Our family policy is designed to terrify married fathers.

While the claim is that our family courts are primarily driven by the best interest of children, in reality they tend to focus instead on transferring power and wealth from men to women.  When considering the family courts, it is critical to understand that they don’t just impact the unfortunate families they destroy.  The goal is to undermine all married fathers, who see that the family courts stand ready to take their children away from them and send them a bill for the pleasure.

The term social scientists use for this is bargaining in the shadow of the law, and the use of the family courts to weaken married fathers is an open secret.  Economists Stevenson and Wolfers describe this in their paper Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress (emphasis mine).

In the literature on the economics of the family there has been growing consensus on the need to take bargaining and distribution within marriage seriously. Such models of the family rely on a threat point to determine distribution within the household. The switch to a unilateral divorce regime redistributes power in a marriage, giving power to the person who wants out, and reducing the power previously held by the partner interested in preserving the marriage.

For an example of this see the paper Do joint custody laws improve family well-being?  by Martin Halla, a professor of economics at the Johannes Kepler University Linz.  The paper opens with:

Joint child custody laws affect not only divorced families but intact families as well.

Halla focuses on the implications of moving towards a joint custody model.  For the purpose of this post, I’m more interested in the perspective of the author than I am in the paper’s findings*.  Number one in the “cons” of joint custody is that it weakens the threatpoint wives can use to gain power over their husbands:

The introduction of joint custody reforms reinforces the traditional division of labor within the family and gives men greater bargaining power over the intrahousehold allocation of resources.

Another “con” that stands out is the fact that the study didn’t find an effect on women’s suicide rates:

Joint custody reforms have had no robust, long-term effect on female suicide rates.

I’m assuming Halla isn’t expressing disappointment that women’s suicide rates didn’t increase.  What I think this bizarre statement boils down to is a complaint that joint custody decreases men’s suicide rate (listed as a pro) without decreasing women’s suicide rate (listed as a con).  In a sane world that would be seen as a positive without a corresponding downside, not a pro and a con.

At any rate, the takeaway from both items is the same.  When the family courts crush men it is according to plan, and they fully understand the devastation they are meting out to men in the process.  They don’t want men to commit suicide, but they know that in order to generate the kind of fear they want to instill they have to inflict extreme brutality on the men who are made examples of.

In closing his Author’s Main Message Halla advises policy makers to be careful when changing custody laws to avoid the negative consequences he found in the study (number one being lessening the coercive power of wives by reducing men’s fear of losing their children):

Policymakers should acknowledge that regulating families’ post-divorce life may affect intact families and try to minimize any unintended negative consequences.

He further elaborates in Summary and Policy Advice (emphasis mine):

Joint custody laws affect both intact and non-intact families in substantial ways. A very crude description is that joint custody improves men’s bargaining position within marriage, enforces traditional gender roles, and leads on average to worse outcomes for children. A more detailed account would contrast these clearly negative and unintended effects with positive effects on other outcome variables (such as lower male suicide rates and less domestic violence)…

Despite the negative effects of joint custody on some family outcomes, abolishing it may not be a desirable policy option….

To predict the effects of a planned reform, it would be important to assess how the relative bargaining positions of spouses will be affected. This can be approximated by checking how the reform affects the well-being of each partner in the case of a potential divorce. The party who will benefit from the reform will gain power within the marriage.

*See Larry Kummer’s caution on papers like this here.

Related:  Debtors prisons are an essential tool of our new public policy.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Child Custody, Disrespecting Respectability, Economics, Larry Kummer, Threatpoint, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

114 Responses to Our family policy is designed to terrify married fathers.

  1. earl says:

    So it seems family courts are nothing more than ‘crushing the patriarchy’ in plain sight and punishing men who become husbands and fathers into criminals if the wife gets the whim to pull the trigger.

    With that setup you’ve basically removed any incentive a guy has to get married.

  2. This is a powerful and important analysis! As Dalrock has long said, State-enforced child support (paid for by fathers and taxpayers) is the cornerstone of the new American family system.

    The family system-that-once-was did not die. We killed it. To see some of the history – and the bleak numbers about the present (Dalrock pointed to it on Nov 8):

    Becoming a post-marriage America: see the stories!
    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/11/08/progress-to-a-post-marriage-america-see-the-great-numbers/

  3. My mistake! The post I wanted to point to was:

    Child support payments create the new American family
    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/01/27/child-support-is-the-new-family/

  4. Fnu Mnu Lnu says:

    The courts can only instill fear, in to those who care.

  5. The most interesting thing to me about court ordered child support is that according to the US Census Bureau, about 44% of all child support orders are paid IN FULL:
    https://media.deseretdigital.com/file/8828864967?crop=top:0|left:0|width:300&quality=100&resize=width:300&order=resize,crop&c=14&a=60159a39

    Of course, most people are cynical on this subject, and will immediately scoff at that result while thoughts of “goddamn those dead beat dads!!!” fire away on all synapses.

    But holy crap, 44%!!??
    That is FREAKING INCREDIBLE PERFORMANCE within an $115 billion dollar per year court ordered child support industry apparatus that has been in place for decades.
    In 1993, only 35% of child support orders were paid in full. Bill Clinton’s reformative laws in 1994, etc. changed the success rates by increasing incentives (legal threats of imprisonment).
    25% of all child support orders get paid partially.
    And 31% of all child support order get bumpkis ($0).

    The rhetoric of “dead beat dads” doesn’t make much sense if north of 60% of all fathers (93% of all child support is paid by males) are either paying such orders in full or making an effort for partial payments.

    Of course, there is far more to properly supporting and raising children than being relegating to little more than an Automated Teller Machine (ATM).

    But I agree 100% that no man should agree to get married anymore in the current legal climate of no fault divorce, 95% of all fathers paying child support (unaudited, funds can be used for junk food, car payments, vacations, handbags and pumps), 95% of all husbands paying alimony/spousal maintenance (in some states for her lifetime), 95% of all child custody awards going to the mother and the complete and utter lack of enforcement of visitation rights.

    Even without the overt criminalization and financial annihilation of ex-husbands, the incentives and benefits to men for marrying a woman today are underwhelming at best. This is especially true in current year when men cannot convince young, healthy, attractive and unfettered women aged 18-25 to marry, and must instead select from a pool of recalcitrant 28-45 year old high-mileage, high notch count retreads to be wives and mothers of their children.

    The problem with marriage is that women and the church cannot sell it anymore. You ask them for the value proposition, and you know what tell you? Shaming language about what an irresponsible, loser, momma’s boy you are.

    So yeah, maybe back to the drawing board, because the value proposition of marriage needs a lot of work.

  6. Link: https://media.deseretdigital.com/file/8828864967?crop=top:0|left:0|width:300&quality=100&resize=width:300&order=resize,crop&c=14&a=60159a39

  7. Also, my “unfettered women aged 18-25” above should have had sarcastic quotes around it.

  8. eriksvane says:

    it would be more correct to speak of plundered pops than deadbeat dads.

    Stephen Baskerville
    in his book “Taken Into Custody”
    (The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family) :
    https://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2008/06/witch-hunts-in-contemporary-america-is.html
    …/… What we confront here is a bureaucratic machine of a kind that has never before been seen in the United States or the other English-speaking democracies. … The implications reach far beyond fathers and even beyond the family itself, for forcibly severing the intimate bond between parents and their children threatens the liberties of all of us. “The right to one’s own children … is perhaps the most basic individual right,” writes Susan Shell, “so basic we hardly think of it.” By establishing a private sphere of life from which the state is excluded, family bonds also serve as the foundation of a free society. “No known society treats the question of who may properly call a child his or her own as simply … a matter to be decided entirely politically as one might distribute land or wealth,” Shell continues.

    … The growth of this machinery has been accompanied by a huge propaganda campaign that has served to justify punitive measures against citizens who are not convicted of any crime. “is there a species on the planet who is more unjustly maligned than fathers?” writes columnist Naomi Lakritz. “Fathers are abusers, bullies, deadbeats, molesters, and all-around sexist clods who have a lot of gall wanting a relationship with their children once the initial moment of conception is over.”

    … The regime of involuntary divorce, forcible removal of children, coerced child support, and knowingly false accusations is now warping our entire legal system, undermining and overturning principles of common law that have protected individual rights for centuries. The presumption of innocence has been inverted

    … Far from simple violations of particular constitutional clauses, these practices and powers are undermining constitutional government in its most fundamental principles. The power to take children from their parents for no reason is arbitrary government at its most intrusive, since it invades and obliterates all of private life. Yet we have created a governmental machinery that exists for no other purpose. …/…

  9. Anonymous Reader says:

    Nice of the authors to make clear what feminist objections to joint custody is really about, and “best interests of the child” is not it. This also clears up why any attempt to shift state laws from “mother default custody” to “joint custody” is met with such fierce opposition from feminists and their “traditional” “conservative” sock puppets.

    Joint custody reforms have had no robust, long-term effect on female suicide rates.

    This really takes the mask right off. Men’s suicide just does not matter to much of anyone. Least of all to feminists.

  10. Jonathan Castle says:

    The Left destroys everything they touch. With marriage they gutted its functioning principles and basic purpose with little national debate. They just rolled out no-fault divorce nationwide in one decade, negating thousands of years of Judeo-Christian marriage practice and culture.

    Its purpose now is to institutionalize hypergamy and solidify a new power hierarchy: government -> women -> men.

    We really shouldn’t dignify their creation by calling it ‘marriage’. It confuses our thinking and subjects ourselves to it. ‘God created marriage’, we say. ‘Marriage’ is good. We should desire to be ‘married’.

    Hypergamiage is more accurate.

  11. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    This really takes the mask right off. Men’s suicide just does not matter to much of anyone. Least of all to feminists.

    I should clarify that the paper lists the reduction of men’s suicide rates as a “pro” for shared custody. But listing no change in women’s suicide rates as a con still shows an appallingly callous attitude. Can anyone imagine the lack of impact on women’s suicide would be a “con” if men’s suicide hadn’t been seen to decrease?

