The Child Support Catastrophe - Dalrock

The child support catastrophe | Dalrock
About these ads
Dalrock
Home
About
Motherhood
Thoughts from a happily married father

on a post feminist world.
Brothers Grimm
Finding a Spouse
Chivalry
Manliness
Post Marital Spinsterhood
Church Apathy About Divorce
What do you think she is seeing that none of her fellow

officers areseeing?
Feminists
Satire
Choice Addiction
Manosphere Humor
Fatherhood
Game
Latest U.S. Custody and Child SupportData
The child supportcatastrophe

Posted on August 14, 2011 by Dalrock
Child support is typically framed as state intervention on behalf of children. However, it

is more accurately an alternative to marriage for women. Traditionally, women would
find a man willing to formally commit to them before having children. By marrying (and
staying married to) the man who would be the father of her children, women would
ensure investment from the man and the provision of resources both to her and her
children. Note that child support isnt needed in the traditional model, and that it isnt
relevant in the case of the death of the father. Even in the case of divorce, child support
isnt needed if parents share equal custody. Where child support is needed is if women
want to expel the father from the household (or never bring him in). When the facade of
Its for the children! is stripped away, child support is all about removing fathers from the
lives of their children.
If anyone has any doubt as to the true purpose of child support, they need only look at
how it is enforced in practice. In theory whichever parent can better raise the children
should be given custody, and the remaining parent would then be compelled to pay child
support. In practice it is almost exclusively a way for women who expelled their
childrens father from the home to extract money from the man. While the law is written
under the guise of being gender neutral, this is a sham; the system is strongly biased
towards women at nearly every step of the process. Ive created a separate post to share
all of the data, but here is a quick summary:
Mothers are far more likely to receive custody (over 80% of custodial parents are
mothers). Those few fathers who receive custody are less likely than custodial mothers to
have support awarded to them. Those fathers who have support awarded to them have
less awarded on average than mothers. Due to all of the biases in the system, roughly
90% of all child support dollars are paid from fathers to mothers.
Search
Recent Comments
thedeti on On exceptions
andrules.
JDG on On exceptions
andrules.
feeriker on On exceptions
andrules.
Minesweeper on Be quiet,
lie back, and take
John Nesteutes on On
exceptions andrules.
feeriker on On exceptions
andrules.
John Nesteutes on On
Minesweeper on Debtors
prisons are an essenti
anonymous_ng on On
Follow
Follow
Dalrock
feeriker
on On exceptions
andrules.
Get every new post delivered to

your Inbox.
Recent Posts
Join 975 other followers
On exceptions andrules.
Debtors prisons are an essential
Enter
email address
tool
of ouryour
new publicpolicy.
The advantage of leaving
Sulkowicz (Mattress Girl) off
Sign me up
thelawsuit.
Be quiet, lie back, and takeit.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/the-child-support-catastrophe/[4/28/2015 3:13:24 PM]
But still there are those who will claim this isnt about money, it is about the best interest
of the child. They say this even though the money goes to the mother, not the child, and
the mother is under no legal obligation to spend the money on the children.
If it were about the best interest of the child, the system would concern itself with
maintaining the childs relationship with the non custodial parent. But while the system
is draconian in its enforcement of money (which almost always goes to the mother), it is
generally uninterested in enforcing visitation (which almost always would be for the
father). If the system were about protecting the child, it would enforce support and
visitation equally. A parent who denies visitation is denying their child access to their
parent. A system acting on behalf of the child would work vigorously to ensure that the
child isnt denied something which money cant buy; access to and guidance from their
father.
A Build
giantamisunderstanding.
website with WordPress.com
They cant experience manly
pride, so neither canmen
Rabble rousers
Blinded by thetimes.
How would you respond if your
husband lead/loved you
likeChrist?
Effortless
Blogroll
Alpha Game (Vox Day)
Cail Corishev
Captain Capitalism
Courtship Pledge
Dark Brightness
Donal Graeme
Not only does the system not take vigorous action to ensure that visitation orders are
enforced, the system is designed to estrange fathers from their children. It uses
draconian measures on the father while acting in the name of their children. Support is
said to be based on the income of the father, but often it isnt the fathers actual income
which is considered. The court will often make up a figure which it assumes the father
should be able to earn, and assign (impute) that income to him when setting the amount
of support to be paid. W.F. Price described his own experience with this in the comments
section of a recent Spearhead post:
There is really no cap on % of income a man can be ordered to pay. Being

unemployed when my ex divorced me (she demanded I indulge her and
help her get the job she wanted by watching the kids, and I stupidly went
along with it thinking this would be temporary and would save my
marriage), I was imputed, and therefore the child support was infinity
percent of my income. I was imputed at the standard earning for a man
my age in Washington state, despite the fact that we were in a recession
and nobody was hiring.
Dr. Helen
Feminism is Empathological
Free Northerner
Hawaiian libertarian
Instapundit
Just Four Guys
Manosphere.com
Married Man Sex Life
Patriactionary
Rational Male
Reflections on Christianity and
the manosphere
Sex Trouble (The Other McCain)
Simulacral Legendarium
The Private Man
The Reactivity Place
The Red Pill Room
The Social Pathologist
Things that We have Heard and
Known
Veritas Lounge
Viva La Manosphere!
Vox Popoli
Zippy Catholic
Archives
Select
Month
Select
Month
There is no limit, therefore. Inability to pay is no excuse. You might as

well be asking for mercy from the mob. I watched The Departed recently,
and when one of the bookies said he didnt have the money the enforcer
said this is America make it after beating the crap out of him. This is
exactly how fathers are treated.
Keep in mind that men can be thrown in jail for failing to make these payments. Fathers
all around the country are put in jeopardy of going to prison for money they dont have,
based on actions which are taken in the name of their own children. Undoubtedly the
vast majority of fathers make every effort to not allow this injustice to poison their
relationship with their children, since they know that their children are merely pawns
being used by the childs mother and the system. However, this kind of heavy handed
tactic combined frequently with denial of time with and influence over their children has
to impact the relationship negatively. Not surprisingly fathers who are less cut off from
their children are more likely to pay support. In 2007 the Census found that 78% of non
custodial parents who had joint custody and/or visitation privileges with their children
Top Posts
Debtors prisons are an essential
tool of our new public policy.
On exceptions and rules.
Latest U.S. Custody and Child
Support Data
The advantage of leaving
Sulkowicz (Mattress Girl) off the
lawsuit.
Be quiet, lie back, and take it.
A wife's best defense against a
troublesome mother-in-law.
More grim news for carousellers
hoping to jump at the last minute.
Are Women Done With Men After
Age 55?
They can't experience manly
pride, so neither can men...
Rabble rousers
Blog Stats
11,727,652 hits since June 19 2010
made their payments, compared to 67% for those who didnt have either (source, P9).
But the ultimate proof of what child support is all about is the end result for children.
While there is a grain of truth to the old canard that divorce is caused by philandering or
abusive men who either abandon or mistreat their children, the vast majority of divorces
are actually requested by women. Professors Margaret F. Brinig and Douglas W. Allen
set out to understand why this was in their paper These Boots Are Made for Walking:
Why Most Divorce Filers Are Women:
Because of the financial and social hardship faced after divorce, most
people assume that generally husbands have instigated divorce since the
introduction of no-fault divorce. Yet women file for divorce and are often
the instigators of separation, despite a deep attachment to their children
and the evidence that many divorces harm children.
Here is what they found (emphasis mine):
Our results are consistent with our hypothesis that filing behavior is
driven by self-interest at the time of divorce. Individuals file for divorce
when there are marital assets that may be appropriated through divorce,
as in the case of leaving when they have received the benefit of educational
investments such as advanced degrees. However, individuals may also file
when they are being exploited within the marriage, as when the other
party commits a major violation of the marriage contract, such as cruelty.
Interestingly, though, cruelty amounts to only 6% of all divorce filings in
Virginia. We have found that who gets the children is by far the
most important component in deciding who files for divorce,
particularly when there is little quarrel about property, as when the
separation is long.
Keep in mind that getting custody not only determines which parent has their children
ripped away from them, but that because of the child support system the children also
often come with a hefty payment stream the winning parent can spend however they
want. The loser on the other hand is compelled at risk of imprisonment to pay amounts
which can exceed their actual ability to earn. While this money is extracted from them in
theory on behalf of their children, it robs them of their ability to be seen as wanting to
take care of their children. Fathers cant spend money on their children which the
mother has already taken by force. Making this winner take all game even more
lopsided, in the US the receipt of the payments is considered tax free, since the support
payer must pay the income tax on it.
This system which is supposedly about the children encourages mothers to expel their
childrens fathers from their lives. One divorce explains how many women think about
this:
The problem with my life, as I saw it then, was my husband, and I

imagined divorce as a process that would remove him but change little
else a sort of neutron bomb that eliminated men but left the rest of the
world intact.
But divorce is only one way that child support encourages women to become unwed
mothers single parents. The direct route to unwed motherhood is to simply get knocked
up without getting married. This wouldnt have guaranteed unwed mothers child support
in the past. However, the rules were changed in the latter part of the 21st century,
asBetsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers explain in their paper Marriage and Divorce:
Changes and their Driving Forces:
Supreme Court rulings in the 1960s and 1970s also changed the nature of
family relationships by eliminating many of the legal distinctions
stemming from the marital status of a childs parents. In 1968, the
Supreme Court ruling in Levy v. Louisiana (391 U.S. 68) granted equal
protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to illegitimate children.
Five years later, the 1973 ruling in Gomez v. Perez (409 U.S. 535)
overturned state laws exempting men from financial responsibility for
illegitimate children. These rulings reduced both the social and economic
cost to women of bearing a child out-of-wedlock
Not surprisingly, this along with welfare payments has lead to an explosion of children
being born out of wedlock. You can see the impact in the chart below from NCHS Data
Brief No. 18 May 2009, Changing Patterns of Nonmarital Childbearing in the United
States:
The 2011 Statistical Abstract of the United States provides the breakdown of out of
wedlock births by race (Table 86 pdf or image) for 2007, the latest year data is available.
40% of all babies born in the US in 2007 were out of wedlock. This figure was 51% for
Hispanics, 28% for whites, and 72% for blacks. The US isnt exceptional for its out of
wedlock birth rates either:
But the direct approach to unwed motherhood isnt preferred by all would be baby
mommas. Some have a strong sense of tradition, and prefer the classic approach of
marrying the father and then divorcing him after the children are born. Fortunately for
them child support along with biased family courts makes this nearly as easy as the direct
approach. As an added bonus, they get to attend a big party held in their honor, where
they (get this!) promise in front of everyone they know to stay married to the father for
life. This more classic approach to baby mamma-hood is also on the rise, as you can see
in Figure 1 in Marriage and Divorce: Changes and their Driving Forces.
Divorce has gone from almost unheard of to extremely common. According to the US
Census 2009 SIPP data, 39% of all white women aged 50-59 had divorced at least once.
This works out to 42% of all white women that age who ever married. For Hispanic
women the figures are 27%&30%, and for Black women the figures are 38%&48%.
All of this action supposedly in the interest of children has resulted in millions of kids
growing up with little or no access to their fathers. A small percentage of these kids are
better off because of the system. They had fathers who either abandoned them or were
abusive. Far more have lost something irreplaceable; the chance to grow up with both
their mother and father. There is a huge body of research showing how detrimental this
is to children. In the interest of space Ill only share one small quote from Dan Quayle
Was Right (emphasis mine):
Even for fathers who maintain regular contact, the pattern of father-child
relationships changes. The sociologists Andrew Cherlin and Frank
Furstenberg, who have studied broken families, write that the fathers
behave more like other relatives than like parents. Rather than helping
with homework or carrying out a project with their children,
nonresidential fathers are likely to take the kids shopping, to the movies,
or out to dinner. Instead of providing steady advice and guidance,
divorced fathers become treat dads.
Apparentlyand paradoxically it is the visiting relationship itself,

rather than the frequency of visits, that is the real source of the
problem. According to Wallerstein, the few children in the California
study who reported visiting with their fathers once or twice a week over a
ten-year period still felt rejected. The need to schedule a special time to be
with the child, the repeated leave-takings, and the lack of connection to the
childs regular, daily schedule leaves many fathers adrift, frustrated, and
confused. Wallerstein calls the visiting father a parent without portfolio.
This is built into any child support scenario, and simply cannot be changed or wished
away. The profoundly negative result of fatherless children is widely acknowledged, even
by those who enthusiastically support the new family structure child support encourages.
However, instead of blaming the process which created the problem, most now blame the
very fathers who had their children ripped away from them. This is the final insult by a
system which sees fathers as no more than a walking wallet. Instead of blaming the
concerted social push to allow women to raise children outside of marriage, the fathers
themselves are blamed for being absent! Following the London riots many have pointed
out that a major cause of the out of control youths is a lack of fathers. The headline of
The Telegraph reads:
London riots: Absent fathers have a lot to answer for
Edit Aug 15: Updated with more recent US Census Child Support Data.
Share this:
Reddit
Twitter
11
Related
Child support and the threat point.

