Won’t someone think of the children who want to become single mothers?

Commenter Evan Turner asks how Christian fathers are supposed to facilitate their daughters becoming single mothers without child support:

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? …

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?

Like nearly all proponents of the system designed to replace marriage, Turner wants to create a false dichotomy where everyone is either on team single mother (with him), or on team cad.   But I am on neither team, and neither should Turner be.  I am on team marriage.  Instead of worrying about the aspirations of children to grow up to become single mothers (keeping the dream alive!), Turner should be worrying about the millions of fatherless children born due to the family model he so passionately defends*:

db162_fig1

Turner also roughly equates the child support model (which replaces marriage) with God’s law in the Old Testament (which forced marriage).

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.

This is the other massive problem with the child support model.  It isn’t just that it offers women a cash incentive to become single mothers.  Defenders of the child support model, as both Turner and Brother Jed have demonstrated, provide a passionate moral argument that women deserve to have the option to become single mothers, going so far as to imply that the child support family model has God’s blessing.

*Figure 1 from the 2014 NCHS data brief Recent Declines in Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Child Support, New Morality, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

118 Responses to Won’t someone think of the children who want to become single mothers?

  1. ys says:

    Your underage daughter got pregnant…it just happened. She had no accountability or say in the matter.

  2. How come no one thinks of giving the baby up for adoption anymore?

    In the old days the first priority was to give the baby a good home. And if that was not possible the other option was adoption. No child support required.

  3. Pingback: Won’t someone think of the children who want to become single mothers? | @the_arv

  4. Also, do you mean underage daughter with an underage boy? Or do you mean underage daughter with a man? In that case, of course, you call the cops and have him thrown in jail. In any case I would not want my daughter to have any long term relationship with someone who would get her pregnant but not marry her. And you can get married before 18 with parental consent.

  5. Caspar Reyes says:

    She “fell pregnant” as the English would have it. Victim of Sir Cum’s dance. HAR HAR

  6. I am on team marriage. Instead of worrying about the aspirations of children to grow up to become single mothers, Turner should be worrying about the millions of fatherless children born due to the family model Turner so passionately defends*:

    They think extracting money from irresponsible (and responsible) men somehow replaces what a child needs from their father.

  7. Embracing Reality says:

    Does it ever occur to them that women still had all the power to keep cads in check and under control before the child support system? It was called “No”… Now women have been given the power to say yes and still have control using the state.

  8. anonymous_ng says:

    @Chris Nystrom, I know a young man who got his girlfriend pregnant when they were in high school, and wisely, they did put the child up for adoption, so it does happen, but far to infrequently IMO.

  9. ray says:

    “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?”

    I would pay for her support, and for the support of the child, life-long — as is my responsibility. Might be a shotgun wedding, might not, depends. But whether or not, pregnant daughter is MY responsibility, not the State’s responsibility. As once was the general assumption amongst folks, prior to the triumph of Feminism.

    Once upon a time, before the West (and Christianity) became Feminist, that is what almost all people assumed. However, modern ‘Christian’ and ‘conservative’ dads now turn to their Feminist Nations to solve the problem, which is speedily accomplished by hunting down the ‘irresponsible perps’ and holding their feet to the fire. When, instead, it’s the feet of Daddy and Mommy that should be scorched, as THEY raised their precious innocent little slut, and THEY permitted her to get knocked-up by An Evil Male. Now they want somebody else (typically, taxpayer) to pony-up and carry the burden that THEY should be bearing.

    In reality, the ‘cover’ that Evan Turner (and legions of cuckservatives) speak about is constantly being given to the PARENTS of little miss slut, as they AND their daughters are absolved of responsibility, while the State and Church demands child support. Indeed, such parents loudly demand their own irresponsibility must be remedied by The State. The Bad Guy is thus comfortably tagged, the State gets paid off, while Slut Daughter and Irresponsible Daddy ‘n Mommy continue on merrily in their socially sanctioned scams.

  10. Matt says:

    “Every woman who has sex knows the risk, if they don’t want to pay for 18 years of raising kids without child support, don’t have sex. We all know that there are consequences for every action.”

    Works for me.

  11. Anon says:

    It is quite sick that cuckservatives like Evan Turner want to package their cowardice and moral rudderlessness as something spiritual and ordained by god.

    Such cuckservatives really are a goddess cult.

  12. voxofreason says:

    “Such cuckservatives really are a goddess cult.”

    No doubt. How does Dalrock put up with such deceived fools? Bet those idiots never had to deal with the child support division of the state, its absolutely demonic. Most likely such idiots support CPS as well. They are statists in sheep’s clothing masquerading as Christians.

  13. DaDZ says:

    A little OT, but Rollo was spot the F on two years ago in predicting this:

    http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/25/health/cuckolding-sex-kerner/index.html

  14. Such cuckservatives really are a goddess cult.

    They are completely fine with women continuing to be promiscuous…as long as the men get punished and have their funds extracted for it.

    A single mother is just as dangerous for a child as a ‘deadbeat’ father. They never point that out.

  15. Damn Crackers says:

    Old Testament women were also stoned for playing the harlot in her father’s house.

  16. Defenders of the child support model, as both Turner and Brother Jed have demonstrated, provide a passionate moral argument that women deserve to have the option to become single mothers, going so far as to imply that the child support family model has God’s blessing.

    She deserves monetary payment for her sin of fornication.

    Do Turner and Bro Jed know what fornication is?

  17. stickdude90 says:

    Do Turner and Bro Jed know what fornication is?

    Sure, it’s what bad men do.

  18. Novaseeker says:

    Like many things in this area, this boils down to the conviction among many that women’s sin is derivative of men’s sin, and that if you can provide enough incentive for men to stop sinning (preferably through hard sticks … damn it’s so satisfying to smack around other men!), women just won’t sin, and everything will be fine. Women have no lust, no desire, no agency in pursuing sex, no agency in specifically arranging to get pregnant out of wedlock — nope. All of that doesn’t exist and is just men deflecting the reality that their own sin causes women to sin, and otherwise women wouldn’t sin.

    That’s the basic underlying idea — which we have been over and over in this space umpteen times — that underlies these kinds of approaches. It’s endemic in a certain kind of Christian man.

  19. squid_hunt says:

    I had a guy defending welfare on the exact same standard. “Yeah, but my daughter needed it…” Yeah? Why?

    The Bible says if your daughter gets knocked up, either the dad marries her or YOU are responsible for her. There’s no middle ground.

  20. Anonymous Reader says:

    The whole child-support model as a wide spread phenomenon is maybe 40 years old. It is one of the achievements of 2nd stage feminism, along with Title IX, Affirmative Action and other special benefits for women.Not to mention special powers such as the Duluth wheel and VAWA.

    Once again we see how conservatives leap to defend the achievements of feminism, to protect the dangerous gains of radicalism. The word “cuckservative” is accurate and applies well in this case.

    Novaseeker:
    That’s the basic underlying idea — which we have been over and over in this space umpteen times — that underlies these kinds of approaches. It’s endemic in a certain kind of Christian man.

    There’s no easy way to find out, but I can’t help but wonder how many cuckservative Christians are part of denominations that endorse women preachers / pastors / priests? Growing up in a feminized society with women in charge of everything including the church that you go to would not just be a betaizing experience, it would be a Female Domination experience.

  21. Anonymous Reader says:

    squid_hunt
    I had a guy defending welfare on the exact same standard. “Yeah, but my daughter needed it…” Yeah? Why?

    “It’s different” is the response. Lots of churchgoing women are publicly opposed to abortion. Privately, that might not always be the case. “It’s different”….

  22. Pingback: On The Hypocrisy of the Christians and Jews – v5k2c2

  23. The Bible says if your daughter gets knocked up, either the dad marries her or YOU are responsible for her. There’s no middle ground.