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Dalrock

    1. Thanks for the additional info, I am embarrassed to have commented without at least skimming the original document.

    2. Obviously agree on the attitude.

    3. Fantastic work the last few weeks. Thanks from many people.

  13. thedeti says:

    Number one in the “cons” of joint custody is that it weakens the threatpoint wives can use to gain power over their husbands:

    The introduction of joint custody reforms reinforces the traditional division of labor within the family and gives men greater bargaining power over the intrahousehold allocation of resources.

    And so it’s made clear: The points of the child support/income stream/children to mom model are power and money.

  14. feeriker says:

    by Martin Halla, a professor of economics at the Johannes Kepler University Linz.

    Whenever I see evidence that anything socioeconomic has been published by an academic from any institution located in Western or Central Europe, I automatically assume that’s it’s going to be worthless, left-socialist twaddle. Halla’s academic vomitus appears to be another validation of my assumptions.

  15. Jim says:

    At any rate, the takeaway from both items is the same. When the family courts crush men it is according to plan, and they fully understand the devastation they are meting out to men in the process. They don’t want men to commit suicide, but they know that in order to generate the kind of fear they want to instill they have to inflict extreme brutality on the men who are made examples of.

    This is why MGTOWs have been saying for many years to avoid marriage or procreation. Why do it? You’re nothing but a slave. An ATM machine. A walking wallet. You have ZERO authority and these bitches can just destroy your life any time they feel like it.

    Oh but yeah I know….”You just can’t get laid! You’re gay! You live in mommy’s basement! You’re not alpha enough! You didn’t maintain frame!”

    On some level this kind of 6th grade response is hilarious. And many times it does make me laugh. But at the same time it also pisses me off because everyone is so fucking callous when it comes to the lives of men. Worse, they’re so selfish and cowardly that they’re destroying their own society. Instead of fixing the problem by putting the bitches in their place in a legal sense they’d rather just shame men for not wanting to play a rigged game. You want MGTOW to disappear? Here’s the solution: destroy the criminal family courts and stop treating the authority figure (men) like cattle. Until then MGTOW is only going to grow no matter how much you shame. It’s not rocket science.

  16. Pingback: Our family policy is designed to terrify married fathers. | Reaction Times

  17. Dalrock says:

    I’ve updated the post to make it clear that the author lists a reduction in men’s suicide as a pro. I’ve also added some more astounding quotes from the paper.

  18. Vektor says:

    “Our family policy is designed to terrify married fathers.”

    Yes, it is designed that way. The net effect is the destruction of the social contract between the sexes, the animosity of men vs. women, breakdown of the family, and the associated drop in birth rates.

    Open borders is designed to incite chaos and racial conflict. MSM promotion of the LGBT agenda is designed to promote degeneracy and pedophilia. Socialism is designed to promote class warfare, elimination of individual rights, and the eventual death of millions.

    The Left doesn’t think this is the design of their ‘utopia’, but they are insane. Insane. This will not be solved with democracy.

  19. Lost Patrol says:

    The overriding theme comes across repeatedly as power. Power distribution and redistribution, power reduction, bargaining power, gaining power, which party will have the power; all these and more turn up in only the few small excerpts presented in the OP.

    Lovely picture of modern matrimony they paint there.

  20. dudedont says:

    Joint custody does not mean joint decision making. Child custody court orders make clear the “primary caregiver” is the final decision maker. In most cases (Darlock has those numbers on this blog somewhere) the primary caregiver is the woman. Female final decision maker on: education, religion, extra-curricular activities and pretty much anything else a lawyer can think of. The “primary caregiver” also gets to claim the children as their tax deductions. The separate, but equal male head of household does not get to claim those same tax benefits.

    So, joint custody for what exactly? The joint custodian not given the “primary caregiver” title arguably has no say. All the entitled joint custodian has to do to shut down the lesser joint custodian is not agree. Divorce is a disagreement right?

    Joint custody is like pastors who have an “armor bearer” bring their bible to the podium before they won’t preach on sin.

  21. Anon says:

    Number one in the “cons” of joint custody is that it weakens the threatpoint wives can use to gain power over their husbands:

    This is why Scandinavian feminism (where joint custody is the norm) is considerably less punitive than Anglosphere feminism. Default joint custody without massive CS and imputation greatly reduces the incidence of male suicide.

  22. Anon says:

    Related :

    Brad Wilcucks is at it again, seeing as his sinecure requires him to publish one article per year, even if it is 90% the same as his prior publications.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/04/05/dwayne-rock-johnson-lauren-hashian-baby-marriage-cohabitation-column/478802002/

    He has taken to hectoring individual male celebrities to marry women that they impregnate. No word on how almost every male celebrity, no matter how high-status, has experienced divorce. Never mind that the target of Wilcuck’s disapproval (Dwayne Johnson) has already experienced divorce once.

    Wilcucks’ desire to be hip results in a forced use of pop culture catchphrases in order to force his cuckservative grandstanding.

  23. MCG00 says:

    The term ‘state husbandry’ describes the social order being implemented. Another one ‘state capitalism’ was the order of the supposedly ‘communist’ Soviet Union. They were never ‘communist’ and they never reached Marx’s ideal. They had ‘state capitalism’ where the state owns all the shares and the members of the communist party received the dividends.

    WITH STATE HUSBANDRY, it too is cloaked under ‘feminism’ which like communism is an impossible utopian ideal. Feminists will nev’r see feminism. What they’ll get and what they’re getting now is STATE HUSBANDRY and nothing more.

    So THE STATE is the problem. THE STATE is the worst ilk of beta ambition regimented into a dangerous bureaucracy. They’re A SPONGE that soaks and sucks the lifeblood of the productive and that taxes the mighty of life force. They’re A SCOURGE that grows like fungus. Remove their accolades and their gloss coat and you see your state as BLACK AND GREEN FUNGI. So grab your balls and get a grip western man. A good bleaching of the crevaces and scrubbing of the mildew and grunge is in store for the west.

  24. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I recently learned of Paradise Love, a documentary about female sex tourism in Kenya:

    And while checking its trailer (above), I learned about a Nigerian romance documentary:

    ALL of these Western women seeking love & romance in Africa are obscenely fat and well past their prime. The men are obviously doing it for the money.

  25. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    My mistake. It looks like Paradise Love is scripted fiction. The other one is a documentary, though.

  26. earl says:

    Never mind that the target of Wilcuck’s disapproval (Dwayne Johnson) has already experienced divorce once.

    Both divorce and cohabitation serve the same end…to destabilize the family the children are born into. And the further down the rabbit hole we go…the worst kids growing up in these models will be.

    The combo platter of the divorce industry to vilify marriage and sexual revolution have got us to this point. Children are not meant to be the fruit of the marital union anymore but rather hostages in a legal/financial situation when the women decides to pull the trigger.

    The Rock might have got out of the alimony part by fornicating with this lady…but he won’t get out of the child support if she decides to take the money/kids and run.

  27. Scott says:

    “Dwayne Johnson should put a ring on it — for the kids sake.”

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

    Deep breath.

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

    Whew. That was awesome. Off I go to start my day.

  28. Pingback: The family is dying. Here’s what science tells us about it. - Fabius Maximus website

  29. Caspar Reyes says:

    The courts must have a financial interest in the strip mining of fathers for cash. The legal “industry” certainly does. This is an area that deserves more research. I am not convinced that without that element, things would be more balanced and fair.

    – The court is a corporate entity, with DUNS numbers and bank accounts. Who does your court bank with, or is the court its own bank? In Virginia, the circuit courts are essentially the government’s bank of record, where titles of property are deposited.
    – What is the court’s percentage of child support extracted from victims?
    – What federal money is at stake in assigning and enforcing child support?
    – Etc. I don’t even know all the questions to ask.

  30. thedeti says:

    It bears repeating that Martin Halla’s overall concern is how much power and control the wife has in marriage.

    This is why men are avoiding marriage. It’s not because men don’t want the responsibility. It’s not because men are “afraid of commitment”. It’s not because men are hoarding money and stuff and don’t want to share any of it. It’s not because men do not want to be husbands and fathers.

    Men are avoiding marriage because they have no power at all once they marry.

    Men avoid marriage because men are burdened with crushing responsibility but are not given the concomitant authority to do what needs done and make the decisions that need made.

    Men avoid marriage because literally everyone stands with the wife and against him – even the state. Even the church. Even his employers. Even his own family of origin. EVEN HIS OWN CHILDREN.

    No one will stand with him and insist that a wife do her damn job. Everyone is actively hostile to his marriage and literally encourages, eggs on, and cheerleads the wife’s destruction of the marriage.

    Men avoid marriage because they are held to their responsibilities even after a wife leaves.

    Men avoid marriage because while they take on responsibilities, wives have no responsibilities anymore in marriage – neither for sex for the husband, to take care of the husband, to be good stewards of the resources he provides, nor for anything else.

    Men avoid marriage because even though wives have no responsibilities as wives, a wife has all the authority in her marriage. She has all the de facto authority. The reason a husband has any “authority” is simply because his wife allows him to exercise it or does not exercise it.

    The moment she decides to assert that authority, the State’s enforcement machinery will swing into action. The Church’s shaming and “moral authority” will immediately rise up to crush any dissent. All family, on both sides, will immediately move in to support and “affirm” anything she does. The moment she wills it, large men with guns will arrive to make sure her will is done, and to stomp the guts out of anything opposing her.

    Men avoid marriage because while they are required to honor marital vows, wives are not required to honor anything in their marriages.

    Men avoid marriage because, while he cannot require anything of her, she can require everything of him, even after she destroys the marriage.

  31. feeriker says:

    thedeti says:
    November 14, 2018 at 8:42 am

    One simply wonders for how long and how hard “society’s” nose has to be rubbed in the obvious before the majority wakes up. More importantly, one wonders what spark, what one single camel’s back-breaking event will launch the society-wide revolt that either puts an end to the nonsense once and for all, or that results in the accelerated end of western civilization as productive men walk away from it all.

  32. thedeti says:

    Most men want to marry because, well, that’s really the only way most men can get sex. Most men are happy to take on marital responsibilities, so long as they are getting something out of the marriage too. Most men will gladly shoulder marital burdens, so long as they can expect their wives to shoulder their share of the burdens too. Most men will gladly take on wives and children, so long as they have the authority and power to do what needs done without friction, interference or hassle from the wife or her family.