In "Attacking headship"
Don't forget your 30 pieces of silver.

In "Child Support"
Blind spot
In "Child Support"
This entry was posted in Child Custody, Choice Addiction, Church Apathy About Divorce, Data, Divorce, Fatherhood,
Feminists, Marriage, Motherhood, Scientific Paper. Bookmark the permalink.
What do you think she is seeing that none of her fellow
Latest U.S. Custody and Child SupportData
officers areseeing?
205 Responses to The child supportcatastrophe
MarkyMark says:
August 14, 2011 at 9:39 am
Uh, why should a man get married again?!
Anonymous age 69 says:

August 14, 2011 at 10:11 am
Again? hee, hee.
Kane says:
August 14, 2011 at 10:32 am
Mothers who take their children away from their fathers are committing child
abuse.
MarkyMark says:
August 14, 2011 at 11:18 am
Mothers who take their children away from their fathers are
committing child abuse.
Youre right; they are committing child abuse. Then again, they not only have
legal sanction to do this; theyre REWARDED for it! Uh, come again, Rampart?
Bob says:
August 14, 2011 at 11:42 am
See, this was all just numbers to me bad numbers, indicative of a problem, but
attributable to poor decision-making and short-sightedness rather than malice.
Until I saw the link to the Telegraph article. What a surprise, some random
feminist is blaming men for the natural consequences of doing what she herself
wanted them to do.
Best part? In a purely financial sense, the safest women to sleep with are the
ones who dont even know my name (its a common name anyway, so I could just
say women without my contact info). It would be smarter, in a genetic and
financial sense, if I were to switch from dating to promiscuity, maybe whelp a few
kids unknowingly without having to pay for their mother.
I cant decide if the conspiracy theorists are right, and feminism is a Rockefellerfunded Commie plot to overthrow western society through the use of empowering
but empty memes, or if people really are that stupid. What I am sure of is that
civilization and society have clearly been built only by a small, small percentage
of the population who had to drag the rest kicking and screaming into the light
and none of that small population have been feminists.
Opus says:
August 14, 2011 at 11:49 am
Extrapolating from the charts above, you can see that the the most unstable
relationships are in Scandinavia and Britain. Breivik is Norwegian (absent father)
and the Riots (UK) no father known probably. Society pays a high price for
indulging Female Pedestalising, and demeaning Male value. At the same time,
however, although male desire is unending, I would instinctively mark any
woman down on my mental check-list if she were an unwed mother, or Divorcee
with a child, not just because her bastard is not my concern but because her
profligacy would tell me of her lack of control and self-centeredness, such as
the woman I dated once last year on which said date she advised me of her son.
Dropped instantly. Pump and Dump material only and she must be used to lots
of male attention being a Flight Attendant (Trolly Dolly). She then pursued me by
E-Mail which I ignored.
greenlander says:
August 14, 2011 at 12:13 pm
Great article, Dalrock.

The only hope is that this trend unravels and fathers become more important as
Big Government unravels.
Arual says:
August 14, 2011 at 12:21 pm
I was talking to a Russian coworker about single motherhood and she told me
that where she is from, getting pregnant without a husband was extremely foolish
because it is difficult to work and pay for food and shelter if you also need to care
for a child without support. She could not understand why so many women here
do not worry about getting pregnant without a stable relationship, especially at a
young age (high school). Once I explained the safety net that is in place, she
understood: there is no incentive NOT to jump into single motherhood. In fact,
its a pretty good deal. You can even keep your social life if youre willing to
neglect your kids, as many are.
Thank you for the statistics on out of wedlock birthsI was discussing this
problem with my husband and he said that the rate was lower today than it was
in the 50s, but he apparently had it confused with teen motherhood, not
illegitimate births. Of course, some couples intentionally have children without
marrying because they dont value a state-approved relationship, which may skew
the statistics upwards, but its hard to say. Says something about the worth of
modern marriage either way.
alcestiseshtemoa says:
August 14, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Good post.
*Comment on the British Riots and Children*
UKs culture has collapsed -> http://whiskeysplace.blogspot.com/2009/09/paging-dr-dalrymple.html
The British underclass is literally assimilated to minority dysfunction, anarchy
and depravity. An example of the loss of patriarchy would be a jobless man
named Jamie Cumming whom has fathered his 15th child to 13 different women > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023589/Is-Britains-feckless-fatherJamie-Cumming-father-15th-child-13th-lover.html?ITO=1490
This atmosphere is hurting nuclear families and the normalization of it has been a
blow to fathers, mothers and children alike. What a sad state of affairs.
TraditionalChristianity has discussed whether we should refuse the state on
aspects such as marriage due to the corruption and its liberalism ->
http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/separate-thesacrament-of-marriage-from-the-state/
Note: In case people dont know me Im the same commenter as Elizabeth Smith
on OZConservative.
Badger says:
August 14, 2011 at 12:30 pm
This shit is really unbelievable, so much so that people dont want to believe its
this bad. In many cases, only those who have been through it will believe it.
Whenever I talk to people about divorce, I make sure to bring up the facts of the
situation that women file for divorce at a 2:1 clip, a large reason being that they
are socially and financially rewarded for it, and that adultery/abuse/neglect are
exceedingly rare as cause for divorce. This is obviously very threatening to
women I talk to, who cant believe Id say something so misogynistic. But its not
misogyny, its statistical fact.
Women wring their hands about the bogeyman of men ditching their wives for
younger models and want a system to punish men who would do that but that
worry is total myopia and hamsterwheeling (to say nothing of the fact that courts
of law should not be a place for people to act out their personal grudges). There
are those cases, but its a really a canard the vast majority of divorces are not
responses to objective misconduct nor initiated by men seeking a swinging-single
lifestyle. For every cad who gets hosed by divorce court, theres probably three
innocent men subject to the arm of the law for nothing but spite and resentment
for not being the uber-husband of Hollywood films.
Now I wait for J to check in with some more contrary anecdotes.
August 14, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Dont forget independent liberated career women and their IVF babies.
Badger says:
August 14, 2011 at 12:36 pm
I cant decide if the conspiracy theorists are right, and feminism is a Rockefellerfunded Commie plot to overthrow western society through the use of empowering
but empty memes, or if people really are that stupid.
Never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.
http://badgerhut.wordpress.com/2011/01/27/hamsters-razor/
In feminisms case, I think it is a combination of the two.
August 14, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Women wring their hands about the bogeyman of men ditching their wives for
younger models and want a system to punish men who would do that but that
worry is total myopia and hamsterwheeling (to say nothing of the fact that
courts of law should not be a place for people to act out their personal grudges).
There are those cases, but its a really a canard the vast majority of divorces
are not responses to objective misconduct nor initiated by men seeking a
swinging-single lifestyle. For every cad who gets hosed by divorce court, theres
probably three innocent men subject to the arm of the law for nothing but spite
and resentment for not being the uber-husband of Hollywood films.
Good comment Badger. Abandoment and adultery is no longer the most common
and greatest reason for divorce nowadays. Now its all about sexual liberation,
not being in love and whatnot. No wonder so many people in the traditional
conservative blogosphere want to avoid and reject the state on aspects such as
marriage.
*Request*
Dalrock I will be 19 in two months and will start looking for a husband next year.
Im a Christian and a virgin. I also dont live anywhere in the West. What advice
do you have concerning marriage as in should I avoid the entire legal marriage
deal and just get married in a biblical Church? Im starting to see feminism
creeping little by little into the culture and legal system of my fathers country but
its still fairly low.
My fathers country is this one -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=z0UMb4F8tSE
My mothers country is this one -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=M3bb2Fy3WeY
Note Sorry I dont wish to lay out the exact countrys names for fear that a
colleague will find out about me on Internet.
greyghost says:
August 14, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Dalrock what do you think would be a good way to change this social trend?
flyingsquirrel says:
August 14, 2011 at 1:43 pm
For some strange reason, Shakespeares line on lawyers came to my mind.
Legion says:
August 14, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Count the judges (and court appointed psychiatrists) as lawyers and Im for it.
greenlander says:
August 14, 2011 at 2:18 pm
Dalrock what do you think would be a good way to change this

social trend?
I dont believe that there is any way to change this until the bubble implodes.
In the 1990s we had the stock market bubble.
In late 2000s we had the real estate bubble.

The final bubble is the Big Government bubble. Just like the last two bubbles, the
majority of the population doesnt see it as a bubble. The general populace is
happy to revel in the bread and circuses of Big Goverment and think that the
bread and circuses will last forever. However, youre finally starting to see the
cracks.
The United States debt-to-GDP ratio is now around 85%-100% depending on
how you account for it. (This disregards the present value of future promises of
medicare and social security which add an astounding 200% or so.), which is
historically the point at which governments become vulnerable to changes in
market sentiment. Even scarier is that the deficit is around 10% of GDP, so in five
years time well be at around 135-150%.
All that it takes is a change of sentiment in the credit markets for the whole thing
to came down. A year ago in Greece, everything was fine then over the course of
a month long-term government bond rates shot from 6% to 17%. Similar things
happened in Ireland, Spain and Portugal, and Italy is the next victim. What ends
bubbles is the Minsky moment: the point at which investors lose confidence in
the Ponzi scheme, at which point the market collapse just feeds on itself. Make no
mistake: more governments will go under, and they cant all be bailed out.
The powers that be all want to kick the can down the road. All of the bread and
circuses they vote for is (for now) keeping the underclass from rioting. Bu tthe
bread and circuses are fundamentally unaffortable, and the fall will come sooner
or later.
Higher taxation will not fix the problem. When taxation becomes punitive, effort
shifts from productive activity to how to avoid taxation of productive activity.
Corporations change their structures and move offshore. Individuals work off the
books, work less, cheat on taxes or expatriate. Theres a lot of a debate about
Laffer and his curve, but theres no debate that hes fundamentally right: the
dispute is only about the shape of the curve is.
When the change comes its hard to predict: but its almost certainly going to
come in the form of a collapse of fiat currency against hard goods. It may be the
case that Social Security and welfare checks still go out, but they arent going to
be as useful when a gallon of gas or a gallon of milk costs $50. Fred Reed hit the
nail on the head in his interpretation of the London riots:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/LondonRiots.shtml
This will result in a decine of living standards for virtually everyone, but the
decline will favor people with marketable skill sets. People whose skill sets used
to be in government makework jobs or people whose only skill was collecting
welfare and food stamps from Big Government will have a tough time. (And will
be pissed about it.) People who can fix things, build things and grow things will
have a higher relative status.
Let us hope that the collapse just comes in the form of a decade of hard years and
austerity while leaving a shell of rudimentary democracy intact, like what
happened in England after its empire collapsed. It would be far worse (but
seemingly more likely if history is any predictor) for a dictator to emerge. If that
happens, lets pray that its a friendly dictator like Lee Kuan Yew had in
Singapore instead of a crazy warmonger like Adolf Hitler.
A lot of social forces (feminism, affirmative action, political correctness) that are
rallied against on this blog and others in the manosphere are not sustainable
without large underlying support from Big Government. However, the end of Big
Government is coming. The cracks are visible everywhere. May you live in
interesting times.
Stephenie Rowling says:

August 14, 2011 at 3:14 pm
It would be far worse (but seemingly more likely if history is any predictor) for a
dictator to emerge.
This is very interesting as Latina we already had our age of dictators: trujillo,
somoza,pinochetthe muslims still live in many cases under this political
situation (one of the reasons I think neither them or us is very fond of
writing/reading about dystopian futures is because we already lived dystopian
past and presents) but anglosphere never had this phenomenon. Is there is
actually a real possibility of First world allowing this to happen?
greenlander says:
August 14, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Failed democracies tend to become dictatorships rather than constructively

reforming their democracies. Democracy is a fairly recent development in the
world so there arent that many examples of failing democracies (since there
arent that many democracies that could fail).
Examples of democracies that became dictatorships:
Ancient Rome became the Roman Empire
Italy and Germany ditched democracy and became dictatorships in the 1930s
Japan went from democracy to dictatorship in the late 1920s
There are probably more. The key point is that what caused the transition was
social forces that tore these countries apart and their citizens decided that a
dictatorship was more effective than a bickering, ineffective democracy.
In the emerging world (Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, most of Central/South
America and Africa) the line between what is a democracy and what is a
dictatorship is much more blurred and there are a lot of DINOs (Democracies in
Name Only).
Kathy says:
August 14, 2011 at 4:52 pm
This is a very good article by Amanda Devine, that was in the Australian
Telegraph.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/pregnancy-of-penny-wongsfemale-partner-no-cause-for-mass-celebration/story-e6frezz0-1226114379311
She speaks out against gay marriage and how it is undermining families as well.
Penny Wong for those who do not know is a minister in the f**ked up Australian
government, led by an equally f**ked up Prime Minister in Julia Gillard. Tony
Abbott is leader of the opposition who has been married for over twent years and
has three children.
As a Catholic, I believe the push for same-sex marriage is not about enhancing
the lives of gay couples. In countries where it has been legalised, there has been
no rush to the altar.
The issue is largely symbolic. It is simply a political tool to undermine the last
bastion of bourgeois morality the traditional nuclear family.
You only had to see the burning streets of London last week to see the
manifestation of a fatherless society.
The collapse of family life in Britain has been laid bare, reported to have the
highest proportion of single mothers in Europe and nearly half of all children
suffering family breakdown by the age of 16.
Fatherless families in underprivileged boroughs of London are the norm.
People were quick to call for sanctions on the parents of feral youth looting shops
and torching buildings.
Clapham shop-owner Elizabeth Pilgrim wailed to the BBC: Theyre feral rats.
What are those parents doing? Those children should be at home. They shouldnt
be out here causing mayhem.
But the fact is the fathers of those children are probably long gone. There are no
parents to take charge and exert control over their wayward children.
The welfare state has taken over the fathers role of protector, provider, and
enforcer, substituting sit-down money for love and care. And what a mess it has
made: fatherless boys full of incoherent rage, fatherless girls having another
generation of fatherless babies to a string of feckless men.
It is politically incorrect to say so, but the ideal situation for a child is to be
brought up in an intact family with a father and a mother.
As a rule, what prevents social chaos and the underclass is an intact family. What
keeps children safe is an intact family, with a father in the home.

