not deserve death penalty because it was not adultery. The man just had to marry her since HE had defiled her.
    This quacks mixes up everything , as if he wanted to bring confusion among Christians. But Christians who read the Bible , and do not just listen to clowns in a pulpit or in magazines cannot be confused and deceived.
    All the women who have sex out of wedlock ARE guilty of spreading their legs without being married.
    Has he forgotten how harsh our Western civilization was on women as far as morals were concerned ? Women were educated to SAVE themselves for one husband. As a consequence , men were supposed to responsible heads of family.

    Has Mr Jed ever heard about Snow White and the seven dwarfs ? Snow White remained chaste in the house of the dwarfs , the only man she had sex with was the prince. Same thing with Sleeping Beauty which taught young girls to silence their sexuality till the “prince” came.
    Young girls were not raised to be whores in the past , Mr Jed.
    You know Mr Jed , men can be responsible and noble men in a patriarchal structure only where Fatherhood is honoured , not in a sexual matriarchal jungle created by loose feminist women told that they can do whatever they want with their bodies. My body , My choice ..the most demonic slogan ever.
    Child support is as demonic as the slogan I mentioned. It coerces men into paying for NON EXISTENT families. It belongs to the same evil agenda .

  149. Pingback: My New Appreciation for Dalrock | Secular Patriarchy

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.