  33. thedeti says:

    Most men will gladly stay in a decent marriage, so long as they are reasonably assured their wives will stay, too and will not run away or freak out or file for divorce or sic white knight cops on them at the first sign of trouble.

  34. Hmm says:

    OT: Who knew? Your success at love is based on how many partners your mother had…

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6385855/Your-mothers-love-life-determines-romantic-partners-have.html

  35. King Alfred says:

    To any who are interested, I highly recommend Phyllis Schlafly’s book “Who Killed the American Family?” Also, I just started reading Stephen Baskerville’s new book “The New Politics of Sex,” which is very insightful. I already knew there was a war on fathers, but these two books expose the depths of the conspiracy to destroy families. They are simply packed with useful, though deeply troubling, information. I believe the readers here will find them worthwhile.

  36. Anon says:

    Scott,

    It may be useful to add a picture of Brad Wilcox to your article, as there is a ‘physiognomy is real’ element here :

    Yes, Dwayne Johnson, who makes $40M/year and has already been divorced once, should listen to what Brad Wilcucks says (in his one article per year).

  37. DA GBFM lzzzlzloozozozlzlzoz says:

    lzozozozo

    Hey Dalrock! This simple gem of a video spans a lot of topics here:

    Please do share!

    Best,

    Da GBFM

    lzozolzlozolz

  38. Fnu Mnu Lnu says:

    When this song first came out, it made my Ex really upset when I would listen to it:

    I guess it hit too close to home, and how she treated me.

  39. ChristianCool says:

    @Anon is correct. The child support hell only applies to the Middle Class (lower/middle/upper middle classes alike).

    The rich just pay, whatever. No big deal, they will not starve. The poor and the illegal aliens are on welfare, so even if they do not pay, whatever. The State pays all sorts of cash to illegal aliens and their Anchor babies, so child support is kind of irrelevant in that case. The mother of the illegal kids prefer to have a situation where the father of illegal kids does not pay, so they get more welfare for stupid American taxpayers anyway.

    But the middle class gets crushed by child support and divorce. Say an upper-middle class father makes $100k pre-tax per year and has a nice home in suburbs. His wife divorces his hard-working ass to “live it up” with her friends and “YOLO”, whatever. She of course gets full custody, whatever is left of the house post-attorney fees, and almost all their property in divorce.

    Dad loses all his home, savings, and most of his income in divorce to the wife. He has to move into a tiny apartment with 2 roommates. Because he has 3 kids, he has at least HALF of his PRE-TAX INCOME taken ($50,000 per year) for child support and alimony, if not more. Wife gets the $50,000+ tax free, because Dad pays income tax, SS, FICA, SUTA etc taxes on income. -_-

    His post-tax income is less than $25,000 on a good day. Dad gets NO income tax deductions for his wife and 3 kids, she claims that tax credit too, so this guy is living below poverty line, probably with $25,000 or less, post taxes. Dad is now in deep poverty.

    This is the case almost anywhere in world where Feminists created laws that control child support and divorce. In Italy, where FemiNazis re-wrote divorce and child custody laws, millions of fathers/ex-husbands live on streets even as they have full time jobs, just to pay child support, alimony, and other unfair Family Court mandates:

    Then idiots wonder “why are birth rates down?” 🙄 Only an idiot would have kid(s) in a Feminist hell like this.

  40. ChristianCool says:

    A dude like Brad Wilcox only gets women who are 1’s and 2’s, 3’s if he receives a miracle and only if he has a convertible Beamer and a rolex.

    I would not be surprised to see a headline “Brad Wilcox gets arrested for soliciting prostitution”. This is the type of Beta Cuckservative that tells other men to “buck up and marry a slut” and then goes to hookers.

  41. Gary Eden says:

    Joint custody is a false hope. Even if we had that in all divorces we’d still see the continued destruction of marriage, families and children.

    There is only one real solution. Full custody to the father in all cases. If the woman wants kids, let her have them on her own without a man (or his cash). No woman should be allowed to defraud a man by leaving the marriage and taking his children or wealth. If she leaves, it should only ever be empty handed unless he does not want the children.

    Anything less will be the death of us.

  42. thedeti says:

    Christian Cool:

    Behold, Mrs. Danielle Wilcox, Brad’s wife.

    They have 7 kids, at the time this video was made she was pregnant with an 8th, evidently.

    I’ve seen a video (it might be this one, I don’t remember) where Mrs. Wilcox talked about how she and her husband met and eventually married. As I remember she talks about having to push and prod him more than a little to get him to get married, or even to, well, think about it very much.

    Danielle Wilcox is probably about the best that a man like Brad Wilcox can do. Objectively, he has status. He’s an associate professor at a top university, the director of a nationally renowned think tank, and a sought after expert on marriage and parenting.

    One of the reasons he’s a sought after expert is because he represents the current zeitgeist and conventional wisdom on marriage. And it’s all what the girls want to hear. “Marriage is failing because men don’t want to get married, they’re all “Six Pack Craigs” having indiscriminate sex with girls and partying nonstop. Men aren’t getting married because men are afraid of commitment and don’t want to give up the neverending booze and babes party train that ALL MEN are riding. Families are failing because of high divorce rates; and these marriages would stay together if these men would just man up and do what their wives tell them to do.”

    The problem isn’t that Wilcox is evil or stupid. He just knows so much that isn’t so. He sees these problems, but doesn’t see where they’re coming from and doesn’t see women’s role in it. He doesn’t hold women to account for:

    –having multiple sex partners before marriage and rendering themselves unable to be attracted to the men who will marry them

    –their lack of contentment with what they have and thus ruining their own lives and those of their husbands and children

    –failing to rein in their own hypergamous natures (yes, hypergamy is there, but it can be controlled and harnessed)

    –their inability or unwillingness to grow the F up, woman up, take responsibility for their own selves, and act like the wives and mothers they agreed to be

  43. dudedont says:

    Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson’s manager is his ex-wife…who is now legally married to another man. They have a daughter together.

    She’s set up to get child support from Dwayne and a percentage from The Rock.

    The world is a lie.

  44. ChristianCool says:

    I largely agree with that @Gary Eden, but the only way to fix that would be a radical change in the State legislatures and Governors of every single State would be required to prevent women from moving and “court shopping” between States before she files for divorce and cashes in her man’s wealth and future earnings. As of Nov 2018, every single State’s “Family Courts” operate under the assumption that during “division of joint/marital property”, that all children are the property of the mother/wife/woman. It is standard, automatic, and barring some highly unusual circumstance, guaranteed.

    So unless we had RADICAL, mas-scale sweeping changes in State Legislatures, the chance of that happening is probably less likely than winning the Power Ball and Mega Millions in the same week. I much rather buy the tickets, since there is NO one, not even a single candidate or current-office holder for either State office or Governor campaigning on this issue. Divorce/child custody laws are State-based, btw.

    This is why child birth rates by Americans is extremely low. Only an idiot of a middle class man would marry and/or have a kid with a woman today. The risk of financial ruin and prison is huge and the benefits are almost zero, unless your kid grows up to be extraordinary and the woman does not ruin the child and your relationship with the child.

    Cost vs Benefit, given the risks is a no-brainer. Having a kid and/or getting married is a stupid deal for a man, because the chance that these misandrist laws and courts will ever chance is probably zero.

  45. Fnu Mnu Lnu says:

    Alimony will no longer be tax deductible for the person paying.

    Just how much more damage does the government want to do to people?

  46. thedeti says:

    Wilcox doesn’t seem to understand what the “average” man is in early 21st century America.

    He’s late 20s with some college, maybe a Bachelor’s degree. He works as a paper pusher in a cubicle, or as an apprentice or journeyman. He doesn’t live in Malibu or midtown Manhattan. He lives in Chicago or Omaha or Des Moines or Indianapolis or Phoenix or Queens or the suburbs of Philly or DC or San Bernardino. His parents divorced when he was 14; he spent his high school years living with his mom, his older sister and younger brother in a 3 bedroom house his mom bought after she and his dad sold the house in the settlement. He saw his dad every other weekend; doesn’t have much of a relationship with him now.

    He’s working 40 to 50 hours a week or more at a job to support himself. He has a boss riding his ass every other day. His life is deadlines and appointments and places to be for work. He has a car payment on his used Honda Accord. He has a checking account and a credit card that he takes care of himself.

    He’s got a 2 bedroom walkup apartment he rents in a decent part of town. (If he lives in California, he’s barely making rent and lives with at least one roommate.) He has a couple of friends he keeps in touch with from college and a few acquaintances he meets now and then. He dates now and then, from the online service or through some friends, but nothing really great. He broke up with a girl from college a couple of years ago; he took it pretty hard and still kind of isnt’ over it. He hasn’t had sex since he had a 3 month exclusive thing last year that she ended. He has a lifetime N of 6 – composed of two relationships, one ONS, and three short termers that just didn’t work out. He has kind of a hard time meeting girls because there’s really nothing all that distinguishing about his look. He’s pretty nondescript – average height, average weight, kind of flabby, decent but not great hair. He approaches sometimes, gets rejected 95% of the time. He gets a date now and then, but it never really goes anywhere. He doesn’t really want to get married, but he probably would if the right girl came along.

    Compare him to Six Pack Craig. Are we all going to believe that Six Pack Craig is an “average” guy? And are we to believe that this “average” guy I just described is going to be bedding all sorts of women all the time?

    Dr. Wilcox doesn’t understand that the “average” guy is getting NEXT TO NOTHING when it comes to women. He squats beneath incredible money and social pressures. He’s got a job to work. It kicks his ass every day. He’s slowly, one day at a time, having his soul sucked out of him. But Wilcox thinks the “average” guy’s life is neverending awesomeness.

    Let me tell you – a 95% rejection rate is NOT “awesome”. Having your soul sucked out of you through your job is NOT “awesome”. Being unable to attract women and not knowing why is not “awesome”. Being told that this is ALL your fault that some slut somewhere can’t find a man to marry her is NOT “awesome”.

  47. ChristianCool says:

    @TheDeti

    Mrs. Wilcox has short hair, plain-looking, Adams-family sexy style of clothing…. terrible make-up. I could not get it up with her at all. LOL 😀 How old is she anyway?