    Pretty much…a woman has three Godly ordained male authorities…Jesus, her father, and her husband. I don’t think feminists are the only ones who want to smash the patriarchy and replace it with the tyrannical state. Cuckservatives seem to want to do the same.

  24. Heidi says:

    The problem is that it’s very easy to frame the question in a way that makes one appear heartless: “So you want to punish children for having deadbeat dads? You think that fathers should be allowed to let their children starve?”

    It’s the same problem with a great many leftist policies that wind up being defended by conservatives. Of course people should be paid a living wage; do you want them slaving away 60 hours to make ends meet? (But hiking the minimum wage drives up prices and unemployment.)

    When it comes to something as important as the wellbeing of children, good intentions–even genuine good intentions, like the Gilligans Dalrock discusses in We are trapped on Slut Island–matter far less than the actual result of a given policy. I do not doubt that some children would be worse off were their fathers not compelled to pay support, but many millions of children would be better off if their fathers were living with them and supporting them as part of a unified family.

  25. Boxer says:

    Pretty much…a woman has three Godly ordained male authorities…Jesus, her father, and her husband. I don’t think feminists are the only ones who want to smash the patriarchy and replace it with the tyrannical state. Cuckservatives seem to want to do the same.

    I find the motives of CONservative feminist men to be especially questionable. People like Mr. Turner generally use single mothers, and not just to signal their virtue, but also for sex. Such people have an interest in continuing the dysfunction, at the expense of the children and father involved.

  26. Damn Crackers says:

    One woman states the result of unfettered hypergamy:

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/the-female-id-raw-and-uncut/

    I cleaned up the quote – “One man, one woman and some kids isn’t “natural.”

    Natural would be women leading society while men fight to the death so we only have to f*ck the best one.”

  27. ace says:

    ” Likewise a man who is paying child support for 18 years will think twice about being irresponsible again.”

    Obviously not.

    ‘The unbelievable rise of single motherhood in America over the last 50 years’
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/12/18/the-unbelievable-rise-of-single-motherhood-in-america-over-the-last-50-years/?utm_term=.93079f1334a9

  28. Yeah those type of societies die out.

  29. Don says:

    The “Cry for justice” website against domestic violence in the evangelical world, shows this misandrist attitude. On one of its articles on abuse of male leadership in churches, one woman wrote (https://cryingoutforjustice.com/2015/10/18/lording-it-over-the-flock-creates-an-abuser-friendly-climate/):

    “As a chicken keeper, I would add that the male bird in a flock is expected to protect and care for his girls. Any rooster worth his salt is willing to lay down his life for his flock. Greedy, selfish, cowardly, bullying, and/or domineering roosters head straight for the stew pot.

    However, this does not mean he is in charge. The hens trust him to care for them, but they are still dominant– he has no authority to break up fights, he eats last, follows them around, and no hen gets courted unless she wants to be!”

    Apparently this analogy is meant to illustrate abuse in churches by male leaders, But note also the clear references to male and female roles as historically uphold by churches, which are getting inverted.

    Note how she implicitly states that dominant roosters would have to be KILLED, until finally there was found a rooster that would fully care for the hens, but he has no dominance, instead the hens are dominant, follows them around, has no sex without the hens approval, and eats last.

    A modern Christian feminist woman’s wet dream if there ever was one! And the utopia of Church structure and male-female relationships according to these women.

    Of course this women got applauded for her contribution, and a critical post I made was rejected.
    This clearly shows the force at work to remove authorial males from church leadership by such women (“head straight for the pot”).

  30. Lost Patrol says:

    AR

    There’s no easy way to find out, but I can’t help but wonder how many cuckservative Christians are part of denominations that endorse women preachers / pastors / priests?

    It wouldn’t surprise me if the most female dominated men came from the churches that specifically don’t endorse women in those roles. “We’re conservative, we believe in Tradition and the Bible which do not countenance women in positions of authority in the church.” “Also, we support the right to life, etc. so that shows where we stand.” Meanwhile they are strong proponents of everything else you listed in your comment that goes along with 2nd stage feminism.

    They come from churches that resemble their own households where authority is vested in the woman and responsibility rests with the man, but it resides behind a proper looking front where the clergy is all men. You can almost be certain women are pulling most of the strings. Potemkin village.

  31. Anonymous Reader says:

    Heidi
    The problem is that it’s very easy to frame the question in a way that makes one appear heartless:

    Sure, because it is an emotional ploy masquerading as a rational argument. This fools a lot of emotional people like “women” and “betaized men”.

    In a church setting the next step usually involves misquoting, or out right mangling, some Bible quote. Because it’s all about the end justifying the means.

  32. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lost Patrol
    They come from churches that resemble their own households where authority is vested in the woman and responsibility rests with the man, but it resides behind a proper looking front where the clergy is all men

    First order test: ask one of these men to go out to lunch on a Sunday. Odds are he’ll have to “check with the Boss”, immediate confirmation. This is not the same as “Let me see if we have any other plans”, either.

  33. feministhater says:

    50 years of this bullshit and an explosion of the single motherhood rate; corresponding with the increase in punishment for ‘deadbeat dads’ is proof positive that the ‘child support through coercion’ model simply does not work.

    What more destruction of society must it take before these cucks wake up?

  34. Kevin says:

    This is why we need a radical rethink king of the out of wedlock issue. Why is a man more responsible than the woman? If they made those choices they can split the costs if marriage or adoption is not possible.

    Of course the most radical is that men can get abortion of their legal responsibilities just like a woman can get an abortion of the child. Ugly solutions for ugly problems in an ugly society.

  35. Opus says:

    I particularly appreciate Heidi’s comments as to the minimum wage. I do so because some months ago in conversation with two friendly acquaintances I voiced the opinion that I was doubtful that it was beneficial or had the intended effect. I was met with great opprobrium; I was a terrible person, etc etc. I would like to have explained my concerns but I could not get a word in or start a constructive sentence without being interrupted. I presume that had I been discussing child support I would have received similar hatred. My friends think they are being so virtuous living as they do in white-flight middle-class owner-occupier lifetime-employment land.

    In England, child support goes back (I think I recall) to the Poor Law of the first Elizabeth. Did not Malthus I seem to recall have something to say about it? For myself I formed the view when I practiced Matrimonial Law that women were marrying for forms sake but first becoming pregnant; this entitled them to obtain housing from the local authority and very nice housing too; after a year or two they would chuck-out the hapless husband. It was a racket which I expect continues.

    This comment has been searched for large dangerous fish and any music by John Williams but none have been found.

  36. Pingback: Won’t someone think of the children who want to become single mothers? | Reaction Times

  37. stickdude90 says:

    I do so because some months ago in conversation with two friendly acquaintances I voiced the opinion that I was doubtful that it was beneficial or had the intended effect. I was met with great opprobrium; I was a terrible person, etc etc. I would like to have explained my concerns but I could not get a word in or start a constructive sentence without being interrupted.

    Supporting a “living wage” is a terrific way to virtue-signal, provided you never have a payroll you have to meet to keep your business afloat.

  38. AmicusC says:

    “Likewise a man who is paying child support for 18 years will think twice about being irresponsible again.”

    I like this part the best. what pray tell does he imagine makes the female think twice about being irresponsible? or like most does he believe despite her actions she has done nothing irresponsible?

    it also ignores the fact that to correct any problem there will be a period of pain in the adjustment. oh no an irresponsible girl doesn’t get cash and prizes. I assure “accident” pregnancies decrease quickly once cash bonuses are no longer awarded.

  39. Don says:

    By many feminists (male and female), women are ironically seen as being no moral agents responsible for their own actions. As if they are retarded.