Sure, there are aberrations, and you can always find evils within traditional
families, domestic violence and child abuse.
But even this imperfect institution is better than the Hobbesian social chaos the
children of the underclasses have been born into for the last 50 years.
Marriage is not just a private relationship: it is a social good. Collectively, the
erosion of the institution of marriage, and the relegating of fathers to the
sidelines, is destructive to society.

August 14, 2011 at 5:05 pm
Funny enough I was asking about the London riots to my very liberal relatives
(they are half British) and they glossed over the issue like Olympic skaters well
this class doesnt has a chance to get out of it because they dont have
opportunities or good education and blah blah blah no one came forward and
tried to point out that even if UK has a better welfare system having a bunch of
out of wedlock kids concentrate in one place with mothers with the entitle
mentality of a teenager is a bad idea. I wonder how long can we PC this facts?
Badger says:
August 14, 2011 at 10:35 pm
Kathy,
I find that writers argument fatuous. What on earth does gay people getting
married have to do with fatherhood in straight divorces? The horse is long since
out of the barn when it comes to the Western state ruining marriage as a family
institution no-fault divorce effectively ended the concept of marriage in this
country and that had nothing to do with gay people (dont know if NFD is law in
Australia).
August 14, 2011 at 11:36 pm
In the emerging world (Russia, Ukraine, Venezuela, most of Central/South

America and Africa) the line between what is a democracy and what is a
dictatorship is much more blurred and there are a lot of DINOs (Democracies in
Name Only).
Theres a difference between dictatorship and authoritarian but thanks to liberals
sometimes people cant tell the difference. Youre right that in most of these
emerging countries the line between democracy and dictatorship are blurred but
others are just authoritarian.
Badger says:
I find that writers argument fatuous. What on earth does gay people getting
married have to do with fatherhood in straight divorces? The horse is long since
out of the barn when it comes to the Western state ruining marriage as a family
institution no-fault divorce effectively ended the concept of marriage in this
country and that had nothing to do with gay people (dont know if NFD is law
in Australia).
Comments like this is one of the reasons why sometimes I dont like the
manosphere. Have you seen the political profiles of the manosphere? ->
http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2010/05/revealing-political-profiles.html
Feminism denies any gender differences and believes in equality so in a strange
way they might have enabled things such as transgenderism. If a man and a
woman are the same then why even bother? Why not two men, two women,
polygamy and whatnot? Theres also the whole aspect of autonomy and rebellion
against natural norms. I browsed the comments from the Penny wong article and
most of them were liberals supportive of this catastrophe. A couple are
brainwashed children of these types of inhuman and immoral rearing.
Single parenthood is kind of similar to homosexual parenting since in both
instances the opposite sex is absent. In single motherhood we have no fathers
and so the same situation replicates with female homosexuals. In single
fatherhood we have no mothers and so the same situation replicates with male
homosexuals. Both situations fall short of the nuclear family ideal where a
biological father and mother are present and together.
The institution of marriage is ruined but it wasnt just feminism though that is a
huge factor. Sexual liberation and liberal morales played a huge part in it as well
and things such as feminism and homosexuality are without a doubt intrinsically
tied to them. Just eliminating no-fault divorce will be a tremendous victory but it
wont be enough. We need to advocate things such as chastity and reproduction
versus promiscuity and recreation. Homosexuality is naturally at the core a sterile
orientation. What liberals are also doing is inverting the paradigm. They are
breaking the traditional heterosexual family in pieces and things such as open
relationships, polygamy, homosexual, transgenderism, single parenthood and
whatnot become alternatives.
Liberal heterosexuals are kind of like European liberals (and in fact most of them
tend to be one and the same). European liberals enable minority dysfunction and
indeed their greatest allies ->
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2011/08/two-photos-that-showsickness-of-dwl.html
Liberal heterosexuals work together with homosexuals and transgenders to do
the same. To me the house is burning down thanks to liberal heterosexuals but
adding more fuel to the flame isnt the answer. Theres also the important aspect
of the time period. Liberal heterosexuality is early decay and the sanction of
homosexuality is late decay. Both are wrong and install depravity, just at different
time periods. To acknowledge this universal and logical factor is quite different
from affirming that homosexuality itself is a non-issue.
Kathy says:
August 14, 2011 at 11:53 pm
Badg, This gay marriage push for acceptance is contributing to the collapse of the
institution of marriage, and the breakdown of the family unit. In the instance of
these two women, what kind of a life will the child have without a father in its
life?
In any case, mine was basically a response to the link below, posted by Dalrock.
All these fatherless children come from promiscuous women who are not in fact
married at all, but just continue to have children out of wedlock.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100100154/london-riotsabsent-fathers-have-a-lot-to-answer-for/
And, here where I live, marriage is very much the norm for most couples.
According to the latest divorce statistics available, the divorce rate in Australia is
on decline: after the peak divorce rate of 2.7% in 2001, it reached 2.3% in 2007
for 1,000 of residential population the lowest since 1988.
And, to answer your question, yes Australia does have NFD.(which I do not agree
with btw) There is also shared parenting laws here, so the mother cannot take the
kids away from their father. The laws are not perfect, but at least there is
recognition here that the father is just as important as the mother in a childs life.

August 15, 2011 at 12:35 am
I will say that I think trad/cons are missing huge potential allies with the idea of
keeping same sex couples out of the traditional two household and commitment
marriage model many liberals dont listen to our warnings because they only
hear I hate gays, (and I personally dont have a problem with gays I have a
problem with promiscuous people gay/straight or whatever) the same way many
trad/cons dont listen to many claims because they hear I hate unborn fetuses
so is a problem in both sides, IMO.
.
Accepting homosexuals that do see that the model of marriage (two people) and
children is superior to single household with a string of boyfriends coming and
going, will mean a lot more people willing to listen what the traditional model
might offer. No to mention that if you accept them adopting the feminists will
lose the whole there are not enough families to adopt children so abortion is
preferable to orphanages or being a homeless kid. Contraire to popular believe,
liberals dont agree on everything gays are not as open to bisexuals as they would
like to, neither all gays accept the idea of open marriages, many of them kind of
loathe it, so there is potential for them to side with trad/cons in all except on who
they sleep with.
Of course this is just the way I see the dynamics of liberals and conservatives and
having talked to both kinds of positions I see some overlap that could be useful,
but then I studied Theology and many religions also overlap and that doesnt
change the rivalry or make them more tolerant to each other,so feel free to
disagree just wanted to add my two cents, YMMV.
greyghost says:
August 15, 2011 at 1:08 am
Just eliminating no-fault divorce will be a tremendous victory but it wont be

enough
That is all you need. Bring fault back to marriage with real consequences
reguardless of sex and these problems go away very quickly. Even so women will
not take too kindly to actual equality under the law.
greenlander says:
August 15, 2011 at 1:54 am
Just eliminating no-fault divorce will be a tremendous victory but

it wont be enough
That is all you need. Bring fault back to marriage with real
consequences reguardless of sex and these problems go away very
quickly. Even so women will not take too kindly to actual equality
under the law.
Proving fault in marriage is a mess. Who cheated on who first? Who first broke
the vows? Its soooo hard to prove by any objective standard what really
happened.
It would be much better if we just removed the incentives for divorce. Scrap
material presumption of custody, child support that is based on some flat
standard and percentage of custody, rather than as a misnamed form of alimony.
Those and a few other changes would remove the incentive for women to divorce
without forcing the legal system into the dirty business of figuring how why the
marriage failed.
Johnycomelately says:
August 15, 2011 at 2:41 am
Social change only emerges through violence, when its top down it comes
through laws, when its bottom up it comes through physical force.
Considering fathers are at the very bottom of the political totem pole I can only
see it happening through wholesale destruction of the current political order.
According to historical cycles, anarchy, dicatorship, oligarchies, mob rule (where
we are now) and back to anarchy, were in for a bumpy ride.
blogster says:
August 15, 2011 at 4:58 am
@ Kathy
Are those divorce rates per year or marriage based? Cause the ABS says 1/3 of
marriages are now ending in divorce in australia..
August 15, 2011 at 5:20 am
Is it just me or did my response towards Stephenie dissappeared?
August 15, 2011 at 5:27 am
I will say that I think trad/cons are missing huge potential allies with the idea
of keeping same sex couples out of the traditional two household and
commitment marriage model many liberals dont listen to our warnings
because they only hear I hate gays, (and I personally dont have a problem
with gays I have a problem with promiscuous people gay/straight or whatever)
the same way many trad/cons dont listen to many claims because they hear I
hate unborn fetuses so is a problem in both sides, IMO.
If the opposition misinterprets us and misunderstands us then that is their
problem. Sometimes one shouldnt befriend an enemy. We dont need these
potential allies. The only potential ally we need and indeed possess is goodness,
truth and beauty.
Accepting homosexuals that do see that the model of marriage (two people) and
children is superior to single household with a string of boyfriends coming and
going, will mean a lot more people willing to listen what the traditional model
might offer. No to mention that if you accept them adopting the feminists will
lose the whole there are not enough families to adopt children so abortion is
preferable to orphanages or being a homeless kid. Contraire to popular believe,
liberals dont agree on everything gays are not as open to bisexuals as they
would like to, neither all gays accept the idea of open marriages, many of them
kind of loathe it, so there is potential for them to side with trad/cons in all
except on who they sleep with.
I greatly disagree. If the gender doesnt matter then why on earth should the
number matter? Why not three or four people? A child should not be deprived of
a father and a mother. The modern model of marriage is a corrupted and
depraved. The true model of marriage isnt just two people. In genuine marriage
we have a monogamous relationship between two individuals of the opposite sex
united for the purpose of being mates (e.g. God made them male and female for
companioship), bringing stability and building society (civilization) and child
rearing (preferably their own biological offspring). Its to honour the eyes of God.
August 15, 2011 at 5:36 am
In the instance of these two women, what kind of a life will the child have
without a father in its life?
Agreed and sadly Badger doesnt see it. How can he not see two women and no
father in sight? Theres also another monstrosity here (a double catastrophe I call
it) -> http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2011/05/imagine-this-family-15years-from-now/
Kathy says:
August 15, 2011 at 5:41 am
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3307.0.55.001
Hope this helps blogster.
See here too.
http://mydivorce.com.au/divorceadvice/divorce-statistics-australia.htm
You are indeed correct in saying that a third of marriages in Oz do end in
divorce.
Kathy says:
August 15, 2011 at 5:47 am
I greatly disagree. If the gender doesnt matter then why on earth should the
number matter? Why not three or four people? A child should not be deprived of
a father and a mother. The modern model of marriage is a corrupted and
depraved. The true model of marriage isnt just two people. In genuine marriage
we have a monogamous relationship between two individuals of the opposite sex
united for the purpose of being mates (e.g. God made them male and female for
companioship), bringing stability and building society (civilization) and child
rearing (preferably their own biological offspring) Its to honour the eyes of God.
Completely agree with you Liz!