    His salary and status as a Professor just means she can threaten him with divorce more effectively (she can claim marital rape and he gets fired same day, good bye) and she can literally take 90% of his income in child support and alimony.

    8 kids is insane… I wonder how many are genetically his (they are all legally his, since he would be force to pay child support for all 8 regardless of biological-connections), but whatever. 😉
    My maternal grandmother is pure northern Italian stock and she was one of 16 children. But that was back in the early 20th century, a much more agrarian society, where divorce rape and child support abuse was non-existent.

    Wilcox is what we call a Cuckservative. He dreams of the 1950s when it is clearly 2018. And what is so funny is that women created/promoted/demanded 100% of the mess we have today, from FemiNazism to unfair family laws to frivolous divorce rape laws to rape hysterias to the hook-up culture.

    And what is more, marriage and/or child(ren) = financial slavery for life. You have to be insane, uninformed, or truly ideological to get married or have a kid with a woman in a Feminist hellhole like we have today. It is a legal, criminal, and financial trap.

    Only a moron would buy the cow when he can get all the milk he wants for free.

  48. John James R. says:

    Christian Cool,

    What a rundown of post divorce life for a guy making 6 figs. To make 6 figs, he’ll have to have an urban address way more often than not. So after rent, util., gas, etc, he’s got about 14 bucks a month discretionary spending. Nice deal. He’ll have to watch minority females rocket past him at his company too in terms of promotion.

    Somewhere, a guy in the ‘sphere once made the comment/observation that these days you see a lot of middle-aged white men working on the weekends at Costco/Best Buy/PetSmart/Walmart etc. running shopping carts, stocking shelves, etc. You don’t really notice but if you do, it’s like, “what’s he doing here?”

    These are guys losing their weekends to scrabble together another 300-400 bucks a month after tax just to simply buy themselves a sixer on occasion, play a round of golf etc. They get a weekend job and hope their ex never finds out and sues them for a piece of it. I don’t how, but as of yet, those added part-time jobs can sometimes evade the financial microscope of family courts. At least until the next hearing. They must have to schedule their day of quitting to mesh with their next scheduled hearing.

  49. ChristianCool says:

    @TheDeti said:

    “He’s got a 2 bedroom walkup apartment he rents in a decent part of town. (If he lives in California, he’s barely making rent and lives with at least one roommate.)”

    I know a police officer (Deputy Sheriff, 4 years in the force) and he lives in an RV in this “mobile city” in California. He is trying to become a refugee and come here to the USA and I am helping him relocate. He cannot take it anymore. It takes him 2.5 hours to drive 10 miles to court when he has to testify in a case in the hell we call Kommiefornia. He is done, he said to me he will either come to the USA and have a normal life or he will have to become corrupt and have a decent life where he is at, but he cannot take it anymore.

    No ex-wife, no kids, no dependents, no college debt. The guy lives in poverty due to exceedingly high cost of living and high taxes in California. I have seen pics of his RV, he has neighbors in this “mobile city” in CA and his neighbors are teachers, firemen, computer programmers…. the “middle class” of California.

    But you are right Deti, the “average guy” is not Joe-six-pack-abs. He is more like you have described…. sadly. :-/ And the obese and lazy bitches he meets laugh at “average guy” you describe, expecting to be swept off their feet and marry some rich Hollywood actor or a self-made millionaire or an independently wealthy philanthropist who gives to her favorite charity, TimesUp or OpenBordersUSA or some leftist crap like that. The expectations of Western women are absurd and insane.

    The reality of life in the West today is grim and it will only get worse. This is why I decided not having any kids and never marrying again. As one of my friends said “only a moron becomes widowed and marries again, only to fail the second time and lose everything he has”.

    If you want a 6-pack, man up, and take ‘roids. Seriously, get some Winstrol and get to the gym, you will get shredded real quick. Then you can get hole for free.

  50. ChristianCool says:

    @John James R.

    Very true to pull $100k a year pre-tax, he would have to be in a premium situation for sure. Most people live with much less than that.

    It is not just middle aged white men working at retail on weekends. I see them delivering boxes for OnTrac at 10:30pm at night ALL THE TIME!!! 😮 I say “what’s he doing here?” to intelligent men working retail all the time. 😦 I saw one at Publix just last week (Publix is a grocery store like Food Lion, Kroger, Safeway, etc).

    Honesty, makes me very sad. It used to be high school kids at grocery stores and Walmart… now it is middle age and elderly people.

    The reason these PT jobs on weekend evade family courts is because of the “temporary nature” of the jobs and they cannot be counted as reliable income. If the wife’s lawyer (often a rookie assistant State attorney – free for her) gets suspicious, they can file a request with court to have you turn in all paystubs for a calendar year and income tax transcripts and that allows them to see these PT temp jobs. The way many guys get caught with PT jobs is failure to pay ordered child support/alimony. That triggers assistant state attorney to get subpoenas to see the dad’s bank account, taxes, etc – then you get caught. :-/

    When I was working as Paralegal before, I often suggested Americans to get a job in construction but say they are from Estonia and illegal and get paid cash. 😉 They can also work as Handymen, landscaping, janitorial, or housekeeping – all cash under the table, no tax, no family court monitoring!!! Then take the cash and buy stuff or get money orders to pay his own bills.

    The illegal aliens do that and they get massive welfare (since they have no/low verifiable income) and get paid cash on the side and live large. Only American fools play by the rules today. The system is so rigged against us, we have to make-do to survive and even thrive. But playing by Feminist rules is the way to fail and lose.

    This is why I refuse to marry again. My late wife and I worked way too hard for what we had and now I am stable and enjoying a stable situation. To re-marry and throw this all away is dumb and insulting to my late wife and to my own intelligence. Only way to win the feminist divorce-rape scam is not to play that game at all.

  51. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Damn, botched the formatting on that post. Feel free to delete it and run this one instead.

    @Dalrock
    But listing no change in women’s suicide rates as a con still shows an appallingly callous attitude. Can anyone imagine the lack of impact on women’s suicide would be a “con” if men’s suicide hadn’t been seen to decrease?

    Slightly OT, but after seeing your comment about how these guys deliberately overlooked a statistic that favored the men so that they could continue a program that was run at their detriment I was immediately reminded of a piece I’d just read that pulled a similar stunt. It was in Christianity Today, and it sounded the alarm on a disturbing new statistical trend: Apparently churchgoing demographics have shifted to the point where now there are almost as many men attending as women. That’s a bad thing. Very bad:

    Since the church’s inception, women have long been its backbone—leading, serving, and suffering for Jesus in admirable ways. For decades, the church in the West has experienced similar trends—a trend that saw far more women involved in the local church than their male counterparts.

    Over the past 30 years, that trend has shifted. A 2016 Pew Survey highlighted the narrowing gender gap in religious service attendance between 1982 and 2002.

    In 1982, over two times the number of women attended religious services at least once a week than men. Over a 30-year period, however, the gender gap has decreased from a 13-point gap to a 6-point gap. Similar trends occur among religiously affiliated women. The Pew Research found that the rise of Religious Nones and behavior changes among women who say they are religious contributed significantly to that decline.

    You might find it tragic to learn that up until now the church had spent decades failing to effectively bring the message of Christ to men. But if that bothers you, it’s only because you don’t have the compassion and expertise that the author does. And fortunately, he knows exactly the solution that will attract the women back so that once again, the church will have a gender disparity that is both good and proper:

    One must wonder if that decline tells a story that includes frustration and disappointment with the way women have been treated in their church context. Over the past several years, we’ve heard evidence of that frustration and disappointment. Local churches around our nation have seen and heard from women who have experienced sexual violence, harassment, or physical and emotional abuse in some form.

    And some local churches were either ill-equipped or ill-intentioned in their response to these voices.

    Could these actions have contributed to this quiet exodus of women from churches? Could these actions have created a new category of Religious Nones who associate Christ’s Bride with patriarchal apathy?

    One might also wonder how it was that the church’s women ended up being victims of “patriarchy” when they were already in an environment in which they outnumbered the men in massive numbers, and one which also tends to do a pretty good job of repelling most men — as the author admitted himself. But I’ll give him this: He’s caught on to the reality that Pound #MeToo is currently such an effective tool for squeezing men that even the church can use it.

    Recently, the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College announced that it would host its Great Commission, Great Commandment—GC2—Summit on December 13th at Wheaton College. The one-day event seeks to challenge and inspire pastors, leaders, and lay Christians to address sexual violence and start to think through ways to move the body of Christ toward healing.

    . . . . I do have one concern. While we have seen a groundswell of support from women on the necessity of an event like this, we haven’t seen the same enthusiasm from men.

    This event is as much for men as it is for women, if not more so. Men need to attend because it shows our sisters we are listening and want to take steps to acknowledge and address their pain.

    There are some real, hard truths that men need to hear. We need to think through ways in which some have unknowingly created cultures conducive to the forms of abuse that Scripture condemns. We need to think through ways in which women have felt neglected in our local church settings. Most of all, we need to hear the pain others have felt, often suffering in silence before now.

    It’s a win-win scenario! If this works, then the remaining men in the church will be in their rightful place, bowing to the will of the church’s women. And if those men choose to walk away, then the church will once again have the gender imbalance that the author told us was such a great thing at the start of his article. Never mind that it will also be considerably smaller.

    And the church can go back to its old pattern of never giving a second thought to the vast numbers men on the outside that they were completely inept at reaching with their so-called gospel.

    Link to the CT article is here: https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2018/november/summit-on-sexual-violence.html

  52. Gary Eden says:

    @ChristianCool

    That the task seems impossible does not change the necessity of it. Furthermore, such things can change in a hurry.The change to this way happened fairly rapidly.

    You also have to remember that the present system is a consequence of our own rebellion against God. “Women and children are their rulers” is the world we live in; and that was punishment for turning away from God.

    If repentance comes, a lot can and will change in a hurry.

  53. ChristianCool says:

    @Gary

    When I see LEGAL (statutory) changes take place, I will consider marring again. But right now, marrying a woman and/or having a child is, by far, two of the worst things a man can do. It is guaranteed court-enforced work slavery, prison for disobeying or if she wants the house in the divorce, and financial servitude for life.

    The only way to win Feminist’s rigged game is not to play their game at all. Anything else is folly.