  40. Gunner Q says:

    squid_hunt @ 1:41 pm:
    “I had a guy defending welfare on the exact same standard. “Yeah, but my daughter needed it…””

    Substituting for the pronoun: “I had a guy defending welfare on the exact same standard. “Yeah, but my daughter needed your money…”

  41. Nick Mgtow says:

    Dalrock, I have a serious question: as a man of values, when you hold people accountable for their decisions in real life, how do they react?

    I have people hate me for this. Of course. I don’t plan to change it, just want to hear from a fellow christian.

  42. Kevin says:

    Regarding Heidi and others comments there is another practical reason to decrease the child support and even welfare even if the child suffers besides the system being rotten – that unfortunate child suffers and other moms see that and don’t want their children that way.

    Some European countries do not provide welfare benefits for teen moms – they have very low rates of teen births unlike the USA which rewards a teen with a paycheck for having a baby. Yes some children suffer so that on the whole far fewer children suffer and society recognizes – you are doing it wrong and are on your own.

  43. Novaseeker says:

    Frankly with the CS issue the problem is that people are talking about different things, or don’t understand what they are talking about. A few facts:

    1. CS is not for the child, it is for the recipient. The recipient can spend the CS how she (generally it’s she) wishes, and is accountable neither to court nor to payor for how she uses the money.

    2. CS is not calculated on the basis of the need of the child, it is calculated on the basis of a percentage of the income of the assigned father. If you’re poor, you may pay 400 a month, like in Evan’s anecdote. If you’re not so poor, you may end up paying a lot more (because we all know that kids who have fathers with higher income have more needs than kids with fathers with lower income, don’t we? — another indication it isn’t about the kids, folks). But in both cases you’re generally paying around the same percentage of your income — it’s basically calculated as a flat tax.

    3. The flat tax element is hidden behind the idea of “income shares”. All that income share does, when you actually work out the statutory formula, is “assign” a certain percentage of the “overall support need” to the recipient spouse, meaning she has to “cover those costs” herself (again, no evidence required of either costs or covering the costs). The way that the calculations work, the payor spouse ends up paying more if they earn more and less if they earn less, in absolute dollars, but the same percentage, more or less, of their income regardless of whether they earn more or less. Describing this as “income share” is a scam, yet most people have fully bought into the scam.

    —-

    Bottom line is that conservative men support this because they see it as a sex tax on men that can be used to get them to not have irresponsible sex. However, they overlook (because they want to overlook, because it is always much more comfortable and righteous to beat up on other men — hey, it’s what we do!) the fact that because it is a flat tax on the assigned father that is not accountable to the mother in terms of how she uses it, it creates a substantial moral hazard on the *female* side to cash in for an annuity type payment for an extended period of time. This is overlooked because it’s more fun, feels better and more righteous, to beat up the men — after all, if they had consensual sex, it shouldn’t be “for free”, right? Bastard should pay, dammit!

    That’s what’s going on here, bottom line.

  44. Evan Turner says:

    @Dalrock
    Your argument is nothing more then a strawman. I don’t want to facilitate daughters becoming single moms. I am not on team single mom. I am certainly not against marriage. I don’t say that women deserve the option to be single mothers.

    You also didn’t answer my question. What would you do if your underage daughter became pregnant?

    @everyone
    I assumed that saying men were irresponsible by fathering children out of wedlock that it also means the women they have sex .with are also irresponsible. I didn’t think i would have to explicitly spell that out.

  45. 9767 says:

    One of the stated justifications for child support for illegitimate offspring is that it will reduce welfare payments… otherwise the “taxpayer” would pay to support the children. This is one reason social conservatives are enthusiastic on this issue.

  46. stickdude90 says:

    I don’t want to facilitate daughters becoming single moms.

    Does mandatory child support make the above – daughters becoming single moms – more likely, or less likely?

  47. David says:

    Evan Turner’s doubling down is weak even by cuckservative standards.

    i) The hypothetical ‘what if daughter became pregnant?’ strawman is an admission of his own weaker fatherhood. Most men here raise their daughter right, and such a thing would not happen. In the infinitesimally small chance that it did, options include shotgun weddings to early-term abortion.

    ii) “that it also means the women they have sex .with are also irresponsible. I didn’t think i would have to explicitly spell that out.” Yet you advocate a policy that rewards female misbehavior and incentivizes paternity fraud.

    Plus, you still have no idea that ‘child support’ is not about benefiting children at all. Novaseeker explained this in detail, yet you ignored it because it is easier to be a cuckservative phony virtue-signaler.

  48. We have at least two generations now who seriously believe that fathers are unnecessary and that federal and state government support (via theft of non-father taxpayers) is acceptable, right and moral.

    For a first world country like the US, this is a complete disgrace.

    https://thefatherlessgeneration.wordpress.com/statistics/

    Perhaps the ultimate irony is that the supposedly most religious (Christian) states in the American union have the highest incidence of single mothers, the American southeast:

    https://www.ocregister.com/2017/05/12/how-moms-of-today-compare-to-generations-past/

  49. Also, note the prevalence of single mother homes in the state of California, particularly Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties 1 out of every 3 families is headed by a single parent (mother). In the most conservative county – Orange – it is 1 out of every 4.
    This is obscene.

  50. Gunner Q says:

    Evan Turner @ 4:58 pm:
    “I assumed that saying men were irresponsible by fathering children out of wedlock that it also means the women they have sex with are also irresponsible. I didn’t think i would have to explicitly spell that out.”

    You call for punishing the man who has sex outside marriage but not the woman who has sex outside marriage. What do you think should be the punishment for a teenager who gets pregnant?

  51. feeriker says:

    Plus, you still have no idea that ‘child support’ is not about benefiting children at all. Novaseeker explained this in detail, yet you ignored it because it is easier to be a cuckservative phony virtue-signaler.

    Guys like Evan are thirsty pedestalizers who lack the SMV to lock down a decent woman. This is why they chase slutty single mothers in the (usually vain) hope that playing the wight knight role to them will FINALLY get them some female attention.

  52. earlthomas786 says:

    I assumed that saying men were irresponsible by fathering children out of wedlock that it also means the women they have sex .with are also irresponsible. I didn’t think i would have to explicitly spell that out.

    And yet if the woman is irresponsible by doing an act which has produced children since the beginning of time…she gets payed for it. The child doesn’t get their father and we have another single mother home….that’s the bigger issue here.

    I hate to break it to you…but the current child support/welfare system isn’t deterring single motherhood or men having sex outside of marriage…all the stats show it’s been on the increase. And we are going to have to deal with a lot of trouble when those children grow up into adulthood.

  53. Anubis says:

    There are some women out there with crazy ideas about how they are entitled to free money just because they slept with someone or had kids.

    I’ve got a doozy of a true story about that which goes back 10 years…

    When I was getting divorced (she couldn’t hide her cheating anymore), my STBX was absolutely convinced that she had some sort guaranteed income for life. And since she was livid that I dared to stand up for myself and not stay in line, she would threaten ‘to destroy me’. At one point she declared to me (while I was covertly recording the conversation no less) that she would accuse me of molesting my kids and had a series of people (her mom, one of her APs, etc) that would back up her claim. She was going to have her pound of flesh and control by having me thrown in jail and nothing would stand in her way.

    What did get me out of it without having to go through the ordeal? A conversation with another woman about money.