Btw, did not realize it was YOU when I commented in response to what you said
over at Throne and Altar.. Long moniker.
Kathy says:
August 15, 2011 at 5:48 am
Blogster ,have replied to your query. Comment in moderation due to links, mate.
PT Barnum says:
August 15, 2011 at 8:07 am
Mothers who take their children away from their fathers are
committing child abuse.
I have conflicting feeling on whether child-support is good or not. It forced my

father to contribute more then the bare minimum required for us to survive.
assuming he could have managed the bare minimum without being sent to the
poor house that is. He might have had to go a bit under that. Tough times.
On the other hand, the child support check might have kept him from having
charges pressed against him and being sent to jail. Which would have stopped me
from having to deal with him for a period and it also would have destroyed his
life.
So its kinda hard to see which would have been better.
Dan in Philly says:

August 15, 2011 at 8:21 am
alcestiseshtemoa in regards to your seeking advice for upcoming marriage,

FWIW I would advise you to consider the teachings of the church and
repudiating the teachings of the world. Remember you have no obligation to live
as the world encourages you to live, you must determine your own actions and
live with the consequences.
The way I see it, Christianity has been so effectively removed from government
that if we ever could call the state a christian one, we can no longer do so.
Governments cannot be looked upon as the source of morality, and cannot be
depended on to rule in favor of the moral against the immoral. This will have real
and sad consequenses, but Ill not dwell on those here but rather address your
question.
In a way, this new understanding of the state and Christianity is more of a return
to its roots, when the practice was ignored, ridiculed, or persecuted. As such, I
have studied the writings of the church leaders of those times for guidance for
how to conduct my own life, as a pilgrim among unbelievers. There is much fruit
in such study, and I would encourage you to take it up. In particular, study the
letters of the new testiment and the writings of St. Augustine, both of which touch
on the matter of marriage in a world such as the one we find ourselves in.
In those days, poligamy and homosexualtiy was common and poligamy at least
was recognized by the state as legal (the direction I am certain we are currently
headed). Paul encourages men to marry only one woman (if indeed he should
marry at all). Both Augustine and Paul encourages women to be submissive to
their husbands, as their husbands should be to Christ (they go into more detail
than I do here). I would encourage you (as I will my own children) to adhere to
such ideas, and find a man who is willing to put himself under the authority of
Christ. Finding such a man, you should be willing to put yourself under his
authority. The modern feminist woman rejects this idea even as she finds in
practice whenever she marries she is in the power of the man she chose anyway,
and you might say that the current legislative problem as outlined in Dalrocks
post above is the modern womans attempt to get the state to overturn this
simple reality. As an aside, this is why marriage is so screwed up right now just
as when the state interferes with commerce, favoring one party over anohter it
always hurts commerce as a whole, so too when the state interferes with
marriage, favoring one party at the expense of another, it always hurts the overall
good of the institution.
I would also encourage you to be married by the state and not just by God, as if
you are not you open yourself and the church up to ridicule by the world, and you
need to remember you are an ambassador of Christ and should always put your
best foot forward be in the world even as you are not of it.
Good luck and God bless.
anonymous says:
August 15, 2011 at 8:43 am
default father custody + no fault divorce should result in reasonably stable

families. Or at least affirmative action to boost father custody up to 50%. Fathers
who dont want custody can pay the child support. Women wont like default
father custody, but in that case, they can just have children outside of a marriage
contract. Another solution would be to expand the prenuptial to cover child
custody.
August 15, 2011 at 10:04 am
Thank you for the advice Dan in Philly. Appreciated.
Anonymous Reader says:

August 15, 2011 at 10:08 am
This is an excellent, excellent summing up of the situation, Dalrock. Badger is

correct, most people in the US who dont know anyone thats gone through the
meatgrinder of the divorce industry have no idea whats involved. And the first
reaction of most men to this information is a skeptical disbelief, coupled with a
scoffing idea that Well, those must must be losers to let that happen. I find that
attitude very strongly among conservatives, social and otherwise. But theres a
liberal variant along the lines of Well, he must have done something for that to
happen. (Actually, in many cases it is what he did not do that contributed to the
situation he didnt Game his wife)
What is truly astounding is the number of rational men who cant see that there
are clear, defined, obvious financial incentives for women with children to divorce
their husbands, in addition to the emotional ones (and the emotional ones likely
matter more to many women). That quote from the women who basically wanted
to drop a neutron bomb on her world, removing men, is very revealing indeed.
But that is how some number of women think. In my opinion, such women are
married to their children. They can be seen around us in all stages; Ive seen
them myself. Just this summer I met purely by accident a woman pushing 40 in
the initial post-divorce euphoria; the new hairdo, the brand new car, the new
clothing that goes with the recently lost weight. Last year I was at a dinner party
and sat near a woman in another phase: the woman in her mid-40s whose
youngest child has just graduated High School and just left home. That woman
was pleasant and cheerful enough, but there was a definite air of lonesomeness
and a whiff of desperation, as her empty nest is empty indeed. Her ex has a new
LTR, not sure if hes married or not. A few years ago I was helping a friend with
some yard work, and a neighbor woman in her 50s came up. Talk ensued and it
came out that her house would be for sale soon her youngest child was 18-20
and in college, and the owners of the house wanted to sell. A bit more talk, and
it came out that she was divorced. Ah. So the owners would be you and your
ex husband, and hes selling his half of the house, and you cant pay for it, right?
Bet hes glad to be out from under that child support now. Maybe his current
LTR is looking forward to the increase in income in that family?
Dalrock has shown over and over the selling of divorce, often by playing up the
euphoria phase, but what is not seen in these pieces he points to? The cost is not
seen. The cost to men is not seen, nor is the cost to children seen, nor is the later
cost to women seen. Its like any con the offer of something for nothing.
I invite the reader to back up and look at the charts and numbers. Bear in mind
that in the US, child support is not paid from ex husband to ex wife directly, but
rather from ex husband to the government, and from government to ex wife. That
is how it is possible to put men in prison when they owe too much back child
support; their debt is to the government. That is how it is possible to prohibit a
man who owes too much back child support from obtaining a hunting license
the game and fish / wildlife services database is tied in to the state child support
database (it is a mystery to me how this particular incentive is supposed to work,
but it is the law). Now, reader, consider how much that costs. How many
computers databases must be maintained by skilled programmers, how many
clerks must work in state agencies processing checks from fathers and cutting
checks to mothers, how many functionaries must go around checking up on the
issuance of checks (and hunting fraud), and so forth.
Child support amounts to a huge, ill-defined, financial overhead to US society,
and we all pay for it one way or another. How much are we spending to deduct
money out of divorced mens paychecks, and put it into divorced womens bank
accounts, I wonder? Even with direct deduction / direct deposit it is not trivial,
and it is buried in the do-good part of government budgets, the social welfare/
protection of families line items.
Feminists routinely glide over the social costs of no fault divorce and child
support, Im sure they wont pay any attention to the financial cost. The links that
Dalrock has provided on the social cost go down another rabbit hole, and its not
exactly a secret what the bad outcomes for children of divorced families are:
increased odds of early drug use, early alcohol use, (and increased chances of
addiction later in life to both/either), increased odds of early sexual experience
setting the stage for another go round the cycle, increased odds of failure in
school the list goes on. And its been known for over 25 years, maybe 30 years.
If there was some kind of germ that did that to children, huge efforts would have
been in place for years to find a cure, develop a vaccine, there would be wide
spread efforts to warn parents of the dread disease.
None of that is going on. Outside the various pieces of the men-oriented web, I
dont see anyone calling for an end to no fault (really mens fault ) divorce.
Even pushing towards joint custody of children is an uphill fight, although it has
happened in some stats in the US. So everyone is paying for a bad situation, some
people multiple ways, but change is slow to nonexistent. Why?
IMO because not only of entrenched groups that financially profit from divorce
the divorce industry, including lawyers, judges, various state agencies but
because no fault divorce coupled with child support feeds female hypergamous
tendencies. Its like the lottery. Most women who drop that neutron bomb on
their marriage will find it much more difficult to trade up to the ideal man in
their fantasies (they wont be finding a reclusive millionaire gardener in their
back yard, for example) but something like it could happen. They could find that
soulmate that is missing from their lives. And they could win the big Powerball,
too. But the odds are heavily against in all the above cases; 1 in 1 million might be
optimistic.
What kind of social policy is it that ultimately exists to feed middle aged womens
fantasies, to enable them to retain their children and extract resources from one
or more men that are essentially barred from having any meaningful interaction
with those children, freeing said women to go pursue Mr. Right?
Id say, an insane social policy, that in the long run will fail.

August 15, 2011 at 10:22 am
Addendum to the above: the divorced woman whose house would soon be up for
sale was right. It did come up for sale, and it was priced below market value (this
was during the US housing bubble) for quick sale. The woman neighbor moved to
some townhouse. Maybe her husband dumped her to trade up for a tighter,
younger wife. Maybe they parted ways amicably, although the details of the house
sale suggest otherwise.
And maybe, just maybe, at some point in their lives when the two children were
early school age, she poured all of her attention into them and her job, and left
her husband in the cold. Maybe he found he was not regarded as a man by her
anymore, but there were other women who did look at him as a man. Or maybe
she just developed a problem with no name, discovering she was fond of him
she loved him but was not in love with him anymore. Given the 2:1 ratio of
female vs. male initiated divorces thats been building for a while, the last guess
has a higher weight of probability.
From what I can tell, her sons turned out all right. Many children of divorce do.
But they themselves are more prone to divorce, and thus even if the divorce of
one generation is friendly, that action sets up the next generation for a greater
chance of divorce, and thus the grandchildren of divorce are at higher risk for any
number of bad outcomes.
Child support was supposed to alleviate all of this, by the way. Child support was
supposed to keep the children of divorce in the home they were already living in,
and living more or less in the style to which they were accustomed the music
lessons, gymnastics, sports teams, and other activities would go on
uninterrupted, paid for by the guy who was no longer allowed in the door.
Funny how money doesnt seem to substitute for a father very well, no matter
how much there might be (and two households cannot be cheaper to run than
one, not in reality).
Very important posting, Dalrock.

August 15, 2011 at 10:35 am
Opus
Extrapolating from the charts above, you can see that the the most unstable
relationships are in Scandinavia and Britain. Breivik is Norwegian (absent
father)
From what I have read, Breiviks father did not leave, his mother drove him out
via divorce. Said mother later on became incapacitated due to a rare complication
of her infection with genital herpes. Breivik himself in his rather long text goes on
about this, it appears in some excerpts Ive read. So it is not just absent father,
its father who was driven away by mother who became a carousel rider, and
then became a basket case thanks to disease she caught from the carousel.
None of this justifies anything Breivik did, I wish to make that clear. But it does
cast a clearer light upon some aspects of his personality. Going by the suicide
numbers for Nordics, it is certain that there are other men with similar
upbringing to Breiviks who choose self-murder rather than his horrible route. But
that could change given all the publicity.
Jennifer says:
August 15, 2011 at 10:43 am
Very powerfully put. Rock on, Dalrock.

August 15, 2011 at 10:44 am
Dont forget independent liberated career women and their IVF babies.
More common would be the single women who choose artificial insemination.
From what I can tell, the sperm banks that were created in the 60s to help
married couples where the man was infertile cater mainly nowadays to single
women and homosexual couples.
But in all of these are really a tiny number, when compared to the growing
number of baby mommies who have basically married the government, and
the generation of women who dropped the neutron bomb on their marriage. if
government subsidizes something, whether its converting corn to alcohol to fuel
cars, or single women bearing children, that something is likely to increase.
Paying women to have babies outside of marriage has clearly resulted in a lot
more women doing that.
However, were there to be any attempt to roll back government support for single
women with children, there is no doubt in my mind that three groups would rise
up in a rage: feminists, for obvious reasons, liberals because of their politics of
government as sugar daddy, and trad-cons, who have always been suckers for
slogans having to do with its for the children.
Therefore, child support will continue. Funding of baby-mommies will continue.

And the damage will get worse.
Jennifer says:
August 15, 2011 at 10:47 am
I dont wish to police homosexual lives, but do you know what one of my main
arguments against gay adoption is? Children need fathers. Of course they need
mothers too, but most everyone knows that; its fathers that societys forgetting
about, and I believe more gay women than gay men adopt (I know they can be
good parents, but raising a kid with only a single gender parenting them, whether
there are two members of this gender or not, should never be the norm). A liberal
man I said all this to didnt like to hear it, but whatever; Id think the need for
fathers would be a celebrated fact, not a denied one.

August 15, 2011 at 11:03 am
Good comment Badger. Abandoment and adultery is no longer the most

common and greatest reason for divorce nowadays. Now its all about sexual
liberation, not being in love and whatnot.
Well, Elizabeth, Im pleased to see you finally admitting this.
No wonder so many people in the traditional conservative blogosphere want to
avoid and reject the state on aspects such as marriage.
Yet it appears that many, indeed a majority, of tradcons still expect men in
general to march right up and get a state marriage. At least thats the impression
I get from cough various sites. Can you explain this?
Jennifer says:
August 15, 2011 at 11:05 am
The modern model of marriage is a corrupted and depraved. The true model of
marriage isnt just two people. In genuine marriage we have a monogamous
relationship between two individuals of the opposite sex united for the purpose of
being mates (e.g. God made them male and female for companioship), bringing
stability and building society (civilization) and child rearing (preferably their own
biological offspring) Its to honour the eyes of God
BEAUTIFULLY said.