    One of my friends just texted me last week and said he had a “baby on the way” from his live-in GF and he was contemplating suicide. He said he does not want a child no matter what and cannot afford a child…. and his relationship with his live-in GF was “rocky at best”.

    Turns out, it is worse than I thought between he and this girl and like every mentally-insane woman, she thinks bringing in an expensive, needy, crying, messy little human who will keep you awake all night into this situation is a “great way” to help their relationship. *smacks own forehead* 🙄

    I spent 3 days with this guy on the phone…. 29 year old guy contemplating suicide rather than even give it a chance out of fear for what is going to happen next.

    Just a sad state of affairs.

  54. Gary Eden says:

    @ChristianCool

    I’m not telling you to marry. I am simply talking about what must be done to fix our current mess. If you are not called to take on a wife and children then I would not recommend it at all.

    But someone must take on that challenge, or we might as well just all commit mass suicide. Its the same in the end either way.

  55. ChristianCool says:

    @Gary Eden

    I took on the challenge when I was 22 years old with plans to have kids, but my wife passed away a couple years ago (no kids, thank God – can you imagine having child or children and them losing their mom?!?) 😦

    Now I am going on 37 in 2018 and although I briefly had a moment of insanity and I actually considered re-marrying after she passed. But I never did, of course and looking back now, I am so incredibly glad I did not re-marry. I get to keep the fruits of our labor and effort and I have an amazing life, I do a lot of fun stuff, and I still get women on the side when I have the patience to pursue them. To think that I do not have to worry about handing some entitled useless bitch my house and car so she can go “Eat Pray Love” on my dime while I am in jail because of a false criminal accusation by the woman (so she can steal my house in a divorce) is absolutely priceless.

    Marriage is for fools. I am so glad I had male friends that saved me from a moment of temporary mental insanity when grieving for my beloved spouse. I will always be grateful for my male friends for snapping me out of it. So anyway……

    On a different subject…. While I was searching for that article above about the EU (mainly Italian) fathers living on the street to support kids and cheating whore of an ex-wife thanks to European egregiously feminist family court system of mass theft via child support and alimony, I saw this article in the NYT, a publication I never ever look at:

    While I despise the NYT, they have a good point in the above article called “The Huxley Trap”, one that I myself find myself struggling with from time to time.

    It is a LOT of time + work to do approaches on women and to go online and chat with some women on a dating site. Many times I have to “force myself” to go out with a woman whose # I got earlier that week. Many times I will text and set a date and then “battle myself” so I do not cancel the date and just chill out at home or going to the gym that night or cancel with the woman and go out with friends to do something fun. I mean is it “fun” to have to make small talk with a woman I do not know and run game on her? -_- Not for me, I do it with a purpose in mind, of course.

    It is no doubt much easier to chill in my comfortable home, or do something actually fun, like meeting a couple guys at Dave & Busters. Anything except having to make any effort to “go on a date”, which many times can be a huge waste of time if she turns out to be a flake or only to find out the woman I gamed earlier that week turns out to be much less attractive naked…. >_< So yeah….

    The huge amount of effort on meeting a woman on a date to go for a bang that may or may not happen is too much compared to the benefits of a 1-minute rush if I close the deal that night. Cost of time, cash, energy, schedule date, get car ready, having to make small talk, pretend to be interested, etc VS the benefits gained from going to a date are obviously in the favor of NOT meeting the woman, even after spending time gaming her in person and getting her number and all that, are obvious.

    The effort needed to game a woman vs what you get out of it only made sense when we had no other alternatives. Nowadays, there is so much to do and enjoy in life, spending time gaming women is a waste of time, in comparison. I am sorry that is just true, I am sorry if women may seem insulted by this reality.

    And the device the article is talking about is a Tenga Cup and they are amazing, actually, I kid you not. They come pre-lubbed and I have used it before to "clear my head" before going on a date. It is amazing how clear-headed a man can be if not pent-up.

    Other than the sexual relief I need, most women are a huge waste of my time and are not good company anyway… many are a pain in the a$$ or are bitchy and entitled. It is rare when I meet a woman who has any of my common interests, so I have to minimize her presence in my life as much as possible, so I can focus on things I like to do.

    Modern women provide so little value for a man that a Tenga and Internet access can provide the same relief a woman can provide, but with much less effort/cost…. then, what is the rationale of trying to even game women?? The article is right on that point for sure.

    Just sayin'.

  56. thedeti says:

    Since the church’s inception, women have long been its backbone—leading, serving, and suffering for Jesus in admirable ways.

    Really? So St. Paul, St. Peter, the Apostles, the martyrs, and doctors of the church are chopped liver.

    For decades, the church in the West has experienced similar trends—a trend that saw far more women involved in the local church than their male counterparts.

    No, women pretty much ran men out of church, saying “not fair” and “you’re not being nice to us” and “sexist” and “we can do it better”.

    I note no involvement from the Roman Catholic Church. Priests and others can molest boys by the tens of thousands and no one bats an eye. But some woman somewhere in some nondenom gets asked out one too many times, and everyone loses their minds.

    Are these people saying that women are being molested, assaulted, raped, and sexually harassed at churches? By whom? Or are they saying that women were reporting to their pastors being assaulted or raped by nonchurch members, and… what? The pastor wasn’t sensitive enough? The men didn’t believe her? What exactly is the complaint? Who is doing all this harassment? And what is it?

    I strongly suspect this is unattractive men asking women out on dates, and women complaining, and men in the church not being responsive enough to stop it. That’s what this is. This is little more than “uggos and weirdos and freaks at church are asking us out on dates, and we don’t like it, and you Men in the Church need to put a stop to it. Because asking women out is rape — if we aren’t attracted to you. If you talk to me and I’m not attracted to you, you have raped me.”

    We’ve gone from the nuclear rejection to #ChurchToo.

  57. thedeti says:

    I dunno. I mean, I kind of thought The New Testament was the backbone of the church.

    I kind of thought Christ laid the foundation (and the backbone) of the Church when He said this to Simon Peter:

    “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven….”

    I thought THAT was the backbone of the Church. Literally, the Rock. Backbone.

  58. Emperor Constantine says:

    OT

    News flash for Team Dalrock:

    Latest US census numbers on average age of first marriage: the average age has gone up almost TWO YEARS since 2010. That is incredible. For men, average age of first marriage is almost 30 now (29.8), and for women, almost 28 (27.8). That means by 2020 for men the age of first marriage will be >30.

  59. Gunner Q says:

    ChristianCool @ 12:57 pm:
    “I know a police officer (Deputy Sheriff, 4 years in the force) and he lives in an RV in this “mobile city” in California. He is trying to become a refugee and come here to the USA and I am helping him relocate. He cannot take it anymore. It takes him 2.5 hours to drive 10 miles to court when he has to testify in a case in the hell we call Kommiefornia.”

    Is that San Jose? I bought my first tree house there for $15k, Five years later, it’s worth $800k. I’m a wealthy genius and life is great! /sarc

    @ 1:24pm:
    “One of my friends just texted me last week and said he had a “baby on the way” from his live-in GF and he was contemplating suicide. He said he does not want a child no matter what and cannot afford a child…. and his relationship with his live-in GF was “rocky at best”.”

    You fight the good fight, ChristianCool. A few years ago, I talked a coworker out of aborting his kid for the same reason. Last I saw, he was proud of his six-year-old son.

    He didn’t mention the mother and I didn’t bring her up. These days, that’s not polite.

    Gary Eden @ 1:14 pm:
    “You also have to remember that the present system is a consequence of our own rebellion against God.”

    No, the present system is a consequence of THEIR rebellion against God. We don’t kill children. We don’t tear marriages apart in blasphemous parodies of anarcho-tyranny. Not even when we believed their lies were we that evil.Our troubles are THEIR fault, not ours.

    Why would the feminists and socialists stop doing evil? For them, it’s fun and profitable and then they die happy before the butcher’s bill comes.

  60. Gary Eden says:

    We decided to follow traditions and men rather than God. We tossed out the gospel in favor of feel good BS. We trusted in men, government, and science rather than God. We abandoned our God given responsibility to rule our women. We changed the laws and gave them the liberties they now have. We looked the other way while church members fornicated like the world. We choose to embrace the sluts rather than mark them as unfit for marriage.

    Yes they rebelled and they’ll be judged for it. But from Eve, that is what women will do when they are not ruled and we can expect no less. Men refused to punish that rebellion and ensure the next generation didn’t follow suit. And the rebellion will continue until men start doing that.

    If you’re waiting for women to repent and become angels, it will never happen. Isaiah 4. The thing which causes women who rule to repent and submit is shame.

  61. Gary Eden says:

    My last message was the practical perspective. But when I said “You also have to remember that the present system is a consequence of our own rebellion against God.” I meant it from the prophetic perspective.

    Read the first 4 chapters is Isaiah. Women and children ruling is a consequence of a people turning their back on God. What happens next is the judgment of God comes down on that people (save the remnant who repent).

  62. Lost Patrol says:

    Apparently churchgoing demographics have shifted to the point where now there are almost as many men attending as women.

    1982: Not enough men going to church! Women hardest hit!

    30 years later: More men going to church! Women hardest hit!

  63. John James R. says:

    Lost Patrol,

    I reminds me of a instance brought in the ‘sphere once in which the females suicide rate relative to male suicide in a certain occupation or cultural sub-realm (can’t remember, possibly military) started to increase and approach nearly 20% of the total. Meaning that males usually hovered around 90-95% of total suicides. That was fine. No problem. But females started to gain and began to approach 20% and then it was all “Wooah. Hold on! We have a problem. Time to start looking into this. Something has gone wrong” The misandry was so accidentally laid wide open for everyone to see. 93/7 male to female suicide and there’s no issue. But get up near 20% and “We can’t have this people!”

  64. John James R. says:

    @CC

    Thanks for that rundown of temporary work and how it factors in to family courts. Interesting insights throughout.

  65. Emperor Constantine says:

    What if World War I, with its mass extermination of men, was just a gigantic failed experiment in chivalry.

  66. Anonymous Reader says:

    Modern cell phones typically have a couple of means of location, the cell towers and GPS chips. Pix taken on cell phones have location embedded. This can be interesting when looking at selfies.