    She was a SAHM mom who spent recklessly and truly believed that if I was thrown in jail or out of work, the government would pay her the money she was accustom to. When this other woman pointed out that if I was jailed, I would lose my high paying job (we didn’t have any savings left at the time – she had burned through 300 thousand in windfall savings in just 4 years) and the money flow ( my paychecks ) would stop… well, once that dawned on her she decided that she actually had not made those threats. However, she became even angrier at the world ( “It’s NOT FAIR” she would say quite often ) because there wasn’t a free money train.

    oh, and it get’s better…

    Just a couple years ago, while I was picking up my now teenage kids for visitation and waiting on one of them she mentioned, out of the blue mind you, that she was angry that I had moved to a different state after the divorce. I asked why as she knew I moved because I was out of work (the 2008 recession) and I had to meet the court ordered payments (total over $5K a month for CS+Alimony) and good jobs were very hard to come by then – it was a choice born out of necessity as she would run to the courts if I was a day late making my payments.

    Apparently she must have recently seen something about lifetime alimony where I currently lived as we had gotten divorced in Texas which had a 3 year hard cap on Spousal Support at that time. She came closer, thumped me in chest (I just backed off, no risking a false DV claim) and declared loudly that she “Deserved $7,000 a month in Alimony for the rest of her life!”. “What a delusional c**t*” was all I could think… You see.. she had already remarried.. over 5 years earlier.. exactly 13 days after the final alimony check cleared. And apparently she had no idea that remarriage ends alimony. She was only interesting believing whatever misunderstood ‘facts’ she felt supported her narcissistic view of herself.

  54. Isa says:

    Thought, perhaps child support could instead be tied to vouchers rather than cash? As we know, the feds already have programs in place for utility, rent, food, insurance etc. for the poor. Merely take the CS and transfer it into those programs in the form of vouchers paid using the monthly CS extraction. As the amount is the same, liberals probably will not complain too much, but the much, much lower cash incentive should deter the sm (no free iphone for you!) and perhaps fewer tax dollars spent on redundant programs. Non essential CS money could be placed in custodial accounts the child could access at 18.

  55. earlthomas786 says:

    There are some women out there with crazy ideas about how they are entitled to free money just because they slept with someone or had kids.

    That’s what cuckservatives don’t get…rewarding female promiscuity doesn’t help society in any way. It perpetuates female promiscuity. But as long as they get to beat up the father and extract his wealth (because they hate them as much as feminists)…they’re happy.

  56. Lost Patrol says:

    @ constrainedlocus

    Superimpose the single mother counties from that link with the blue counties of the election map. Close enough to make a trail any amateur tracker could follow.

  57. Embracing Reality says:

    @ Anubis, I’m assuming your ex-wife was quite attractive, at least at the time you married her. I assume this was the case because based on your story she was obviously selfish and stupid as hell.

  58. Child support dollars are completely unaudited.
    There is a gross assumption made in all cases that the custodial single mother (95% of all child custody outcomes) will utilize child support dollars received for child food, clothing and housing.
    She need not produce any receipts to prove appropriate expenditure of the support funds.
    So she in addition to welfare funds, can use the child support money for junk food, car payments, iPhone bills, nails, her shoes and her clothing, hairdos, loans to douchebags and fuckbuddies, gambling, drugs and alcohol.
    And the non-custodial father can do nothing to prevent any of this.

  59. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    There are some women out there with crazy ideas about how they are entitled to free money just because they slept with someone or had kids.

    This feminist notion corresponds to the tradcon theory that women do not enjoy sex. Women do not lust. They love. Women are too elevated, fine, pure, and angelic to enjoy something so base as sex.

    It follows that if women do not enjoy sex, but rather, offer it to a man they love, then in every sexual encounter, the woman gives, the man receives. The women pays, the man benefits. Thus, women should rightfully be compensated having given and not received.

    Women, being so pure and angelic, expect “love” for their sex. So if after sex, women don’t “feel” loved, then they have been short-changed. They must be compensated with money (or jail time for the man for “date rape” — i.e., not pleasuring the woman enough).

    The idea that men give women pleasure through sex, and thus women are already compensated, seems anathema to feminists, but even more so to tradcons.

    Women are the prize. Men are the beneficiaries. Men must pay for the prize. Women need only bask in their own amazing awesomeness.

  60. Anubis says:

    @ Embracing Reality: Alas, she wasn’t, average at best and she ballooned up to cow-sized as time went on. I had negative self-esteem when I met her, and figured no one else would have me. I was ready to leave a few years later when she turned up pregnant and thought that I *had* to stick out for my kids. I was resigned to my fate while my career took off. I was a very sad example of a boy, not a man. I will say that today I am so far away from that, but I still hate who I was then. I had my awakening, but the fault was and still is 100% on me for having zero self-respect.

    Funny enough, It turned out she had been cheating on me on and off, going back to before we married. I found some chat logs on an old hard drive from an original blueberry iBook (circa 1999, I kept all our computers in a closet and took them with me when I left) that opened my eyes to her activities while I was working. I found chats with one of her studs (classic bad-boy/stoner who she said was ‘just a friend’) about introducing him to some of the other stay at home moms and saying how easy they were to conquer (as she admitted).

    There was one other married woman – half of a couple we both knew and whose daughter had play-dates with ours – that clearly had played with bad-boy. She was active in church, and wouldn’t do the things for her hubby that she did for bad-boy. Only she had died a couple years earlier of breast cancer (this was 2011, the logs from 2000-2002, she died 2009). I debated long and hard about telling the husband who was raising his daughter as a single dad.. but decided against it, as I didn’t see how it could have an upside, given no divorce or recourse was possible. Why make him suffer more for her sins?

  61. PokeSalad says:

    Your argument is nothing more then a strawman.

    You should certainly know….you started with, “Child support is evil? Really?” Now that’s a strawman.

    bleat bleat bleat

    “I didn’t really say/mean that” over and over is not a rebuttal of Dalrock’s position. Is that all you got? “Really?”

  62. Evan,

    You also didn’t answer my question. What would you do if your underage daughter became pregnant?

    He didn’t answer it (and he shouldn’t) because your question is ridiculous. No girl just ‘becomes’ pregnant, least of all Dalrock’s daughter. What is wrong with you? Dalrock is actually IN the picture and is marries to his wife and mother of their children. Daughter will not “become” pregnant.

    I assumed that saying men were irresponsible by fathering children out of wedlock that it also means the women they have sex .with are also irresponsible. I didn’t think i would have to explicitly spell that out.

    Now you are being disingenuous. You didn’t specifically spell that out because to do so make you feel like a terrible person. If you defend women’s “honor” anonymously on a blog like this, it makes you feel “heroic.” That is why you omitted that the first time. Don’t deny it.

    We know you Evan. We are blessing you for the cuckservative mangina that you are.

  63. American says:

    Evan Turner also needs to stop stealing from Christian, celibate, never married and childless, single individuals like me. He uses the government to take my money from me and redistribute it to sexually immoral fornicators and the bastards they sire. I do not appreciate being robbed in this manner by people like Evan who use a voting booth instead of a firearm to steal money from the moral in order to reward the immoral; an act which is itself very immoral.

  64. Embracing Reality says:

    @ Anubis,

    Truth be told what happened to you could have happened to me when I was young and naive. I came close a few times. Thank God it didn’t as I’ve never been married at 47 and I’ve dated quite a bit. Your story with variations is like those I’ve heard hundreds of times before. I attribute some of my good fortune remaining single to the warnings I’ve been given by countless divorced and married men out there. Thanks for sharing.

    Odd, sad really, when not marrying becomes seemingly a great accomplishment in life for a man. We live in strange times.

  65. Embracing Reality says:

    @ American,

    Excellent, well stated!

  66. Random Angeleno says:

    @Evan Turner
    You’re the one who has jumped the shark with your willful blindness to the true picture. You are essentially saying women who get pregnant do not have agency and we have to compensate them for that. “Because it’s all about the children” and boy do those single and divorced mothers know it!

    Start fighting for fathers instead. Otherwise get thee behind me, evil one.