August 15, 2011 at 11:17 am
Jennifer, in my experience the only time that any attention is paid to the need
children have for their fathers is when its part of yet another lecture, book,
screed, or sermon on how men need to do more. Its generally used as a
convenient stick to beat men with. And it is quite galling.
Men as a rule love their children just as much as women do. They manifest it
differently, much less visibly, but they do. And I believe that women count on
that. I believe that married women who are married to their children count on
the love that whats-his-name has for the children to keep him around, no matter
how badly he is treated by his wife. I believe that divorced women count on that
love to keep the child support flowing, too, which is why they become so
vituperative if the money is late, or worse yet dries up.
But its never recognized. In fact, its even demonized a man on the one hand is
supposed to be an involved father, on the other hand any interest by any man in
any children including his own can be painted as potential pedophilia. It is more
than annoying, it is angering and disgusting.
Child support as alimony chil-mony is but one part of the wider
demonization of men, and manhood.
Kai says:
August 15, 2011 at 11:31 am
I see two things that would somewhat help:

1. no no-fault divorce.
If you file, it is presumed to be your fault unless you can prove otherwise. The few
horrible instances of actual abuse are pretty easy to demonstrate. Cheating is
provable. If the other person actually did something awful, you can make it their
fault. If two people really truly both agree to amicably split, they can work out
their own settlement with no trouble.
Otherwise, if you want out, then its your fault the marriage is broken.
The person at fault for the divorce does not receive any support of any kind.
The person *not* at fault is the presumed custodial parent, with visitation rights
given to the other parent. Either agreement between the two or extremely
persuasive arguments are necessary to get a different result.
If there is to be any support, it must be managed by someone other than the
custodial parent. The money should be spend directly on the child, and the
custodial parent must account for the spendings of all money received. Support
money should only be enforced as long as visitation rights are also enforced.
2. male legal abortion.
Right now, babies are completely at the whims of women. women choose when
they want to have babies and when they dont, and men basically just have to try
to find a woman who will take their opinion into consideration. This is hardly
fair. We cant do anything about the biological realities, but we can even things up
in the legal sphere.
As long as women are legally permitted to abort a child with no input from the
father (whether or not one agrees with this, it is the current legal reality), men
should have the same option at least legally. Men have a similar span as women
from the time *they are informed of their impending paternity*, they have
three months to choose whether they want to be a father. If they do, great. They
may still have to fight for it with the mother of their child if they failed to marry
first, but they can get there. But if they are not married, and they dont want to be
fathers, women cant force them. They can petition the courts for a legal
abortion, which basically states I dont want to be a father right now, and if it
were my body, Id abort the kid. With this granted, they give up any possible
future paternity rights and responsibilities. Now the mother knows what shes
dealing with. She can either choose to have the baby and raise it alone, or she can
choose to put it up for adoption, or she can choose to make the same decision
and exercise her legal right to abortion. But she cant entrap the man into paying
her to raise the child he doesnt want.
The main criticism Ive heard of this idea is that it takes men off the hook well,
yes it does. Right now they are on the hook with no choices. This would require
women to stop sleeping with every bad boy she sees, and actually consider the
consequences. If shes sleeping with a guy who will abandon her if she gets
pregnant, she can no longer just plan to have the state imprison him for her, she
must decide to take appropriate precautions NOT to get pregnant with a man
who wont stick around just like most of history!
Its sure not the ideal state of society, but it at least evens things out a little for
men in the meantime.
Thoughts?
greyghost says:
August 15, 2011 at 11:54 am
Kai you are on the right track. It is the little things at the micro level that are the
root. Any man should be legally able to abandon a child has women are today.
Any mother can just drop a child off no questions ask. All of the vitrues of chaste
and marriage and religious commitment with return very quickly. If the father
has no stake he can just leave. Feminism dies the next day,and this society wide
pop culture of misandry ends real quick.
As long as you can force people at gun point to take care of you,you have no
reason to have empathy for them.(and they dont) And a very strange thing will
happen. Women will begin to feel happiness and appreciation for the men in her
life.
The purpose and goal of MGTOW is to deny as many women as possible within
the current laws of misandry the benefits of feminism enforced with misandry. In
topic with the current article no male contact no baby no child support. A non
hormonal male birth control pill will be the restorer of politeness.
Doomed Harlot says:

August 15, 2011 at 12:11 pm
Greyghost, I dont think feminism would die if child support were taken away.
Surely, the lack of child support, if it were to have any effect at all, would increase
the likelihood of abortion, as well as the motivation of women to find other
resources besides the men in their lives to pay the bills. (Indeed, most women
today have jobs and can support their own children, albeit at the same standard
as they would if married to another earner and/or receiving support.) Taking
away child support would probably only affect the poorest women, who are the
least likely to be feminists anyway, no?
jlw says:
August 15, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Chri$t. Reading articles like this makes me so happy to be a middle-aged virgin

omega.
Dalrock says:
August 15, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Ive been very busy, but wanted to check in and let Greyghost and
alcestiseshtemoa know I saw their questions and will answer them when I
have time.
Also, I found some updated data from the census on child support. The paper
I referenced is pretty old. It took a good amount of digging but I finally found
some census data from 2007 which I will share. It looks slightly less biased
against men, but still overwhelmingly so. Ill do a write up on the new data I
found and then edit this post with the latest info.
Thanks everyone for your comments.
Dalrock says:
August 15, 2011 at 2:20 pm
@Doomed Harlot
Taking away child support would probably only affect the

poorest women, who are the least likely to be feminists anyway,
no?
From what I have read for that demographic child support is mostly about the
government recouping its welfare costs for the woman and her child. I think
some states will give the woman $50 out of it as an incentive to bring the man
into the system. Here is a NY Times article from 2007 complaining about this.
I dont know if the laws have been changed since then.

August 15, 2011 at 2:24 pm
I dont wish to police homosexual lives, but do you know what one of my main
arguments against gay adoption is? Children need fathers.
Dont get me wrong I totally agree with the ideal and perfect model to be father
and mother. Im mostly working from an estrategic POV, there are homosexuals
that aside from their sexual inclination agree with many trad/cons lifestyle. And I
think it would be a better move from us to embrace them instead of drove them
to the crazy ones. But then I know that for many people they believe is Gods will
for them to keep them out. I just wanted to mention it, because is better than
never saying it.
Kai
I will say that I agree with this, but I think also there should be a way for the
father to have a say if he wants the baby. Some men had expressed the desire to
keep their babies while their women just have an abortion for whatever reason. I
think it will be fair for them to have a way to keep them if they want to,YMMV.
Kai says:
August 15, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Im not sure how my mileage might vary on a philosophic question

I think its a horrible situation that two people create a baby, and then one has no
say whatsoever it whether it makes it to birth. I think that if a man is willing to
singly parent the child, and can pay for any medical costs along the way, its
pretty awful that he still has no choice in the matter.
But there are biological differences here that cant just be legislated away. And I
dont want to make this a debate on the morality of abortion.
The question of a man who wants it and a woman who doesnt is difficult and
complicated due to biology.
but the issue of a woman who wants it and a man who doesnt isnt difficult the
biological differences can easily be made into legal equality. So I think its at least
a start.
Kai says:
August 15, 2011 at 2:52 pm
greyghost says:
Any man should be legally able to abandon a child has women are today.
Well, were on slightly different tracks here. I can agree with some obligation to a
child you have chosen to raise, and Im not okay with dads randomly buggering
off when a child is ten. Once youve made a commitment in good faith* to a child
to raise it, its a different matter. (One that doesnt necessarily justify government
intervention, but its an entirely different issue from the one Im mentioning.) My
point is simply with the issue of whether to become a parent in the first place.
Right now women have that choice, and men dont. If both choose not to use
protection, the woman has recourse and the man does not. This is the inequality
with which I disagree, and which I think is pretty simple to fix by extending the
legal rights of women to men. That is why I also give it a time limit similar to
that imposed on women, except that the time limit starts when the man is
informed, regardless of when the pregnancy began, so that a man cannot end up
trapped by not being told.
*ie. the commitment was not made on false premises such as lying about
paternity or the like.
Id love to see your plan for non-hormonal male birth control pills. We dont even
have something non-hormonal for women. I think it would be awesome for both
to exist, but I havent seen anything looking towards that existing in the near
future. Id be thrilled if it is out there.
Jennifer says:
August 15, 2011 at 3:05 pm
Legal abortion and then actual abortion?? My God, what a tragic scenario
August 15, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Yet it appears that many, indeed a majority, of tradcons still expect men in
general to march right up and get a state marriage. At least thats the
impression I get from cough various sites. Can you explain this?
Traditional conservatives are often torn and a few times confused. For example
our loyalty is to religion and yet modern governments are often secular and
ranging anywhere from indifferent to anti-religious in the Western world in
particular but we are told that we should participate in public places. We believe
in traditional marriage and yet the legal system is corrupted and much of it
endorses liberalism and heresies. We realize and often write about the influence
that the liberal worldview has had throughout the world and yet we dont
completely disregard them (liberals) as too late to save. Even in the darkest times
plenty of far-right wingers see the light and perhaps this light lightens up the
room so that the darkness is forgotten and not seen. I think since traditional
conservatives believe and hold the religious ideal of marriage as good many
mistake it for the view that they see the modern state of marriage as good when
in reality this is false. They care about genuine marriage (the belief, the idea,
those practices), not modern liberal influenced corrupted marriage. I believe
traditional conservatives are a couple of times idealistic and this has been
simultaneously their greatest strength and weakness. Theyre not like left-liberals
(far-leftists, anarchists), centrists, apolitical nor right-liberals (neoconservatives,
libertarians, classical liberas) thats for sure.
Jennifer says:
August 15, 2011 at 3:38 pm
Nailed it, Alces.

Men as a rule love their children just as much as women do. They manifest it
differently, much less visibly, but they do. And I believe that women count on
that. I believe that married women who are married to their children count on
the love that whats-his-name has for the children to keep him around, no matter
how badly he is treated by his wife. I believe that divorced women count on that
love to keep the child support flowing, too, which is why they become so
vituperative if the money is late, or worse yet dries up
Very sad and true. Anon, about Godless women.
August 15, 2011 at 3:47 pm
When traditional conservatives are talking about men and women marching up
to get state marriage they mean in the idea that marriage itself is a good.
Many cant separate it because we are by nature authoritarian. On the other hand
most traditional conservatives agree and believe that what is legal and what is
moral is different -> http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/019601.html
For example if murder and stealing are legal is it moral? No, it isnt. You have to
dig deep and just right out ask Are you talking about the current corrupted
liberal legal state of marriage or the whole idea of marriage as morally good, God
ordained and essential for civilization? Then you have to play up law vs.
morality/ethics since most traditional conservatives dont view law and morality
as the same but as morality enshrined in law. If one goes out and says that what
is enshrined in law is immoral and unethical then they start thinking maybe they
should either reject or reform the law. Some Christians in Ancient Rome lived in
civil disobedience because they would rather follow the (moral) laws of God
rather than the (sinful) laws of men. A couple of them became martyrs.
For example this post on ideal of marriage vs modern legal state of marriage ->
http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/separate-thesacrament-of-marriage-from-the-state/
Terri might have waked up and was thinking separation, reformation or going
underground. She might have thought Hey should I follow what is right, moral
and God-ordained or what is legal, wrong and sinful? I pick the former.
August 15, 2011 at 3:53 pm
In all Anonymous Reader when traditional conservatives get all gushy about
marriage they dont usually mean marriage as in the current state of marriage
(though that may come in). They mean they love the belief, practices and ideal of
marriage. They want to preserve that. They are also naturally authoritarian and
so usually state marriage is mixed up with marriage itself. But they agree and
believe that the law and morality/ethics is clearly not the same (e.g.
morality/ethics gets enshrined in law and law is kind of a structure for conduct in
society). Sorry if Im confusing in my explanations. Hopefully I helped you get a
clearer view on how far-right wingers see this issue.
Doomed Harlot. says:

August 15, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Thats interesting stuff, Dalrock. The existence of welfare benefits for poor
women, I suppose, shows that even the most vulnerable women in our society
would not necessarily have to become newly dependent on their childrens
fathers if state-enforced child support were limited or done away with.
I am not sure there is any way to even out the injustices of biology. It is true that
men may be stuck supporting children they would have aborted if they had the
choice, but women bear both the physical and the financial risks of an unwanted
pregnancy. No matter what choice the woman makes, she will have to undergo
the considerable risks and physical pain of either pregnancy-and-childbirth or an
abortion, which isnt exactly a walk-in-the-park. While the man may be obligated
to provide financial support, he is under no obligation to take custody of the child
or provide care or to pay for the medical costs of either the pregnancy or the
abortion. The woman will have to figure out how to get and pay for the medical
care she needs, and if she has the child, she has to figure out how to provide
adequately for it, either by giving it up for adoption (which isnt necessarily that
easy if the child doesnt fit what is considered a desirable demographic, i.e.
healthy and white), or by taking on its support and care for the next 18 years.
I doubt there is any solution to unwanted pregnancy that is perfectly fair to the
man, the woman, and the child all at once. I think it is incumbent on anyone who
has sex (whether within marriage or outside of marriage) to take steps to prevent
unwanted pregnancy, and also to consider and to get on the same page with ones
partner about what will happen if there is an unwanted pregnancy.
Buck says:
August 15, 2011 at 4:44 pm
I have several female friends with kids and they to a man (sorry had to ) cant
wait for the kids to be 18 and out of the house. The cold heart and steely eyes are
somewhat frightening. My sainted mum informed Mrs and me when our first was
born, that babysitting was out of the question, she raised hers and shes done with
that!
I was at a domestic last night, and the soon-to-be ex could care less about tossing
out the ol man out in front of the screaming kidsthey wanted their daddy to
stay. She yelled at them ( age 6-9 respectively) to grow upwow, Mother
Theresa move over.
Daddy, as were walking to his car, tells me she is expecting her boyfriend over
later and wanted him gone, when he refused she claimed she would bang her
head against a wall and have him arrested for battery. He knew she would, so
decided to go before she made shit up and got him arrested. He fears moving out
because his lawyer said she would file an abandonment petition. He also fears for
the kids nutrition and school scheduleshe is preoccupiedIll bet she is!
Id love to tell you this is a rare example, its not
imnobody says:
August 15, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Dalrock, your posts are between the best of the manosphere but you have hit a
home-run with this one. Its one of your finest.
The so-con obsession about gay marriage (while not paying attention to divorce
and out-of-wedlock births) is similar to the attitude of the people who was
rearranging decks while the Titanic was sinking
Jennifer says:
August 15, 2011 at 7:38 pm
Amen Doomed.
Pingback: Latest U.S. Custody and Child Support Data | Dalrock
greyghost says:
August 16, 2011 at 12:46 am
Kai
You had this to say
Id love to see your plan for non-hormonal male birth control pills. We dont
even have something non-hormonal for women. I think it would be awesome for
both to exist, but I havent seen anything looking towards that existing in the
near future. Id be thrilled if it is out there
http://www.israel21c.org/health/a-birth-control-pill-for-men This guy here is
working to reverse engineer male invertlity. To make it someting to be done on
purpose. His mehod is nonhormonal.
To all
There is no legal or finacial risk what so ever for a woman to give birth. no
woman is under any legal obligation to be a mother. At any time a woman can
chose to not be a mother with no consequence. That is the way it is.
Buck,
you are right on about what is really happening in western society, The laws of
misandry that allow that scene to play out needto go away. It should not even be
possible for a woman to even think like that much less put that into play.
fedrz says:
August 16, 2011 at 1:02 am
We have found that who gets the children is by far the most
important component in deciding who files for divorce,
Actually, if you delved into this historically, your would find it is not equal by
gender. It is far more accurate to say that when women can get custody of the
children, she will be more likely to divorce. Keep in mind that up until the
1860s, father custody was the norm, meaning that even if the father was a
philandering lout, he still retained custody. Yet, for thousands of years up until
the 1860s, the divorce rate remained less than one percent. Fathers, in the vast
majority, did not expel their wives from their childrens lives even when they had
the absolute authority to do so.
The noble suffragettes, such as Susan B. Anthony, lobbied hard to have custody
transferred from the father to the mother. By 1870, assumed mother custody had
been instituted, and from 1870 to 1920 the divorce rate rose to 1 in 7, from less
than 1 in 100 before 1870 an unprecedented increase in divorce. Since 1920,
the increase in divorce has marginal compared to those first years of changing the
assumed custody of the children to the mother.
Historically, as well as in the modern day, women have always left men more
than men have left women. Who they didnt leave though, were their children.
Men love women, women love children, and children love puppies.
There is a hierarchy, and when fathers had assumed custody instead of women,
women will stay in marriage in order to maintain contact with children. Men,
however, when they have custody of children, tend to care for both the mother
and the children, and does not tend to throw the woman out.
What do you think inspired men to die on the Titanic rather than boot the
women out to make room for themselves? And why dont you think we will ever
see a time when women will do the same thing for men, and go down with the
ship so that men can survive? (The hierarchy just dont work that way!).
August 16, 2011 at 1:03 am
I think it is incumbent on anyone who has sex (whether within marriage or

outside of marriage) to take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and also to
consider and to get on the same page with ones partner about what will
happen if there is an unwanted pregnancy.
Doomed Harlot I would say that these unwanted pregnancies are usually
consequences of promiscuity, adultery, drugs or stupidity. A lot of these
unwanted pregnancies can be prevented but most leftists dont want to take this
route. They want to indulge themselves in gluttony and are surprised to find
themselves fat. In fact about 90 to 95% of abortions are because of this. No most
abortions arent done because of mutations, deformations, incest, rape and
mothers life in danger (which I consider the adequate reasons for abortion). Its
done because of the fickle actions of people.
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 2:46 am
I too think that decent people need to simply be adults and take responsibility for
the fact that sex is linked to procreation.
But Im realistic about chances. Right now, women are biologically but not legally
responsible for their mistakes (ie. they have the legal right to get rid of a child,
though it does take some biological toll). Men, on the other hand, dont have
biological consequences, but run the risk of all the legal responsibilities with no
choices.
We cant make the biology fair, but we can at least stop holding men to standards
women dont have to meet.
Despite the biological risks, a number of women dont take it seriously. Im
suggesting that we put the legal risks in there too and see if that makes women
take a little extra thought before they screw.
It puts them at the same level as men, legally speaking where you really need to
consider the other persons views before you have potentially procreative sex.
Right now, the state tries to slap paternity on a guy no matter what if its his
kid and he doesnt want it, he still has to pay. if its not his kid, but he ever acted
like a father without that knowledge, he can be forced to pay. if he isnt told
about it for years, he can be forced to pay. Women simply discharge their
responsibilities at any point they wish.
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 2:50 am
greyghost says:
http://www.israel21c.org/health/a-birth-control-pill-for-men This guy here is
working to reverse engineer male invertlity. To make it someting to be done on
purpose. His mehod is nonhormonal.
One guy, not yet trying in primates, and not divulging the workings.
Sounds great, but the chances of this making it to market within ten years seem
minimal.
It is definitely an interesting concept for going at the problem from a different
direction.
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 6:17 am
But Kai, if a woman gets an abortion, the man is under no legal or financial
obligation to the child. BOTH parties are off the hook legally or financially
(though the man might be emotionally hurt or disappointed if he had hoped that
his partner would go through with the pregnancy).
If the woman does choose to have the child, then she is absolutely on the hook,
just like the man and more so, because she has to have the baby as well as care
for it, and because the baby is right there with her. I am not sure why you think
that a woman can just walk away. I suppose you may be referring to the options
of giving ones child up for adoption or the states that have laws allowing
mothers to leave their babies on the hospital steps. But in reality, I would bet you
that most mothers, even those who didnt want their children, are going to have a
hard time actually abandoning their babies on the hospital steps unless they feel
they are in an extreme situation. And those that give their children up for
adoption may not have an easy time finding a suitable family. (When I was in
college, I worried endlessly about how I would find the right family if I were to
have an unwanted child, which, thankfully, I never did.) The fact is that when a
baby comes out of your body, the baby is there with you and you have to deal
with it somehow, even if in extreme cases you decide to walk away from the baby
on the hospital steps; and if you do something like leave your baby in the
dumpster or the toilet, you better believe you will be held criminally responsible
for abuse, endangerment, or homicide.
Kathy says:
August 16, 2011 at 6:49 am

It puts them at the same level as men, legally speaking where you really need to
consider the other persons views before you have potentially procreative sex
Women take a little extra thought before they screw??? Come on!
Guy doesnt want a baby, then dont have sex with some feckless woman.
Problem solved. Keep it in ya pants.
In any case abortion is murder and I am bloody well sick and tired of selfish
women and men who are only concerned about their own welfare and treat the
unborn baby as if it is some sort of commodity or bargaining tool!
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 7:01 am
Alcestis
Adultery and promiscuity are not themselves causes of unwanted pregnancy.
Unwanted pregnancies occur in marriage too. It is just that a married couple may
be more likely to either want a child, or be prepared to care for a child even if the
child is unwanted, though not necessarily.
And you couldnt be more wrong that leftists dont care about preventing
unwanted pregnancies. That is why we on the left support comprehensive sex
education and measures to increase access to reliable contraception.
Buck
Is strikes me as absolutely understandable that mothers with young children in
the home would look forward to the day when the children are 18 and out of the
house. Raising children is an incredibly time-intensive effort involving endless
responsibility, worry, and often sheer drudgery. While I know plenty of great
fathers, the bulk of these burdens (and the pressure to be Mother Theresa) tends
to fall on the mothers. Even though I want a child, I often quaver at the thought
of what I may be signing myself up for.
There are certainly lousy mothers out there. And I think it is in poor taste to
advertise to all and sundry ones desire to get ones kids out of the house. But I
dont think it is cold or inhuman to be weary of the burdens of mothering, or for
a grandmother to want to do other things (like your mother) after decades of
caring for her own children. And I dont think we do women or children any
favors by pretending that motherhood is an unmitigated joy. And I dont think it
is fair to believe that every woman who is less than thrilled to spend all her time
wiping runny noses and baking cookies is some sort of cold, inhuman person.
(Would we give a grandfather a hard time if he were uninterested in doing a lot
of baby-sitting, i wonder?)
Kathy says:
August 16, 2011 at 7:16 am
And I dont think we do women or children any favors by pretending that

motherhood is an unmitigated joy.
Thats right , DH. It is certainly not for me. Its a damn hard slog. But I love my
kids and I do the best that I can. I am certainly not the best mother in the world.
I am under no illusions there. It doesnt come naturally to me. I worry I panic..
Could not manage without the help of my husband who is a very good Dad.
I would say that I am a better wife than I am a mother.
Probably because I married for love and sex and not to have children ,necessarily.
Nevertheless, I would not be without them . No matter how hard it is.
August 16, 2011 at 7:19 am

Agreed Kai.
Adultery and promiscuity are not themselves causes of unwanted pregnancy.
Unwanted pregnancies occur in marriage too. It is just that a married couple
may be more likely to either want a child, or be prepared to care for a child
even if the child is unwanted, though not necessarily.
If sex is all about recreation in marriage Im not surprised.
And you couldnt be more wrong that leftists dont care about preventing
unwanted pregnancies. That is why we on the left support comprehensive sex
education and measures to increase access to reliable contraception.
Comprehensive sex education? You have to be kidding me. Far from it. Its all
about liberal morales and less about biology and the sort. Not to mention a
couple of the contraception they offer is not only unreliable its harmful.
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 7:24 am
Sex in my marriage is DEFINITELY about recreation.
Kathy says:
August 16, 2011 at 8:00 am
If sex is all about recreation in marriage Im not surprised.

Id be interested to know what you think sex in marriage should be about, Liz?
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 8:34 am
I cant speak for Alcestis, but I am willing to bet that she is Catholic (and that,
unlike many western Catholics, she actually believes what the Church says). If I
remember correctly, the Church has said (via encyclicals issued by one or two
recent Popes) that the only way to express true conjugal love is to be open to the
possibility that the sexual act will produce a child. I have heard Catholics say that
sex, even within marriage, is nothing more than mutual masturbation if there is
no possibility of creating a child. Am I getting this right, Alcestis?
The Churchs opposition to birth control has always struck me as an exceptionally
cruel doctrine. I cant imagine having to go through my reproductive years
constantly pregnant or in fear of getting pregnant or in the alternative, kicking
my husband out of bed. I cant figure out how this kind of tension can be
anything but conducive to marital misery unless you just happen to be one of
the few people who really wants 10-15 kids.
curmudgeonloner says:
August 16, 2011 at 8:41 am
No most abortions arent done because of mutations, deformations, incest, rape

and mothers life in danger (which I consider the adequate reasons for
abortion).
Why is it that even Christians say this? Sorry, but this is rubbish. Mothers life
in danger? How exactly do they know that pregnancy will kill her and that
killing her baby is the cure? Is a human being conceived in rape or incest less of a
human being than any other? Is a deformed human or mutated, which I
guess includes Downs babies any less human?
There is too much room for interpretation of what is meant by mothers health
anyway. Ive heard that rationale used in defence of partial birth murder and no
one seems to ask how that grisly procedure is less harmful than a c-section, if
somehow natural childbirth is so dangerous.
Kathy says:
August 16, 2011 at 8:47 am
ROFL! DH. Im a practicing Catholic. (dont think Al is a Catholic)