    Here’s a case where a man was saved from prison by a selfie.

    https://www.wwltv.com/article/news/how-a-selfie-saved-a-texas-man-from-99-years-in-prison/289-614065008

    Remember, though, according to feminists and their trad con sockpuppets we must “believe women” because they never lie.

    PS:

    Editor’s note: KVUE is not identifying Precopia’s accuser because she hasn’t been charged with a crime.

  67. Dalrock says:

    Good find Emperor Constantine.

  68. Now for something different… Off topic, but too fun to ignore. Got to be read to be believed. Spoiler: what it means to be a man is all about self-hatred and men’srelationship To women. Without that, men are nothing. At least, to that member of the intelligentsia.

    “What Is It Like to Be a Man?” by Phil Christman in The Hedgehog Review, Summer 2018. At the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture.

    https://iasc-culture.org/THR/THR_article_2018_Summer_Christman.php

  69. Novaseeker says:

    What Is It Like to Be a Man?” by Phil Christman in The Hedgehog Review, Summer 2018. At the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture.

    Wow. What a self-hating twat.

  70. Scott says:

    Nova-

    I got about a third of the way into it my eyes glazed over. All I could think about was “do you bring anything to your marriage at all?”

    What a geek.

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    Gah, that is very difficult to wade through. I got part way.

    Key words in that turgid tirade: “Moved to Ann Arbor”…i.e. pretentious hipsteropoulous of the Midwest.

  72. M. Helm says:

    How do Muslim husbands keep their authority in the family after being in the US for a generation? Do their traditions make them immune from Feminism? I suppose you could say that young bachelors becoming radical is their way of MIGTOW.

  73. Anon says:

    Larry Krummer,

    Spoiler: what it means to be a man is all about self-hatred and men’srelationship To women. Without that, men are nothing. At least, to that member of the intelligentsia.

    That is THE definition of a mangina. Their entire sense of worth is built around what women think of them, even as women utterly loathe them (if red-pillers and feminists agree on ONE thing, it is that manginas and cuckservatives should be eradicated).

  74. Reading Christman illustrates the self-defeating nature of fourth generation feminism. First, Ibelieve most men will recoil with horror at it – and st men like Christman who adopt it.

    Second, the Left opens the borders to millions of immigrants who see liberated women as property or whores. Multiculturalism! Why do Leftist believe they will abandon their values for ours.

    Not a feminist-friendly combo. Interesting times ahead. Expect the unexpected.

  75. Scott says:

    Larry, et al.

    I was compelled to write up a quick response to the article you shared.

    https://americandadweb.wordpress.com/2018/11/15/2300/

  76. GBFM, Jordan Peterson apologized….

  77. Scott,

    I don’t disagree with your analysis. But I have a different perspective on this, based on two decades leading boys in Sunday School and, more importantly, Boy Scouts.

    “never been through a rite of passage”

    Most societies devote a lot of time and effort to train (“socialize” in our jargon) boys. Rites of passage are important tools. As are role models in history, myth, and in person. Men are made, most can’t do it by themselves. But America does little or nothing for most boys. Who is at fault matters less than how we fix this.

    Ask boys who are their heroes. Most don’t have any, in the deep sense of men they use as models for their lives.

    I once told a group of boys The Oddessy on a long hike up Pinacles in California. None of them had heard anything like it. They were enthralled.

    I watched snotty nosed 11 year old boys turn into strong young men. It took a lot of work.

    There is much mockery here of the “weak men” theory. But I suspect that is a part of our problem. Christman is an extreme example of a common type these days, like the low-T men at Buzzfeed. Perhaps that is why so many women, impelled by drives they don’t understand, want the borders opened to nations that have harsher environments. Migrants are the strongest young men in their societies.

    We are past the point, IMO, where there are simple or easy solutions for America.

  78. Lost Patrol says:

    Reading Christman illustrates the self-defeating nature of fourth generation feminism. First, Ibelieve most men will recoil with horror at it – and st men like Christman who adopt it.

    This is key. Men reading here can barely stand to read it at all, and their first thought is something along the lines of somebody should do him a favor and punch him. Wake up what’s left of actual manhood in him if possible.

    But do works like this have the same effect on blue pillers? Where is the crossover? Where does the generational conditioning meet the masculine imperative endowed by The Creator, and which way does he break when the moment arrives, or he reads something like Christman’s surrender document?

    Novaseeker has pointed out before that it’s possible to develop a skewed understanding from reading in the men’s sphere, because it can appear as though we are many when in fact we are little more than a drop in the ocean. How many of us are an army of one at our church, or workplace, or even within your circle of personal friends and family?

    I don’t know the answer but it’s a thing I look for. Some young men I know are trying to break into the clear, but most are still trapped inside the infamous matrix.

  79. Look at that Emperor Constantine posted of “Median Age at First Marriage.”

    That graph is usually shown with the implication that people are getting married later. The assumption is that they are getting married. But we are missing the other graph: how many are unmarried at each age (Dalrock has shown that in past posts).

    With the median age for women at 28 – and rising fast – I wonder how many women in the 28-35 range are not “delaying” marriage, but are unable or unwilling to marry. That might be the bigger story than that others are marrying later.

  80. Lost patrol,

    “because it can appear as though we are many when in fact we are little more than a drop in the ocean.”

    That nails it! I’ve seen that many times in the comments here.

    The cutting edge is, imo, men’s willingness to marry. The census graph Constantine posted about marriage is the center ring event. Women have changed. Marriage has changed. Now we’ll see how the men of Gen Z react, voting with their “feet”. If they bail on marriage and the rat race, the consequences will be large – probably beyond our ability to even guess at.

  81. Gary Eden says:

    Why do Leftist believe they will abandon their values for ours.

    They don’t. Don’t forget, the goal is to destroy western civ. The goal is to destroy us. There is no contradiction for feminists between feminism and women oppressing Muslims because both are about destroying this nation.

    They want us dead.

  82. Hmm says:

    Somewhat OT: Democratic hero runs afoul of VAWA

    official-michael-avenatti-in-los-angeles-police-custody-on-domestic-violence-allegation

    “She hit me first!” Pardon my schadenfreude.

  83. Damn Crackers says:

    @Larry Kummer, Editor – We are all polygamists in today’s Western world welfare-states. Whether you’re single, divorced, married, or never married, you as a man are taking on the groom’s responsibilities of millions of single mothers/women around the world.

    We are all married to millions of women, except many aren’t even f*cking one of them.

  84. Anonymous Reader says:

    Off topic but with some relevance.

    Chicago black pastor tells transvestite in church service “Go home and put some man clothes on”. LGBT activists have a fit. But the story is more nuanced and complex than the usual clickbait.

    https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article221698660.html

    Men in church leadership should read and take notes. “Come as you are” is becoming a flashpoint.

  85. A divorced father raising two sons says:

    A question for all the commenters here – how many of y’all have actually been divorced and not able to see your children while paying child support? How many of y’all have really experienced the damage done and the pain of loss of seeing your children? How many of y’all can even grasp the pain of separation that leads a man to suicide from the loss of his children? Until you can even begin to grasp any of that you would do better to listen and ask questions. Your comments on this issue come across as ignorance writ large and is offensive to men who have been and are living with the damage meted out by the family courts, child protection services, foster services and state and local governments .

  86. Frank K says:

    Mandy Blank’s inner circle believes the bodybuilding icon might still be alive today if she didn’t push herself so hard, especially after a car accident left her with a serious back injury.

    I once knew a woman who was an accomplished martial artist. Fifth degree black belt, and a room full of trophies to go with it. She also had a serious car accident that left her in very bad shape. Did she call it quits? Nope, she did not. And much like Miss Blank, she died young as she further injured herself, leaving orphaned children and a husband behind.

  87. OKRickety says:

    A divorced father raising two sons,

    “A question for all the commenters here – how many of y’all have actually been divorced and not able to see your children while paying child support? ….”

    First, presuming you are the victim of such behavior, I am sorry that you have had this experience. Thankfully, my ex-wife did not behave in that manner, but I think  I have an inkling of what it would have been like if she had.

    But I am puzzled as to the basis of your comment. I don’t see that anyone has suggested that such an experience is other than awful. I believe the statements about male suicide are intended to point out the bizarre reasoning of the experts and authorities, not to suggest that male suicide is failure or weakness on the part of these men.

  88. RichardP says:

    ,,, the story is more nuanced and complex than the usual clickbait.

    The young man had been coming to that church for several months. He had been counseled privately several times by the pastor to not wear womens clothes to church. The young man challenged the pastor publically by ignoring the request to not wear womens clothes to church, and so the pastor responded publically to that challenge.

  89. John James R. says:

    “…..Your comments on this issue come across as ignorance writ large”

    You’re gonna have to point one out. Who here do you feel is not on your side in all of this?

  90. Lost Patrol says:

    A divorced father raising two sons,

    A question for all the commenters here – how many of y’all have actually been divorced and not able to see your children while paying child support?

    I’m not following along but I may have missed or not understood the comments that have bothered you. I cannot relate to your frustrations as you say, but have been reading here long enough to believe that the men here are for you, not against. This is one of the few places left where men are predisposed to hear your side of things.

  91. Scott says:

    But I am puzzled as to the basis of your comment. I don’t see that anyone has suggested that such an experience is other than awful. I believe the statements about male suicide are intended to point out the bizarre reasoning of the experts and authorities, not to suggest that male suicide is failure or weakness on the part of these men.

    …divorced father…:

    I am not sure I understand the nature of your comment. This place is about the best chance you will get at advocacy for men in the predicament you describe. On a very real level– It’s the reason this entire part of the internet exists at all.

    About 99% of the men here are torn to pieces by this description: How many of y’all can even grasp the pain of separation that leads a man to suicide from the loss of his children?

    Some of them would go to war to prevent it happening to another father, if they knew where the battlefield was.

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    @A divorced father raising two sons

    You are welcome here. As Scott said, the vast majority of men here are on your side. We understand your anger. Stick around and we can help each other.

  93. Gary Eden says:

    “Come as you are” is becoming a flashpoint.

    It’s part of the whole ‘seeker friendly’ appeal to the masses that has gripped the church. It feels good because it seems like you’re doing good (evangelism). But in truth they’ve made it an idol, allowing the world to dictate the practices and theology of the church. And they’ll kick out any Christian who holds too close to the commands of scripture lest that person keep away non-Christians by his extreme example.