  67. There is, or used to be, a saying: “hard cases make bad law.” A woman chooses to fornicate with a man; both are morally guilty; it seems to be unjustly hard on the woman that she has the child, if the man can get away with shirking his responsibilities. A hard case, and therefore precisely not a case which should be the basis of laws.

    @ Opus

    I was very interested to hear, though I really shouldn’t be surprised, that the first child-support law in England was enacted under the rule of a woman.

    @ American

    As another Christian, never married, childless, single man, I see the situation much as you do. The forced transfer of resources from men like us to irresponsible people is an injustice that no one seems to discuss or regard except in fora like this one.

  68. Anon says:

    Evan Turner,

    Two questions :

    1) If a man has to pay child support because the woman chose to become pregnant, why does he not also get custody? Why does he have to pay if he has no access to his children?
    2) Why has single motherhood risen from only 5% in 1965 to 45% today? Are men really that much worse? Or is there a financial incentive for women to be single mothers?

    I realize that you are not capable of understanding economic incentives, but still.

  69. Anubis says:

    @Embracing Reality – we do indeed ‘live in strange times’ and I worry, for my children’s sake, if nothing else.

    I’ve seen variations on my story a lot as well. A huge component of it is that I’ve worked white collar ‘engineering’ type jobs around tons of other guys in similar situations.

    What frequently happens is – couple in their mid/late 20s marry, husband is getting his career established, starter home in the cheaper burbs, etc. By early 30s his career is going well enough that they can squeeze by if she stays home and lo and behold she becomes pregnant. The new dad’s lifestyle shifts to ‘working harder’ at home and work – he’s got a family to provide for so he pushes hard at work so he can make more and as a ‘modern husband’ he’s working hard at home helping with the kids, etc. No more Mr. ‘Fun and Crazy’.

    All this makes the husband more of Beta – in actuality or just in her eyes. Mom is usually busy with the bab(ies) but as soon as they start becoming easier to handle, she got idle time on her hands. As husband seems more Beta to her, sex with him dwindles and live is refocused around the kids.

    Mom though, starts getting ‘the itch’, especially when seeing the lifestyles of others – on TV, single friends, etc, and also get glimpses of men who are much more successful than hubby – the guys owning or running the company, etc.

    You know the rest of the story. The wife cheats, and eventually the husband … if he finds outs .. is blindsided. 70 percent get the ‘I Love you but I am not In love with you’ speech, etc, etc etc… Frivorce often ensues..

    In my case, I believe my peer group is more susceptible to it because 1) the economics allow for the wife to be a SAHM, which givers her free time and some access to money while Hubby has pretty much sold his future for the next 20 years to working hard to keep moving up the ranks because he’s on the hook for everything money-wise. and 2) Being an engineer/software developer/etc isn’t very sexy.

    99% of those jobs are likes the ones in Office Space, but the wives wonder why they aren’t the entrepreneur who founded a successful startup and sold out for big $$$, and view their hubbies – who are in the top 10% of earners – as failures. Combine that ‘Mr Family man’ and you have that ultimate female libido killer – Mr. Seems Boring.

    Mr Chad Cad on the other hand, lives for himself, is around in the middle of the day when hubby is at work, and is ‘exciting’ and lets the wives know how under appreciated they are. So, so many married women in that sub-demographic are easy prey to game like that.

  70. Opus says:

    I am pleased to see that our host has not lost frame and fallen for the ‘gotcha’ question.

    I was wondering whether Evan Turner at 04.58pm and 9767 at 05.02pm were in any way related.

  71. Spike says:

    Where Evan Turner, Brother Jed, the majority of Christians and feminists get it wrong is the conflation of sex and procreation.

    From Biblical times to the 1950s, consent for sex meant the likelihood of conception and parenthood. Pregnancy could have been avoided (as it was in the case of the biblical Onan), but the majority of people understood the dictum: sex ran the risk. That risk may mean a shotgun wedding, or otherwise couples met, courted formally and briefly and waited until marriage.

    Enter the era of the contraceptive pill. This separated sex into two parts: procreation and recreation. Because it is separated into two parts, two different sets of consent are required.

    Consent to sex on a man’s part is not consent to fatherhood.

    They are two different things for women and in the name of equality, they should be two different things for men.Men should be protected. They are not.

  72. freebird says:

    Evan Turner says:
    January 25, 2018 at 4:58 pm
    @Dalrock
    Your argument is nothing more then a strawman. I don’t want to facilitate daughters becoming single moms. I am not on team single mom. I am certainly not against marriage. I don’t say that women deserve the option to be single mothers.
    ———————————————————————————————————————–
    You claim not to support these things yet support all the incentives that create these things.
    Never heard of “What you fund you get more of?
    I have some free birth control for “your” daughter.
    A piece of paper,tell her to hold it between her knees.
    If it falls out,don’t expect me to pay for her future hatred and insolence towards men with a brazen entitlement complex to taxpayer money with her “crotch trophy” a birth designed to hold the whole population hostage for the child support “she deserves.”

    For what.
    For “fucking.”
    Same as baby daddy did.
    Cuck promoter
    Possible miscengenist promoter

  73. Luke says:

    Re “child support”:

    1) A better name for it would be “compulsary inter-household transfer payments”, to be neutral about it.

    2) CS is traditionally what a man does to feed, house, etc. a child in his household. This is usually HIS child genetically, then next most likely his by willing adoption (with HIS policies on upbringing the ones followed), then least ones there less formally, at his sufferance. If a child is removed from his household against his will, then that logically removes the obligation as well. Let the mother or court pay for their decision.

    3) I also think that, in the event of bastardy or frivorce, that if the child doesn’t go with the father (as it should, and historically did pre-Tender Years Doctrine), that the putative father should only accept fines from any court that are equaled by those inflicted upon the mother.

    ============================================================

    Re minimum wage arguments: I’d tell any nearby libtards that the minwage workers deserve to keep their ENTIRE paychecks, since as those who produced them, no one else would have a claim on them. (They also deserve a gold-based money system, with no fiat currency/fractional -reserve banking or government debt/income redistribution/substantial government employment, so there is no inflation to steal their wages, either, if you get a chance to get a second sentence out before they melt down.)

    ==========================================================

    Another alternative to female slutting around from puberty, or early marriage, is CELIBACY, until marriage. Most sub-alpha males have years of this (if involuntarily), and I thought the sexes were “equal” now…

    ============================================================

    An even better statistical compilation of why almost any outcome is better than unmarried/divorced mother child custody:

    http://www.fclu.org/parentless-statistics/

    FFECTS OF FATHERLESSNESS (OR MOTHERLESSNESS) – US DATA
    BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS/ RUNAWAYS/ HIGH SCHOOL DROPOUTS/CHEMICAL ABUSERS/ SUICIDES
    85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control)
    90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
    71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.)
    75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God’s Children.)
    63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census)
    JUVENILE DELINQUENCY/ CRIME/ GANGS
    80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26)
    70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report)
    85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections)
    THESE STATISTICS TRANSLATE TO MEAN THAT CHILDREN FROM A FATHERLESS HOME ARE:
    5 times more likely to commit suicide
    32 times more likely to run away
    20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders
    14 times more likely to commit rape
    9 times more likely to drop out of high school
    10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances
    9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution
    20 times more likely to end up in prison
    Juveniles have become the driving force behind the nation’s alarming increases in violent crime, with juvenile arrests for murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault growing sharply in the past decade as pistols and drugs became more available, and are expected to continue at the same alarming rate during the next decade. “Justice Dept. Issues Scary Report on Juvenile Crime,” San Francisco Chronicle (9/8/95).”
    TEENAGE PREGNANCY
    Daughters of single parents are 53% more likely to marry as teenagers, 164% more likely to have a premarital birth, and 92% more likely to dissolve their own marriages.
    71% of teenage pregnancies are to children of single parents. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services
    CHILD ABUSE
    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that there were more than 1,000,000 documented child abuse cases in 1990. In 1983, it found that 60% of perpetrators were women with sole custody. Shared parenting can significantly reduce the stress associated with sole custody.