Nah, ya got it all wrong mate.
Sex is for unitive and procreative purposes.
From the Catholic Catechism.
2362 The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses
takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts
fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and
gratitude.145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 9:16 am
Kathy,
I think I got it right, though perhaps I wasnt clear. I meant that the Church is
opposed to sex that is purely recreational, i.e. sex that has no procreative
possibility. I assumed thats what Alcestis was referring to as recreational sex, but
again I cant speak for her!
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 9:31 am
Curmudgeonlover, My blood runs cold at the thought of the government deciding

for me what health risks I should be forced to undergo. Why should the
government get to decide that a certain health risk is not that a big deal, or that I
should risk death because I dont 100% know that continuing the pregnancy will
kill me?
August 16, 2011 at 9:34 am
Please show me where I said anything about the government deciding anything.
(Its loner, not lover). As for 100% knowing a pregnancy wont kill you,
nothing is 100%, including knowing that a partial birth murder or even a regular
early term murder wont harm you.
August 16, 2011 at 9:36 am
Laura Bush was told she should abort her twins because it was a high risk
pregnancy. Now they are all alive and well. Doctors dont have crystal balls.
Kathy says:
August 16, 2011 at 9:39 am
No its not DH. My first husband was infertile. Even so, infertility is not grounds
for annulment. I obtained an annulment through the Catholic Church because he
was incapable of making a commitment at the time of the marriage. If marriage
was all about procreation in the Catholic Church it would of course have been
grounds for annulment.
So, if a couple find out they are infertile, too bad, the marriage is a valid one.
They can copulate to their hearts content.
Also a couple beyond child bearing years can also marry in the Church, because
as I said, sex is for unitive AND procreative purposes.
Again from the Catechism
2361 Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one
another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not
something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human
person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of
the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another
until death.143
Its all about love, baby. And out of that love a possibility of new life.. The
marriage should be open to procreation.
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 9:49 am
Curmudgeonlover,
So does that mean that you dont think the government should interfere with a
womans decision to have a later term abortion?
I agree that doctors dont have crystal balls. They can tell you the risks and the
options available. But just because a doctor cannot preduct an outcome 100%, it
doesnt follow that I am required to roll the dice. These decisions are highly
personal. For example, if at eight weeks pregnant, a doctor told me I had a 10%
chance of dying if I carried the pregnancy to term, I would get an abortion. If, in
the the third trimester, a doctor told me the same thing, I might roll the dice, but
I would probably get an abortion if the doctor told me I had a 25% chance of
dying. Other woman might make a different calculation some might not be
willing to risk even a 1% chance of dying, and others might still press forward
even in the face of an 80% chance. I just dont see how others can substitute their
judgment on behalf of the woman whose life is at risk as to what constitutes a
reasonable health decision.
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 9:59 am
Kathy, I dont think we really disagree. I get what you are saying, and maybe I am
just wrong in my assumptions of what Alcestis is getting at. Looking at Pope Paul
VIs encyclical, he says:
This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is
based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own
initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative
significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
The reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting
husband and wife in the closest intimacy, also renders them capable of
generating new lifeand this as a result of laws written into the actual nature
of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and
the procreative, is preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true
mutual love and its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to
which man is called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly
capable of seeing that this teaching is in harmony with human reason.
This certainly confirms what you are saying, but also what I am getting at as well
(albeit clumsily). Basically, the church is okay with infertility that occurs
naturally, but you cant purposely stop the course of fertility in its tracks by using
birth control or a condom. And the church does think that the procreative
possibility of sex is necessary in order for married sex to express true mutual
love. I suspect that is what Alcestis is getting at when she indicates that she is
troubled by mere recreational sex on the part of married couples, i.e. sex by
couples who use birth control.
August 16, 2011 at 9:59 am
Ill make one last post on this as its threatening to derail this thread and we all
know where abortion debates go. Its not a matter of it being a highly
personal decision. This isnt about something arbitrary, its about the value of
human life and that it isnt up to us to decide who gets to live and who doesnt.
What about the risks of abortion? There are plenty of those but you only mention
the possible risks of a pregnancy.
Reducing your own offspring to a calculation is pretty cold. Its not my
judgement but Gods, truly. Its about the value of human life; as soon as we
devalue human life and reduce it to a matter of cold (and unreliable) calculation,
we have lost the plot. A world where a mother can kill her own offspring on a
10% bet that it wont turn out well for her is a world devoid of love.
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 10:06 am
Curmudgeonlover, I value human life too, but that includes the lives of women!
Your preference for sending women to their deaths on the off-chance that the
fetus might survive seems at least as cold and cruel as any other calculation, if not
more so given that the woman is sentient and knows exactly what is happening to
her.
August 16, 2011 at 10:08 am
One last thought, what is life without risk anyway? My first baby was premature
and no one predicted that, nor did they have any explanation for it after the fact.
The second one went to term but I suffered what seemed to be a partial placental
abruption during labour, which could have killed both of us, and no one
predicted that either, nor did they have any explanation for all the horrible pain
(worst of my life, in fact) and bleeding after the fact. I wouldnt put all my faith in
some doctors prediction.
greyghost says:
August 16, 2011 at 10:11 am
Curmudgeonlover
This is how it is. Women will always want to have a choice in every thing. Even a
helpless human child has no chance at life due to a womans say so. Women are
adverse to any code of honor or rules. No matter how christian, liberal, in love or
enlightened she will claim to be, a woman will always take her own self interest.
With out wellfare,child support, social status of motherhood (a very big one)
nearly all children would be aborted. The people that write the the laws of
misandry know this about women. That is why the laws are written the way they
are. (women vote)
Ask yourself one thing. Why is paternity fraud still perfectly legal and enforced
one the chosen man(victim)? hint: no responsibility thing and the vote.
August 16, 2011 at 10:19 am
I dunno about the social status of motherhood seems as soon as one is visibly
pregnant everyone has an opinion on what you should or shouldnt be doing and
once the kid is out, its open season on endless criticism on the job youre doing
or not doing. I dont think nearly all children would be aborted without those
conditions; thats rather a sweeping statement.
And my handle says LONER not lover! LOL
Dalrock says:
August 16, 2011 at 10:24 am
@Kathy
Women take a little extra thought before they screw??? Come

on!
Guy doesnt want a baby, then dont have sex with some feckless
woman. Problem solved. Keep it in ya pants.
This is the right advice to give to an individual man, and he would be wise to
follow it. However, basing public policy on this is an unmitigated disaster, as
the statistics I have shared prove. If 40% of women are willing to become
pregnant outside of marriage (or not concerned enough to take serious enough
measures to prevent it) and only 1% of men are similarly irresponsible, 40% of
children will be born out of wedlock. If 40% of men are willing (or careless
enough) to have a child out of wedlock, and only 1% of women are, 1% of
children will be born out of wedlock. The issue isnt what is fair for men
or women, but what is best for children. Stop worrying about the double
standard, wagging your finger at men while whistling past a 40% out of
wedlock birth rate (higher for Hispanics and Blacks).
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 10:25 am
Oops. I meant to say loner this time, but somehow lover came out again. It
just flows better!
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 10:31 am
Dal,
So what are you saying? That men who have sex out of wedlock should not have
to pay child support so that women will have an incentive not to have sex out of
wedlock? (If that is what you are saying, I understand that position to be based
on the notion that the burdens of an unwanted pregnancy should fall more
heavily on women since womens behavior is what actually drives up the
unwanted pregnancy rate.)
Kathy says:
August 16, 2011 at 10:39 am
Stop worrying about the double standard, wagging your finger at men while
whistling past a 40% out of wedlock birth rate (higher for Hispanics and Blacks).
Not whistling past anything.Not wagging a finger either. My comment had
nothing to do with double standards
I was responding to Kais lament about the legal responsibilities with no choices
for men.
Easily fixed, keep pants zipped.
I am more concerned about the welfare of the unborn child, here. Not the
legalities involved, to be honest.
The issue isnt what is fair for men or women, but what is best for children
Couldnt agree more.
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 10:53 am
If the woman does choose to have the child, then she is absolutely on the hook,
just like the man and more so, because she has to have the baby as well as care
for it, and because the baby is right there with her
Thats why I give the man a short time limit. Assuming she informs him around
the time she knows, then he is making his decision with time for her to make
hers. She can know that the man isnt interested, and then decide whether she
wants to raise it without his support or not.
It is true that biology falls more heavily on the woman. But thats something we
cant change (at least yet).
In history, pregnancy and children belonged completely to women, and if they
were smart, theyd try to have them with a guy who would stick around to help
out, but he could walk at any time while the women were stuck with it.
Now, based on the law, women can get rid of them quite easily, while the woman
decides for the man whether hell be paying for a child for 18 years no choice in
it for him at all.
A man should thus be careful with anyone he has sex with, because its a constant
possibility of 18 years of wage garnishment.
Women are not held to the same standard. Women do not have to try to find a
responsible man, since if they have a baby with an irresponsible man, they can
count on the state to force him to support her. Fair in a marriage, perhaps (when
the child is biologically the husbands), but an extreme inequality in choice in
casual sex.
Women can choose to have a baby and get money from a man without any input
from that men as to his interest in either a child or paying for one.
Im not worried about unexpected children in marriage, as I assume that people
who have committed to marriage have sorted that stuff out for themselves.
I very purposely did not bring up the morality of the legality of abortion, because
I dont think its actually relevant here. Thats a whole separate fight. I actually
happen to be strongly against it, but that doesnt matter to many people.
The legal reality at this time, is that women can freely abort in most states (and
spectacularly freely in Canada). Its a tough fight to do anything about that Im
just looking at the rationale. abortion supporters are so in favour of letting
women choose. Im simply suggesting that as long as its legal for women, men
should be extended the same right to choose.
Of course, the supporters of abortion do not tend to support any rights for men.
August 16, 2011 at 11:02 am
I cant speak for Alcestis, but I am willing to bet that she is Catholic (and that,
unlike many western Catholics, she actually believes what the Church says)
Am I getting this right, Alcestis?
Im not Catholic. I do like a couple of Catholics though. My parents are
Pentecostals (they were unbelievers beforehand). In Catholicism sexual relations
is for unitive and procreative purposes and I kind of agree with that. Im a
Christian with no denomination but maybe I will convert to the Eastern Orthodox
Christian Church. You did get one thing completely on spot though. My parents
are not Westerners, I dont live in the West and my first, mother language isnt
English. Bingo.
The issue isnt what is fair for men or women, but what is best for children.
True.
August 16, 2011 at 11:04 am
Im not worried about unexpected children in marriage, as I assume that people

who have committed to marriage have sorted that stuff out for themselves.
Agreed.
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 11:06 am
Kathy says:
I was responding to Kais lament about the legal responsibilities with no choices
for men.
Easily fixed, keep pants zipped.
Yet the women who see an easy solution here are the ones who consider it sexist
to hold women to the same standard easily fixed, keep your legs shut.
August 16, 2011 at 11:11 am
Kai, plenty of us say the that too. Kathy was answering wrt men, so she said keep
it in your pants; Im pretty sure shed have said keep your legs shut if it had
been a woman lamenting about an unwanted pregnancy and consequent need
to pay for an abortion, for example.
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 11:11 am
The problem is that whats best for children has led to so little consequences as
to *encourage* women to get pregnant without a steady man around.
Im looking to try to discourage the babies in the first place. Theres still plenty of
state aid to go around for the poor suckers who end up with these mothers
despite everything.
Though I think anyone receiving welfare benefits or child support from the
government should be on free and mandatory conception prevention to avoid
adding to the problem (as opposed to our current system which again, actually
encourages more children for more money).
August 16, 2011 at 11:12 am
Concerning child custody during separation and divorce make paternity testing
manditory. About anywhere from 20 to 40% of the men were found not to be
biological fathers according to some studies. Perhaps this would help.
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 11:14 am
Kai, plenty of us say the that too. Kathy was answering wrt men, so she said keep
it in your pants; Im pretty sure shed have said keep your legs shut if it had
been a woman lamenting about an unwanted pregnancy and consequent need
to pay for an abortion, for example.

But my point is not what a pile of internet discussions come up with. My point is
the legal realities.
the problem is that those with power to set up the laws consider keep it in your
pants to be sufficient recourse for men, while calling sexism on anyone who
suggests keep your legs shut, and actively working to come up with all sorts of
other options for women who dont.
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 11:18 am
Concerning child custody during separation and divorce make paternity testing
manditory.
Hell, you could make it mandatory at birth. Might as well know the scale right
away (i think that might have been already proposed here). Or, not mandatory at
birth, but mandatory in order to put a father on the birth certificate.
If testing at divorce would also need to include the change that a man doesnt
have further responsibility to children that turn out to be not his. The current
system will punish a guy for having trusted the woman and acted as a father by
forcing him to pay for a non-biological child even after divorce.
August 16, 2011 at 11:19 am
But my point is not what a pile of internet discussions come up with. My point is
the legal realities. the problem is that those with power to set up the laws
consider keep it in your pants to be sufficient recourse for men, while calling
sexism on anyone who suggests keep your legs shut, and actively working to
come up with all sorts of other options for women who dont.
Its the alpha carousel for women as gamers say Id guess (e.g. No for you, yes for
me). I dont believe that Kathy is that sort of character. She seems like a sweet
and intelligent woman. She probably finds promiscuity and the sort corruptable
and wrong in both men and women.
August 16, 2011 at 11:20 am
Hell, you could make it mandatory at birth.