    They’ve embraced an empty form of godliness while denying its true power.

  94. feeriker says:

    And they’ll kick out any Christian who holds too close to the commands of scripture lest that person keep away non-Christians by his extreme example.

    They’ve embraced an empty form of godliness while denying its true power.

    Remember: It’s ultimately all about the collection plate.

    The more of’em you pack into the pews, the more of’em will open up their wallets. Being true to Scripture and insisting on a congregation that lives by it is bad for the bank account.

  95. BillyS says:

    Come as you are is not come as you wish you were. He is a male and should not dress in women’s clothes, plain and simple. Don’t use idiocy like this to try to convict everyone that a suit and tie is the only attire for church, or whatever your formal standard is.

  96. Paul says:

    “Chicago black pastor tells transvestite in church service “Go home and put some man clothes on”.”

    The interesting thing is this is grounded in OT Law Dt 25:5
    ‘The woman shall not wear that which pertains unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment for all who do so are an abomination unto the Lord your God.’

    First the woman is addressed, then the man. And it were women who started wearing men’s clothes first. When was the outrage of the Church on that?

    More importantly, although some Christians claim we cannot decide the reason why we have this Law, it is very significant as those who transgress it are called an abomination unto the Lord, similarly to various sexual behavior that is called an abomination, including sex between men.

    It clearly shows that men and women should be visually discernible, and I think it is implied that men and women should not try to cross the boundaries of the sexes, not even by clothes.

    There are only 2 sexes, and the sexes were created differently and should be upheld as different to honor our Creator. The same is true for other aspects of each sex which the bible explicitly instructs us about, including marriage, the role of the father in the (extended) family etc.
    The attack on ‘patriarchy’ is nothing short of an all-out war against God the Father, and we’re losing in the current culture.

    As for genders; we generally have 3 genders: male, female, and neuter, but as we have done throughout the ages, these gender roles should be restricted to language only.

  97. Paul says:

    Typo:
    Dt 25:5
    should be
    Dt 22:5

  98. Keith says:

    Divorced father raising two sons. A lot of us are. You will survive. You will learn to smile and lie when people ask are you ok. You will learn how not to cry on Christmas and Easter morning. You will learn to forgive married people and church ladies who ask about children that are no longer apart of you. You will survive you will not turn to porn and booze as a buffer against the pain. You will trust in the lord your god and you will survive. If I can do it anyone can

  99. BillyS says:

    I pray you continue to do well Keith. It is sad that so few really want to know how you are doing when they ask that.

  100. Gary Eden says:

    The seeker friendly movement infected much of evangelical Christianity. Even the parts that resisted it or never heard of it still imbibed deep in its ethic of prioritizing being friendly to newcomers. Which very quickly morphed into an injunction to never do or say anything they find offensive. And what we do is more important that what we claim about our theology.

    In other words, they gave the world (and hence the devil) veto power over their doctrine and practice.

    it is no wonder then that feminism is quickly overrunning evangelical Churchianity; and with not much resistance.

  101. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @feeriker
    Remember: It’s ultimately all about the collection plate.

    The more of’em you pack into the pews, the more of’em will open up their wallets. Being true to Scripture and insisting on a congregation that lives by it is bad for the bank account.

    Money plays a role, no doubt. But I suspect there’s a much bigger motivating factor behind the cowardice you see in so many American pastors: status. Many of these men probably have a deep affection for Biblical scripture, but they also are aware that it contains a few parts that their audience will not enjoy receiving. So what do you do if you’re a modern preacher that wants to be known for prophetically speaking the words of truth to sinful people in need of God’s mercy while also wanting to enjoy the paradox of seeing the same crowd honor you as a hero when you tell them of God’s judgement against them? Here’s one solution many have found: Play up the parts of the Christian message that your culture already agrees with while simultaneously staying quiet about the parts that you know they’ll hate. This would help explain why it’s not hard to find churches that lambaste husbands who ditch their current spouse for a “trophy wife” even as they simultaneously avoid condemning divorce in general, which is overwhelmingly sought by wives.

    It also explains how you can get an interview like this from someone like Matt Chandler, in which you get to see a “pastor” use a conversation with a nonbelieving journalist as an opportunity to take a public dump on the people who attend his church:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MG_l0-IJ_BQ:

    The lack of self-awareness on the pastor’s part is so fantastic that I’m almost hoping it’s just an act. He slams his congregants for hypocrisy and cowardice (because the church didn’t do enough to combat domestic violence, ho, ho) but never seems to notice that he just sat through a conversation with a media outlet notorious for promoting a hedonistic lifestyle (Vice.com!) . . . . and somehow ended up agreeing with them on just about everything.

    A lot of pastors today like to give sermons about “the cost of discipleship,” but for some reason this always seems to end up being less about living faithfully in a world that hates God and more about the pastor informing his followers that paying the bill for a Christian witness is going to be their job, because it certainly won’t be his. Not when it costs him his friendship with the world.

  102. Jim says:

    Most men just put their fingers in their ears and go “lalalalalalalalalalalalalalala”

  103. honeycomb says:

    A divorced father raising two sons on November 15, 2018 at 12:40 pm
    A question for all the commenters here – how many of y’all have actually been divorced and not able to see your children while paying child support? How many of y’all have really experienced the damage done and the pain of loss of seeing your children? How many of y’all can even grasp the pain of separation that leads a man to suicide from the loss of his children? Until you can even begin to grasp any of that you would do better to listen and ask questions. Your comments on this issue come across as ignorance writ large and is offensive to men who have been and are living with the damage meted out by the family courts, child protection services, foster services and state and local governments .

    I have a brother going through this very thing going one 10 years plus now.

    He never considered suicide .. as far as I know .. I put a lot of miles on my vehicles traveling to see him every off day.

    I’ve been through all 3 brothers going thru divorce .. 2 re-married. One (as mentioned above) did not.

    STOP being a snowflake. No one here is your enemy.

  104. Anonymous Reader says:

    That interview with Matt Chandler is pretty interesting but mostly in the subcoms, the things that are done / said around the other words, bearing in mind that it is heavily, heavily edited. The Vice girl reminds me of a slightly butch lesbian I used to know, and her body language is pretty obvious in the opening segment where Chandler groveled over Evangelical support for Trump. Actually, he groveled pretty completely for the entire interview. I may have mentioned this before but Matt Chandler looks and talks like a closeted middle-aged homosexual, to be honest.

    Preachers like Chandler are in part a reason why young churchgoing men and women find it difficult to marry. Emulating a vaguely effeminate role model like Chandler leads to the young 20-something men I encounter from time to time who look and sound homosexual, but are not. Classic coffee-shop encounter “Huh. Gay guys Bible study, really?” sort of thing. That’s not really attractive to many women as we all should know, but that’s what the Beta factory called “church” creates way too often. Because of “leaders” like Matt Chandler.

    Those young, churchgoing men imbibe all of the effeminate, women-first, apologize-for-being-male attitude and teaching but they still are men and they get frustrated when they can’t attract many or even any women. They don’t know that they’ve been sold a completely false, Feminist Approved, persona, either.

    Furthermore, any married man in a church like Chandlers cannot expect any sort of support in the event his wife becomes unhaaaaapy. What he can expect is to be hung out to dry by the Female Imperative’s local agent, i.e. his ‘pastor’.

  105. Gary Eden says:

    I’m not sure what motivates them. But I don’t know how a self aware preacher with a heart for God can kick out people attempting to live out God’s commands because their example might ‘drive away newcomers’.

    It’s wicked.

    Well, on second thought; I think its probably the paycheck more than anything. An oddball Christian or two actually trying live for God represents far less $ than new believers coming in.

  106. BillyS says:

    I still believe most preachers are just stupid rather than intentionally malicious or money-grubbing.

    I did have one admit (indirectly and he quickly changed the focus and failed to follow up unfortunately) that he had some fear of women in his preaching.

    Though this is a man who was the result of rape and likely has some major daddy/male issues because of that.

  107. Nowayjose. says:

    Every married guy I know who is clear-thinking and savvy knows that until their last kid hits 18, they are under the thumb of what is essentially a probation/parole state of being for men.

  108. ChristianCool says:

    @TheDeti

    Pope Francis, the Communist, globocuck, “Christian” Pope himself KNOWS and has known all along about priests raping young boys. I think he helped cover it up so that he could later push for openly gay priests. Francis has fired or removed key investigators from The Church that has exposed child rape of boys.

    That is why he removed top Church investigators that were about to excommunicate several gay child rapist priests all around the world. He removed one of the top investigators, Cardinal Ludwig, whom Francis called “too tough” on the child-raping Priests. 😡 Also, Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano told Francis in 2013 about allegations that McCarrick, one of the Catholic Church’s worst child molesters, was then re-instated by Francis. Vigano went public as he “could not face God” knowing that Francis was covering up the child-raping priests

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/09/03/pope-francis-promotes-virtue-of-silence-as-child-sex-abuse-scandal-grows/

    http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/ex-nuncio-accuses-pope-francis-of-failing-to-act-on-mccarricks-abuse

    Again, as you say, men are not valued in our society. That is why no one really cares about gay priests butt-raping young boys. 😡

    On the upside, I saw an ad for the Movember Foundation about “help men live longer, healthier lives… and stop dying young because we need our brothers, fathers, etc”. In all my 36.7 years on this Earth, I had never once seen or heard of a group dedicated to helping MEN about anything.

    Everything you see is always about breast cancer, women’s rights (since they are OHHHHH sooooooooooooooooooooo oppressed in this country” 🙄 etc etc). Funny thing is because research has become a multi-billion Dollar per yeasr industry, an actual cure for breast cancer would end the “pink ribbons” and all the other money-raising schemes, so they will likely never find a cure for breast cancer, which is an irony about the funding drives for “a cure”.

    In any case… seeing that Movember Foundation ad was interesting. Maybe a small page has turned and a small sliver of society is now caring about men?