  74. rachel says:

    @Anubis. I do think that family size is a factor in all of this. As you say, the man doubles down working hard for his family while the woman is rapidly working herself out of a job. Whilst a dedicated housewife can make a full time job of benefiting her husband and ‘good works’, the reality is more of an ‘idleness is the devil’s workshop’ scenario.
    Paul commands young women to bear children and look after the home specifically to avoid sin. (I can’t remember the verse off hand) It seems that just as a healthy marriage relationship is a protection against temptation so is bearing children and looking after them yourself.

    I was woefully unprepared for my role managing my home of six children but even I notice a few things.
    1) when you are pregnant or breastfeeding for twelve years solid you are quite obviously in a, shall we say, productive relationship with your husband and are therefore unavailable.
    2) you are too busy with the children to notice any attention you get.
    3) marital stresses occur but you are too busy dealing with life to do anything other than, well, deal with it.
    5) you become more feminine and nurturing with each child. This also improves your relationship with your husband.
    6) once you finally stop having babies you are past the wall!
    7)after 2 decades focussing on home and family, that is where my heart is..’where your treasure is…’
    Just some thoughts.

  75. freebird says:

    Well the fact is the currency is not gold standard based.
    It is population based which is why .gov coddles the illegals and promotes single motherhood.
    The mother uses the child as a hostage shield and the gun toting agents of .gov make sure you pay for it or eviction from the home “you own.”

    More ethical would be a Wall and abortion centers on every street corner that perform the service for free.

    Cuckservatiives like leftists want a population breeding for low wage workers.
    Rather then PROTECT THE NATION like they were elected to do,with no bullshit free trade agreements, implement some tariffs to support American workers for God’s sakes.
    Yes our God,not their G-d is what is at issue here.
    Poor dude never gets off that cross……

  76. squid_hunt says:

    @rachel
    “I was woefully unprepared for my role managing my home of six children but even I notice a few things.”

    This is fantasticly insightful. I think you’re probably on to something brilliant.

  77. All this beating around the bush and nobody asks “What does God demand” There is a problem way past money, it is a problem of being a godless world and dealing with the consequences. Unless repentant, single mother and CADS, feminists and their cucks will all end up on the wrong side of the pasture. If that does not make you sad then how much do you care about what God wants?

  78. Opus says:

    There are a lot of things like the minimum wage which sound nice and fair; another such is Copyright yet the consequences of these well-meaning devices are often far worse than the intended cure. Just to limit examples to the minimum wage, it cannot be entirely coincidental that since its introduction we have also seen the rise of zero-hours contracts and increasing self-employment (self-employment that is which is otherwise indistinguishable from employment). Then again the ignominy of being minimum-wage and presumably being unable to obtain an increase beyond the minimum level because one ‘is’ minimum wage the employer justifying his stingi-ness on the grounds that it is a mcJob. I have been concerned that the minimum wage is an incentive to employers increasingly to treat all jobs on that basis

    An example (perhaps unknown to Americans) but well demonstrating the point are the Rent Acts introduced in England after the First World War. They provided for a security of tenure and for fair rents. The consequence was that the rents not only became unfair (to the Landlord) but in addition the Landlord was unable to obtain possession at any reasonable time in the future. The result: Home Owners who owned property surplus to their current housing needs sold rather than let and thus the amount of property available for rental dwindled and became almost non-existent but if you could find somewhere to rent there was no incentive to the Landlord to refurbish the property so that it was a place desirably in which to reside. Landowners especially those who made a business of letting perforce resorted to illegal methods to regain possession. This mess was ended in the 1980s so that now there are plenty and well-maintained places to rent. The market determines the value of the rental property and the amount available – Adam Smith’s invisible hand.

    The Black Death killed off a lot of people but I understand that historians have noted the rise in wages for labouring-types following its ravages; supply and demand, you see.

  79. Heidi says:

    @Opus: We know about rent control in parts of the United States–New York City is a famous example–and it caused a housing squeeze, tenants living in deplorable conditions, derelict buildings, and wealthy people holding onto properties for years without paying more than a nominal rent. Thomas Sowell’s book Basic Economics talks about this and other issues, and hammers home the point that well-meant, centrally planned policies often cause more harm than the evil they are trying to correct.

    He also makes the point that economics and morality are inextricable. A relatively honest, high-trust society allows for contracts to be made in the reasonable hope that they will be honored, which encourages economic growth. A society with a great deal of corruption is not one in which people wish to invest capital. The same is true for marriage, of course, as many here have pointed out, and as is shown by our plummeting marriage rate (and corresponding rise in illegitimacy).

  80. Gunner Q says:

    rachel @ 5:30 am:
    “@Anubis. I do think that family size is a factor in all of this.”

    His ex-wife’s vile attitude was the one and ONLY factor. Don’t blame Anubis for not having “enough” kids to keep wifey busy at home. That would only have made his nightmare worse.

  81. BillyS says:

    David,

    Most men here raise their daughter right, and such a thing would not happen. In the infinitesimally small chance that it did, options include shotgun weddings to early-term abortion.

    Killing the child for the parent’s sin is never appropriate.

    You are also quite ignorant that a father today has the authority to push this. I don’t support child support, but neither do I foolishly think the single mother situation only comes up for fathers who are weak. Society has taken authority from fathers, yet wants to hold them accountable.

  82. BillyS says:

    Speaking of false consequences: Even “conservative” Texas grants a women in a long term marriage alimony (called spousal support to claim it is not that) even if the woman blows up the marriage for no reason beyond her own wishes.

    That directly undermines long term marriages. My ex was told by her lawyer that she could get a big chunk from me each month of support and that certainly played a big role in her blowing things up.

    Any positive value of supporting women who are abandoned after a long marriage is blown up with the incentive to blow things up themselves.

    This is time limited, but it is still horrendous and evil. Not as bad as some states, but still bad from a state that should know better.

  83. Hazelshade says:

    “Enter the era of the contraceptive pill. This separated sex into two parts: procreation and recreation. Because it is separated into two parts, two different sets of consent are required.

    Consent to sex on a man’s part is not consent to fatherhood.

    They are two different things for women and in the name of equality, they should be two different things for men.Men should be protected. They are not.”

    Well said, Spike. This is about the best way to frame it while staying within the equality premise.

  84. earlthomas786 says:

    Enter the era of the contraceptive pill. This separated sex into two parts: procreation and recreation. Because it is separated into two parts, two different sets of consent are required.

    Consent to sex on a man’s part is not consent to fatherhood.

    They are two different things for women and in the name of equality, they should be two different things for men.Men should be protected. They are not.

    The contraceptive pill is really the thing that muddied the waters. That was the thing which was a catalysis in the jump of out of wedlock births, single motherhood, and divorce.

  85. earlthomas786 says:

    However just because the premise of the pill was to separate the two…it hasn’t really done so. There’s plenty of cases of women on the pill getting pregnant either by ‘oops’, taking some other drug that interfered, or flat out Divine intervention because sex and procreation have always gone together.

    If you play with fire enough recreationally…eventually you’ll get burned.

  86. Squib says:

    The child support model gives parents a sort of ego and financial insurance policy. Parents can underestimate the probability of their underage daughter getting knocked up. Someone else will share the expense of raising the bastard. People tend to be more discerning without a safety net.

    If you are worried your underage daughter may get pregnant, your intuition may be telling you something. Get her an IUD or start a fund for your future bastard grandchild.

  87. thedeti says:

    This exchange serves to show, once again, how we as a society got here. It also shows how subtly we move from what is moral and practical, to what we want to be moral, and what we think should be moral.

    Forcing marriage as a consequence for getting pregnant/getting someone pregnant, and staying married is moral. Marriage is the only morally proper place for sex. As a practical matter, marriage is for the raising of children and creating the family, the basic building block of society.

    But folks like Evan subtly set the issue of child support, and making men pay it, as the foundational basis of morality when it comes to how fathers relate to their children. Not that those men lead their families, marry their children’s mothers, or stay married. No, whether those men are doing the right thing, the moral thing, is based on whether they pay money to the mothers of their children.

    The traditional obligation of the father to earn money and support the family was a practical matter, not necessarily a moral one. The father/man was (and still usually is) in the best position to earn the most money to support his family. It had little to do with Christian morality – it had to do with going about family business. The man with moral authority was the man who was actually present and exercising that authority – the father of the children and husband of the wife. Or, the father of the girl who got pregnant – who then either insisted on the young man/sperm donor marrying his daughter and taking on that moral authority mantle; or excluding the boy altogether from the mother and child. The young man/sperm donor then had no child support obligations, but then he had no rights to the child either.

    The man’s moral authority was based on his presence and his commitment. It was not based on his ability to make payments or his actually making payments. It was not based on voluntary or involuntary transfers of money from one person to another. Even very poor men of limited means had moral authority if they were married to the mothers of their children.

    I notice Evan Turner isn’t here to continue defending his viewpoint after crying “strawman”, and “of course the mothers are also acting immorally and wrongly”. But the fact that neither the father forced to pay child support nor the mother who receives it as an ersatz “reward” for bearing a child are acting morally, does not justify calling a child support model of family formation “moral”, nor does it transform the transfer of wealth from one party to another (a practical act) into a moral act or obligation.

  88. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    If you play with fire enough recreationally…eventually you’ll get burned.

    That is why I always laugh at those who use the term “safe sex” outside of a faithful marriage. No such thing exists, but some still want to think it does.

  89. Health risks from “the pill” from prolonged use: cardiovascular conditions and disease. I am not a woman, nor some medical professional………..the pill was not to be administered longer than few years to a woman…..we now have women that have been on the “the pill” for twenty years…..and hand in hand with this…….the rate for heart disese, cardiovascular issues in women have skyrocketeted……..all the PSA announcements I hear about this “issue” never address. I mean never, ever address is: is this condition linked to prolonger use of the pill?????

    If it is, it will NEVER be mentioned.

  90. earlthomas786 says:

    Not only the heart disease…I think a lot of the breast cancer and cervical cancers have had studies showing some linkage to it.

    https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/hormones/oral-contraceptives-fact-sheet

  91. thedeti says:

    Also – making the father’s payment of child support the basis of whether he is acting morally, plants on him moral responsibility without any concomitant moral authority.

    It also confers on the mother (who had the child out of wedlock or didn’t remain married to the father) all moral authority without any concomitant moral responsibility.

  92. rachel says:

    @gunner q./Anubis

    I can see how my comment could read like that but I don’t blame Anubis at all. It is just a pattern in society. It seems I am good at putting my foot in it and apologise for being insensitive.

  93. Embracing Reality says:

    Lots of options now for single women who are rebellious against God. The pill and other contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy. There’s always abortion if the first plan fails. Then again if a woman wants a baby or decides to keep one conceived accidentally she can always use the state to make a man pay$.. What if he can pay? Then we’ll get the tax payer to pay for her choices. If we step back and look at the big picture this is all designed to make sin as easy as possible. Even the natural consequences of sin, that once kept it somewhat under control, have now been removed. Let’s not forget the church and the white knight manginas there within who haven’t applied rebuke or correction to women in 50 years. Wonder how this will end..

  94. Evan Turner says:

    @dalrock
    You won’t answer my question. As for some of thr commentators who believe it’s an unfair “gotcha’ question it is not. There were plenty of men of God in the bible who had children who did truly awful things so such a situation is not an indictment on a Christian man. Besides, i can rephrase the question to: What should a Christian man do if his underage daughter became pregnant? This doesn’t change anything.

    I submit that Dalrock didn’t answer my question because he knows he’s boxed himself in. Here are the following answers to my question he has dodged:

    1 abortion
    2 adoption
    3 forced marriage
    4 legally disown daughter
    5 child support

    Let’s go over these in detail.
    Dalrock obviously won’t recommend abortion.
    Adoption appears good on the surface but on closer inspection presents a whole host of problems. For one babies aren’t given directly to a family they will be wards of the state for several months or years where some employees may abuse the child all at taxpayer expense.
    More importantly there’s no guarantee that the adopting couple will be Christian or even heterosexual. I will also add adopting is expensive so much so that the government subsidizes people to adopt in the billions. Remember when some Christian groups screamed when the house tax bill originally eliminated the subsidy?

    Forced marriage this would have worked 100years ago the fact is you can’t legally force the father to marry your daughter.

    You can legally disown your daughter. She will be a the government’s responsibility until she reaches the age of majority at taxpayer expense. And of course cps has an awful track record.

    While you can’t legally force the father to marry you can legally make him [not taxpayers] pay child support. Regardless of whether he wants to be in the child’s life. And the daughter will bare responsibility of raising her child. They both pay for their irresponsibility. But you called child support evil and wicked.

    If you can come up with a better solution than just saying family and showing a graph of out of wedlock births I’m all ears.

  95. Boxer says:

    If you can come up with a better solution than just saying family and showing a graph of out of wedlock births I’m all ears.

    There’s an old saying about how it is cruel to be kind. Your position is a fair example.

    I assume you’re religious. By defending the child support model of family, you’re also opening yourself up to condemnation and a curse by your God.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/on-the-hypocrisy-of-the-christians-and-jews/

    Whether you like it or not, Dalrock did answer your question. It’s true that disowning single moms is probably a difficult and painful position, but it’s the only one which is truly consistent with the spirit of the text. If you take your holy books seriously, you should be open to changing your position on the matter.

    But you called child support evil and wicked.

    And it is evil, by any standard you want to judge it, secular or religious. It rewards the irresponsible at the expense of healthy families. It punishes people who have done no wrong for the crimes of people who get off. It also enriches the feminist state, and encourages lawmakers to sit on their hands, rather than tackle serious social problems. On the whole, it’s a horrible thing all around.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  96. BillyS says:

    Concern troll Evan is concerned….

  97. Opus says:

    My dear Evan, repeating what you previously wrote or doing so but louder and at greater length does not improve the quality of the previous thought,.

  98. SirHamster says:

    Evan Turner is a very concerned “ex”-reader who is really really concerned about how Christian the Christians here are being.

    Dalrock obviously won’t recommend abortion.

    Opens with abortion as the first option and personalizes it to Dalrock, making a show of what standards Dalrock “ought” to have.

    Remember when some Christian groups screamed when the house tax bill originally eliminated the subsidy?

    This is not how Christians talk to each other. Note the rhetoric – “screamed”. Note also that the so-called screaming of Christian groups is irrelevant to what Christians should support. What does the Bible say?

    Going back to his opening paragraph:

    As for some of thr commentators who believe it’s an unfair “gotcha’ question it is not.

    Still playing gotcha. The original question was a gotcha, and so is this followup. Lying troll.

  99. JDG says:

    Child support is not biblical and should not be supported by Christians. It’s tantamount to supporting fornication, bastardy, and divorce. It literally works in opposition to the biblical model of the family. If Evan truly is a Christian he should pray for discernment, stop listening to the utterances of feminists, and prayerfully search the scriptures for guidance.

  100. Gunner Q says:

    “Adoption appears good on the surface but on closer inspection presents a whole host of problems. For one babies aren’t given directly to a family they will be wards of the state for several months or years where some employees may abuse the child all at taxpayer expense.”