    @Gunner Q

    Hi Gunner. No, but close. He is from Los Gatos, which is near San Jose, Kommiefornia but the “mobile city” moves around because they need hook-ups and certain services and there are providers around. He told me before driving from Huntington Beach to downtown LA (if I remember this right??) is worse than his hellish commute… hard to imagine. It is like California has become a crowded mess like Mumbai or a chaotic place Managua or something. 😮

    Yeah, my friend of 14 years made me very sad indeed. Talking about suicide (and this cat wasn’t joking either, he was dead serious too and desperate to talk to someone and be honest) because his live-in GF has now trapped him and is forcing him to have a kid to “rescue their relationship” is horrific.

    He initially was going to try to pressure her into an abortion, but he could not do that either because he felt morally repugnant for doing so. But as the pregnancy progressed, he became more desperate knowing a child would be financial ruin for him and 20 years of guaranteed financial slavery (in FL it is 20 year child support, guaranteed) and this guy does not make much money as is. Then he fell into despair, each day closer to the birth of a child he vehemently does not want with a woman whose relationship is almost certainly over.

    I just spoke to him (live phone and not text) yesterday on Sunday and he still has not changed his mind about not wanting a child at all, but AT LEAST he does not want to die because of it either.

    I said I would help him work it out full welfare package similar to what the illegal aliens get from American taxpayers, since he told me in no uncertain terms he is not going to marry the woman. I am actually glad he refuses to marry, but he will at least try to keep the live-in GF situation with the woman, for his child’s sake.

    BTW, I work with a hard-left lawyer (he is an atheist, Vegan, major Beta, typical San Francisco cuck) who got trapped into pregnancy by this fat woman he was dating, since he is a lawyer and gets paid a lot and the woman wanted a kid desperately. Anyway, the beta lawyer wanted her to abort, even offered her $35 grand in CASH to abort, she refused… now his kid is like 3 or 4 now, ask him “how is Coltrain?” (yes, that is his son’s name -_- ) and get ready for 10 minute diatribe about how amazing he is. I always joke with another co-worker “it will be a funny story to tell his son how daddy wanted you dead, but you made it anyway Coltie”. lol 😀

    Go figure. Hope my friend stays focused, no suicide, and tries the best to see his son/daughter to be OK. Whole thing is a tragedy for him.

    Ps. I would have asked your how is the woman. But I am brazen type…. I blame it on my mom… and her Northern Italian genes. lol 😀

    @John James R.

    Thanks! I am going to law school to be able to game the system and work around it. My disdain for lawyers (who are overwhelmingly left and my natural enemies) and the entire misandrist system is very real. I want to fight these people. That has become my life’s mission.

    I wrote a piece for RoK (ReturnOfKings) called “Reducing Indenture Servitude by gaming the Family Courts”, since Roosh was trying to make the site more focused on self-help things like this. But RoK is on hiatus now, so my article has not been published.

    It will have many more strategies on getting around the system. I learned a lot working in immigration law and asking the illegals “how do you get all these welfare benefits?” and they opened up, since I worked for his lawyer. Then I married the knowledge to working for a family lawyer and ta-dah! I share my strategies and observations with men. 😉

    I will post hyperlink once RoK starts posting new content again and my article gets posted…. eventually.

  109. ChristianCool says:

    @Nowayjose

    18??? Hah!! Depends on the State. Some States fathers are legally on the hook, under ” a probation/parole state of being for men”, as you say… but the age can go all the way to 26!!!! 😮

    That is how that spoiled brat from NJ sued her parents for college money after they cut her off. In NJ, parents are legally responsible for their kids well past age 18. A 21-year old spoiled bitchy-brat sued her parents for tens of thousands per year for college and all sorts of crap, like living expenses and beer. -_-

    https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/n-parents-pay-estranged-daughter-college-fees-court-article-1.2010796

    I honestly feel bad for fathers who have daughters in a Western country today. What used to be a nice thing to raise a daughter, along with a son(s) has turned into hell for dads. Daughters grow up in this feminist shithole culture of ours, 24/7 Kim Kardashian-like mentality everywhere, they are taught entitlement in grade school and college, they are spoiled, they lie constantly…. a nightmare having a daughter(s) in feminist country. Ugh.

    Anyway, in almost every State, you sign that birth certificate, you have signed your prison warrant, should the woman ever want to leave or the child decide to sue you. It is almost impossible to remove a man’s name from birth certificate, many States giving men less than 10 days to remove name from certificate with proof of DNA of not being his child. In FL, the State Supreme Court (7-2 ruling, all 7 Democrats votes yes) to force men to pay child support even though 3 of his 4 kids were not biologically his. In some States, the only way to remove a man’s name from birth certificate is to have real father come forward and sign new certificate… and like any fool would do that, which would mean he gets to pay child support. 🙄

    Get a DNA test quietly/secretly at home and hide the birth certificate paperwork the State will mail you until you have the DNA results. That is the minimum a man should get for facing such huge burdens and risks for having a kid.

    @A divorced father raising two sons

    I am widowed, no kids. After I started recovering from the shock of losing a spouse suddenly, I stated, under anxious questioning by relatives, that I would marry again and have kids. One of my long-time friends, who has been through a hellish divorce I have seen play-out firsthand at work (law offices), said to me “you have to be the dumbest motherfu#ker to wanna marry again. You got away free and clear and want to run the Russian Roulette again? Fu#king crazy.”

    That was all it took and shook me back to my senses. I totally owe my friend because I needed a wake-up call, because I was at one point dead-set on finding a new spouse!!! It is insane to even think about it, knowing what I know from years of work!!! I knew better!!! I feel ashamed even admitting this, how foolish I was…. but I think it was a combination of grief and pressure talking.

    Now I just tell anxious relatives (and yes, they are crazy Italians on my mom’s side) that “oh yeah…. I am seeking out a new wife vehemently and will marry her the moment I meet her” and all that stuff. LOL

    I have to say I am grateful I never divorced and because I am not stupid enough to re-marry, I will never know the feeling. My parents divorced when we were young and my Mom was a very kind woman and did not fight my father in court at all, she wanted peaceful settlement… But my father always harbored resentment, even though he was a serial cheater, which my brother and I were witnesses to, but too young to understand what was going on at the time. The whole thing is a horror-show to see regardless.

    But I have met many male clients who were going through a divorce and they seem like wounded animals to me. They have this look in their eyes, and they have this “aura” of someone who is dead inside, who is soulless. Their pain is palpable to me. I cannot explain “the look” men who are divorced or going through divorce have but I know it when I see it in person. 😦 You have to see it to see what I mean.

    I have a lot of empathy for men who marry this day and age. Either they do it our of ignorance or married before the knowledge of the consequences of a divorce were fully known…. Regardless, you have my empathy being divorced, especially if you did everything right and Mrs. WhoreSmith decided to frivolously divorce you, steal your kids, dignity, money and kids.

    Some of the posters here have ZERO idea when they say people should marry or live in sin, like me. I have been called “a non-Christian” for refusing slavery and punishment for marrying again and engaging in non-marital sex…. Go figure! *shrug*

    You and men like you who get divorced and are treated like 4th class citizens have my full sympathy and support. I will carry through and fight for men like you as soon as I am done with law school. Your fight is my fight too.

  110. A divorced father raising two sons says:

    Christian cool – thank you for your comment. My comment has been variously misunderstood and interpreted to mean that I am a “snowflake”, looking for sympathy or seeing other men on this website as enemies. The day I made my comment I was particularly frustrated at reading the comments of many men who believe they know what is like to be divorced and under the pressure to produce money for child support.

    My main point – not being well said was – Until one walks in another man’s shoes, he can not begin to understand what that man is experiencing. Guys think they know what it is like to experience the divorce/child support system because they “know” somebody that is experiencing it. This would be like me saying I know what it is like to be in a firefight in a war combat zone because I experienced it in a virtual reality game. Yeah right.

    I have worked with highly successful men who after being divorced and losing access to their family did commit suicide. After walking the divorce road myself I came to that abyss and stepped over it to the other side. I have rarely talked about my experiences because no one wants to hear that c%$p. Most people I work with do not even know I am divorced and still ask me how my wife (now ex of over 3 years ago) is doing.

    For those who think they know about child support here is a fun factoid for you – your child support obligation does not end when you die. The state continues to peck at the flesh on your bones after your death, and will take the money from your estate.

    Myself; I survived the abyss and am currently waiting for the court order giving me primary custody of my sons and an end to child support payments. You see – my children’s mother basically abandoned her sons to me this year. Abandonment is one of the few circumstances in which a father (in the State of Texas at least) can sue for primary custody and stop paying child support. It’s a win for my sons and myself but it is also a painful process. Listening to armchair quarterbacks talk like they know what this experience is like is offensive on many levels. I had to choices – to “man up” and keep my mouth shut – or else told them to shut their mouths and listen – which I did. Either action would be unpopular with certain people. Myself, I don’t really care because a man often has to make unpopular choices and that is part of being a man.

    Y’all all have a great Thanksgiving and remember to be grateful for your loved ones.

  111. feministhater says:

    A question for all the commenters here – how many of y’all have actually been divorced and not able to see your children while paying child support? How many of y’all have really experienced the damage done and the pain of loss of seeing your children? How many of y’all can even grasp the pain of separation that leads a man to suicide from the loss of his children? Until you can even begin to grasp any of that you would do better to listen and ask questions. Your comments on this issue come across as ignorance writ large and is offensive to men who have been and are living with the damage meted out by the family courts, child protection services, foster services and state and local governments .

    Shall we shut up so you can have the floor?

    Please, go ahead. Tell us the wonderful story of being a divorced father of two.

    However, please note, this is not your blog. We are free to speak. Either explain exactly our ignorance or go away.

  112. feministhater says:

    Until you can even begin to grasp any of that you would do better to listen and ask questions.

    This is how a feminist argues. Pleading that because one is not a ‘woman, minority, person of colour, gay, disabled, whatever,’ you’re not allowed to have an opinion on the subject at hand. That one must shut up and listen. Why?

    No one came to you and started sprouted their so called ‘ignorance’, you, on your own volition, came here, no one forced you to read, no one forced you to agree, no one did anything to you.

    The whole point is to avoid the situation you speak of which this blog has spent its existence detailing. To come here and sprout what you did is hubris.

    Once again, detail the specifics of our ignorance or leave. It’s quite simple, we will not stop, we will not be silenced and we will not be shamed.

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.