    This troll continues delivering object lessons. We need child support because adoption is not a perfectly implemented ideal solution! Where have I heard that kind of thinking before?

    Ah, yes. The death penalty. Liberals wanted the death penalty in California repealed. But the people liked executing violent criminals. So, liberals futzed up the process of execution (are we suuure he committed the crime? But what if he feels too much pain? Has due process been completely exhausted yet?) until the death penalty became so impractical that people voted to end it as a cost-cutting measure.

    See any comparison here? “Sure, you can put the bastard up for adoption but *objections objections objections* so you see, you don’t really have a choice but to accept child support.”

  101. craig says:

    Evan Turner says:
    1 abortion
    2 adoption
    3 forced marriage
    4 legally disown daughter
    5 child support

    There is a sixth option: automatic legal custody goes to the one supporting the child, presumptively the father. This has the benefit of echoing the ancient understanding that new members are joined to a family when (a) a man takes on responsibility for supporting another, and (b) the surrounding society correspondingly acknowledges his authority over his charge. The two elements are equally present in marriages, births, and adoptions. Without both of those elements of paterfamilias, the family bond can only ever be a legal fiction and not a real thing.

    So if an unwed mother wants to keep the bastard, she gets the burden of supporting it herself. If neither wants the bastard, it becomes a ward of the state for adoption. This is sub-optimal and sad for any child unwanted by both parents, but it is not objectively worse than the present status quo in such cases.

  102. James says:

    I don’t think Evan is a troll, I think he just doesn’t get it. Dense, beta male, GenX, low capacity to reason that is more common in recent generations, because they just don’t clearly understand cause and effect? That I can believe about Evan.

  103. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘See any comparison here? “Sure, you can put the bastard up for adoption but *objections objections objections* so you see, you don’t really have a choice but to accept child support.”

    And let’s not forget how many single mothers bring in ‘boyfriends’ who could also abuse said children on her baby daddy’s expense. Or the single mother could just end up killing the children too.

    Any bad scenerio Evan can come up with, I can come up with too. Boxer’s blog is a bevy of those stories.

  104. earlthomas786 says:

    Anytime there’s a kidnapping story in the news…first thing I look for is if the mother is single and has a boyfriend. 9 times out of 10…he or they killed the kid and are covering it up

  105. feeriker says:

    Even “conservative” Texas grants a women in a long term marriage alimony (called spousal support to claim it is not that) even

    I LOL at Southern states that call themselves “Conservative” and “Christian.” Having lived in a half dozen of them, including Texas, I can say with complete conviction that they differ not at all from the rest of the country except in their sanctimonious posturing (and their inhabitants are rather friendlier than much of the rest of the country).

  106. feeriker says:

    Child support is not biblical and should not be supported by Christians. It’s tantamount to supporting fornication, bastardy, and divorce. It literally works in opposition to the biblical model of the family.

    More than a few cowardly pastors I’ve dealt with in the past have weasled their way out of confronting this by playing the “but that’s what the State demands and we have to obey the State” canard.

  107. Anonymous Reader says:

    Evan Turner
    You won’t answer my question. As for some of thr commentators who believe it’s an unfair “gotcha’ question it is not.

    Your “have you stopped beating your wife” question has been answered. On the off chance that you are not just another lying troll, here’s another.

    In real life I have seen multiple solutions, including the quiet abortion that “we don’t talk about”.

    Two are obvious:
    1. Bear the child and give him / her up for adoption. I have seen both sides of this in my social world. There are churchgoing families lined up ready to accept such a baby, healthy or not.

    2. Bear the child, take it home and raise it with the help of grandparents.

    The third option is rare: bear the child, move out of the family home to subsidized housing, find out the father won’t marry her, do a very intense online search to find a man who will marry.

    None of these require child support of the sort that you praise.

    You, Evan, talk like a 2nd stage feminist over 40 years of age. That’s how clueless you are about the real world.

  108. Opus says:

    Gotcha questions which are of the heads I win tales you lose variety always start with certain unspoken assumptions, but they can lead the questioneer into asking an absurdity. We had an example of that last week when the Channel 4 Feminazi Ms Newman asked Jordan Peterson whether he thought we should run society on the basis of Lobsters. [shaking muh head]

    On the previous thread I had some interesting discussion with Heidi who was most helpful as to the Rent Acts. Rent Acts had been introduced for the best of possible reasons but proved disastrous and I can imagine in the days when they were still in force someone trying the following Gotcha,’so you are saying that we should let people be homeless’ much as when I suggest that the minimum wage is not such a great idea I am met with ‘so because you are rich you want people to starve’.

    Leo Tolstoy a Christian and Pacifist (notwithstanding his time in the Russian Army – fighting the British) was always asked the ‘so if a big bad man foaming at the mouth and wielding a large stick attacks a helpless female child…’ you can fill in the rest. Tolstoy had a lot to say about that.

    Evan. to my mind, is doing likewise.

  109. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Evan

    You are the worst kind of christian beta cuck there is. ‘Child Support’ is evil, it is a satanic system of wealth extraction under the guise of ‘taking care of the children.’ I have paid over $180k in the past seven years in ‘Child Support’ and all while having 50% shared custody of my children. (that doesn’t include ‘spousal maintenance’ which is another $300k) Get out your calculator and figure that one up and tell me that goes for shoes and clothing. Ha.

    A special place in Hell exists for her and all of the supporters of the evil system including you.

  110. Emperor Constantine says:

    The child support situation is even worse than you think.

    I know one case where a father of 4 had to pay about half his after-tax income in child support to a former spouse, for one child. That’s right: the former spouse got 1/2 his income, while his other 5 dependents split the remaining half. So not only does it discourage family formation, it acts as a boat anchor for fathers who are trying to restart their lives by creating new families.

  111. ManlyMan says:

    Evan, did you stop beating your wife?

  112. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    You are the worst kind of christian beta cuck there is.

    Are we sure that Evan isn’t motivated by his physical usage of the single mothers in his area?

    I know a great many men who adopt this sort of posture. They do so because it’s a way to sublimate the shame they feel, for slumming around with single moms on dating sites, taking them out to Denny’s on regular occasions, and then using them for sex (while their fatherless kids are sleeping in the same room, in many cases). Being married or a father himself does not negate this possibility (in fact, many married men use single moms this way).

    Of course this is just speculation, but Mr. Turner seems to fit the profile of an unattractive man with few options, other than bottom-of-the-barrel wimminz.

    Either way it’s astoundingly funny to see him shill for this nonsense here.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  113. Bill says:

    The reality of the Orwellian-named “child support” is even worse than you think. See:
    http://www.realworlddivorce.com/ChildSupportLitigationWithoutMarriage

  114. earlthomas786 says:

    Morons.

    Why do states financially reward what was traditionally considered bad-for-children behavior? “It took sociologists a long time to come around to the view that two-parent families were good for children on average. One reason is that they thought that social institutions are inherently oppressive things: Traditional marriage is necessarily coercive, and it stymied our liberty and freedom and it was an institution that promoted gender inequality,” noted Jon Shields, a professor of Government at Claremont McKenna College, in The Atlantic (April 30, 2016).

  115. earlthomas786 says:

    Marriage and divorce may fade from the American landscape, but family court litigation will endure as long as it remains profitable to have an out-of-wedlock child. With shared parenting becoming the norm nationwide, while unlimited child support guidelines stay in place, the trend will be men tapping working women.

    How about chastity? There’s more than enough evidence now that women are using their promiscuity to enslave men via the state. They don’t even need marriage anymore to do that.

  116. Pingback: Rebuild respect for men to end the gender wars

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 )

Connecting to %s

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