Interesting.
August 16, 2011 at 11:24 am
The abortion industry and family courts would be out of business if women kept
their legs shut and men kept it in their pants. But everyone wants sex without
responsibility or consequence and to frustrate the natural procreative part of it in
order to practice hedonism. This is the real problem.
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Alcestis, I called it wrong!
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 12:16 pm
I find it hard to believe that single motherhood while collecting child support is a
desirable option for most women, except those with very few options for the
future to begin.
The best incentive to avoid single motherhood is having a bright future with lots
of educational and career options that would be threatened if one suddenly had to
drop everything and raise a child. There is a reason that single motherhood is a
class issue. None of the upper middle class girls I grew up with had children out
of wedlock, because none of us wanted to give up our opportunity to go to college
and graduate school. That doesnt mean we kept our legs shut, but it does mean
that we took advantage of our access to reliable contraception.
[D: You are responsible, hard working, and have a strong future time
orientation, so you assume other women are naturally this way as
well. If it were true, the welfare state wouldnt be a disaster.]
August 16, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Not everyone who ends up a single mother had children out of wedlock.
All contraception has failure rates. Based on average usage the pill and the patch
have an 8% failure rate, so I guess youre willing to accept the risk of pregnancy,
therefore of murdering your own offspring, for the reward of sexual satisfaction,
but you wont take the same odds with your own life in order not to murder your
offspring.
Keeping your legs shut is the only reliable way to avoid any risk of pregnancy.
August 16, 2011 at 12:29 pm
That is, your sexual desires are worth more to you than the lives of your own
children. You said it yourself without even realising it.
greyghost says:
August 16, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Well Dalrock the reply to Kathy was spot on. And notice the conversation
afterward. This is why men that have really thought this out have come to
MGTOW. The over all solution will have to be borne by men taking away the the
choices from women. A male control pill for men and a culture of the PUA
followed as the men age with MGTOW. Involutary childless spinsterhood
Just think 53 year old women. No kids, no grand kids no husband (had one and
divorced him at 36 to get back on the carousel) no qualification for state money
(single and childless) no intitlement to a mans income (childless) looks fading
and out of child bearing age , lonelywith no reason for man to want her. (other
than to stick his penis in) As younger women figure it out women with the
femminist fed hamsters will spend their last days financually struggling alone
talking amungst each other about how screwed up men are. (personal stats not
good enough to overcome entitled western women attitude)
Laugh it off ladies, you may get by but your daughter is going to pay the price.
[D: For the reasons I mentioned in my reply to Kathy, men cant
effectively deny women children. Just a few strike breakers can
service the whole lot. However by refusing to become the baby daddy
of their out of wedlock child does deprive a woman of a walking
wallet, because the strike breakers will tend to be the ones with
nothing to lose economically (as it is already). And each successful
man who refuses to marry does deprive a woman of marriage (more
or less, some men can choose to keep remarrying after each divorce
theft, but that is far more limited).]
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 12:43 pm
Curmudgeonloner, Actually I was never willing to accept an 8% chance of

unwanted pregnancy and have never in my life risked such a thing. You can
reduce your odds of an unwanted pregnancy to almost nil by combining the pill
and condoms, which is what I did when I was young, before marrying an infertile
man. You can then address even the small odds of an unwanted pregnancy via
access to emergency contraception (Plan B). No determined and vigilant person
with resources need face unwanted pregnancy. The problem is that not everyone
has education, or access to contraception, or the full cooperation of a partner.

(Try getting your boyfriend to agree to condoms when youre already on the pill
and youll learn some valuable lessons in standing your ground.)
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Greyghost, I wonder why you assume the 53-year-old woman with no husband,
kids, or grand-kids will be struggling financially or more miserable than her 53year-old male MGTOW counterpart? I think the pay gap between men and
childless women is virtually nil these days, so she is no more likely to be
struggling than he is. And if he is going his own way, he will also be lacking in a
partner, kids, or grand-kids just as much as she is! It seems that the MGTOW-er
is punishing himself as much as he is punishing the women he resents.
Dalrock says:
August 16, 2011 at 1:01 pm
@Doomed Harlot
So what are you saying? That men who have sex out of wedlock
should not have to pay child support so that women will have
an incentive not to have sex out of wedlock? (If that is what you
are saying, I understand that position to be based on the notion
that the burdens of an unwanted pregnancy should fall more
heavily on women since womens behavior is what actually
drives up the unwanted pregnancy rate.)
I dont have time to give a full answer to this right now, and it dovetails in
with greyghosts question as well. Before we try to solve this we need to
acknowledge that the current system is a disaster for children. This in itself is
a major battle, since nearly everyone believes that it is in the interest of the
child. The solution is to find a way to remove the incentive to have children
out of wedlock, as well as the incentive to remove them from an existing
marriage. Also, right now responsible middle class men and have a huge
disincentive to father children, but layabouts arent discouraged by threats to
garnish their nonexistent wages. The same issue exists for women as well. The
most irresponsible women are rewarded for getting knocked up.
I think part of the solution will need to involve limiting mandatory child
support to an absolute bare minimum. If the government wants to prop up the
mother with welfare then that is its own business, it shouldnt foist this failed
policy off on men. Men should still feel social/moral pressure to provide
beyond the state mandated minimum, but this should be their choice. This way
the mother has some incentive to keep a good relationship with the father, and
the child can see that the father does in fact care for them since a good portion
of the support offered by the father will be direct to the child and/or voluntary.
I have some separate ideas on reforming welfare which Ill share in a future
post. I think you may be surprised at my proposed solution.
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Hmmm. I look forward to it!
greyghost says:
August 16, 2011 at 1:28 pm
DH
Her 53 year old male counter part will have a 35 year old girl friend and a bank
account with no ex to interfere with his life. Also, have no time to look up at this
moment but articles are coming out now about older single women having
retirement issues. Women waste money combined with a lifetime of requiring the
world to kiss their butts responsibility is just not there Also add the female status
competition thing and you have financial issues.
The last step of MGTOW is surrogacy for men that truely want their OWN child
to love without having to ask for permission. The desire for a man to to love and
raise his child is even stronger than the desire for a wife (it was and is for me). A
tycoon in Hong Kong has triplet grandsons due to surrogacy. The government is
pissed off over about that too.
Overall MGTOW is not about a man going without. It is about a man not being
used. Also not all men will GTOW which is a good thing. Nothing like a spinster
seeing a woman that is actually glad she is a mother and wife. Makes for a polite
female population.
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Its all fun and games for the 53 year old MGTOW-er until his little 35-year-old
trollop steals his sperm. It does happen, ya know! (Does it really count as GTOW
if he takes up with a woman in the end anyway?)
I am sorry, greyghost, but I cant help but laugh at the whole concept of MGTOW.
MGTOW seem to despise women so much that it seems like your hypothetical 53year-old woman left alone due to MGTOW may have dodged a bullet! Surely it is
better to die alone with ones cats than to be tethered to someone who hates and
despises you and your sex?
August 16, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Who are these 35-YO women dating old men anyway? Its bad enough trying to
find a man my age who doesnt look like my dad, never mind the average 53-YO.
This is almost as ridiculous a fantasy as the woman who puts off having kids until
her last menstrual cycle.
August 16, 2011 at 2:07 pm
The best incentive to avoid single motherhood is having a bright future with lots
of educational and career options that would be threatened if one suddenly had
to drop everything and raise a child.
There are single mothers whom have had children due to IVF due to their highstatus (they were able to afford such an operation). The future isnt always
typically bright when it comes to careers. Economic crisis is sweeping across the
Western world and the USA needs an educational reform. Google rich single
mothers. J. K. Rowling went to university, married a man, had a child and
then divorced him. She had custody of the baby. She was penniless and on
welfare but now shes a billionaire. Shes not the greatest example but a way of
showing on how even educated women, particularly after divorcing but a few
times adultery, can become single mothers.
There is a reason that single motherhood is a class issue. None of the upper
middle class girls I grew up with had children out of wedlock, because none of
us wanted to give up our opportunity to go to college and graduate school.
There are children out of wedlock in the upper-classes but a smaller minority
compared to the lower classes. The middle class is the group whom is trying its
best to sustain the nuclear family but its being crushed by both the lower classes
(dysfunctional minorities, poor Europeans assimilated to anarchy and minority
norms) and the upper-classes (typically European liberals, some Jews and
others). The middle class is also starting to be influenced by the lower and upper
classes in their behaviour.
That doesnt mean we kept our legs shut, but it does mean that we took
advantage of our access to reliable contraception.
Once again the comprehensive sex education you pointed out is flawed. They
concentrate on sexual liberation and liberal morales, encourage an individual to
acquire gluttony, surprised to find out that one is fat and then try to amend the
situation with contraception. Contraception then becomes like the welfare state
whichs upholds an individual so that they dont face their consequences and
continue in their blindness. Contraception should be responsible and efficient but
unfortunately it typically isnt and thats thanks to those whom shout the loudest
responsibility, protection and sell comprehensive sex education. Contraception
should be thought of as a parachute in cases of emergency, not as something that
saves one whom chases danger all of the time.
Doomed Harlot says:

August 16, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Alcestis,
I dont think single women who get IVF are a significant population (and they
certainly arent hitting anyone else up to suppor their kids).
That is an interesting point about the upper classes. I bet a study of history would
show that the highest and lowest classes have always tended to abide by sexual
morality the least because they are the least affected by the consequences. The
richest can afford to support their unwanted children, and the poorest are usually
so badly off it cant get much worse, or they can rely on welfare or charity. Its the
middle classes that tend to have the most to lose. And, back to the main subject
at hand, I dont think receiving child support (which can often be difficult to
collect) really insulates women from the adverse consequences of single
motherhood.
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 3:38 pm
I dont believe that Kathy is that sort of character. She seems like a sweet and
intelligent woman. She probably finds promiscuity and the sort corruptable and
wrong in both men and women.
That is how it seems. But it is not people like Kathy who make the laws, and it is
not people like Kathy to whom I was referencing.
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 3:48 pm
All contraception has failure rates. Based on average usage the pill and the patch
have an 8% failure rate, so I guess youre willing to accept the risk of pregnancy,
therefore of murdering your own offspring, for the reward of sexual satisfaction,
but you wont take the same odds with your own life in order not to murder your
offspring.
Keeping your legs shut is the only reliable way to avoid any risk of pregnancy.
Well, some people are not using contraception at average usage, but are
meticulous because they have a lot to lose. That brings the stats down to ~1%
failure rate.
And some people are doubling up on the pill and a condom, which, with careful
use, each have a solo failure rate of around 1%, and thus get the chances down to
pretty low low enough to work for them.
And not all consider abortion the backup option. For some, it would be
parenthood, for others, carrying to term and adoption but they are willing to
accept those risks when they are sufficiently small.
Doomed Harlot says:
You can then address even the small odds of an unwanted pregnancy via access to
emergency contraception (Plan B). No determined and vigilant person with
resources need face unwanted pregnancy. The problem is that not everyone has
education, or access to contraception, or the full cooperation of a partner. (Try
getting your boyfriend to agree to condoms when youre already on the pill and
youll learn some valuable lessons in standing your ground.)
Plan B removing the chance of an unwanted pregnancy depends on your
definition of when pregnancy/conception/life begins. It prevents implantation of
a zygote but not fertilization in the first place.
As for the full cooperation of a partner, thats back to if youre responsible, you
wont have sex with anyone not willing to take the appropriate level of precaution
to satisfy both partners risk tolerance.
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Once again the comprehensive sex education you pointed out is flawed. They
concentrate on sexual liberation and liberal morales, encourage an individual to
acquire gluttony, surprised to find out that one is fat and then try to amend the
situation with contraception. Contraception then becomes like the welfare state
whichs upholds an individual so that they dont face their consequences and
continue in their blindness. Contraception should be responsible and efficient but
unfortunately it typically isnt and thats thanks to those whom shout the loudest
responsibility, protection and sell comprehensive sex education. Contraception
should be thought of as a parachute in cases of emergency, not as something that
saves one whom chases danger all of the time.
What on earth is taught where you live???*
Yes, comprehensive sex ed does assume that people are going to be interested in
having recreational non-procreative sex. It then goes over the best ways to ensure
it is non-procreative.
I dont know what you could possibly have been taught, but in my schools, it was
emphasized that the only sure thing was abstinence, but risks could be brought to
fairly low levels by using various methods of contraception, preferably combined.
I think there is still much lacking in the current options, but we were given the
stats (both on typical and perfect use) and told to consider the risks. A dating
couple using the pill and condoms together to avoid parenthood is pretty efficient
and responsible as far as I can see. My sex-ed classes did accept that people might
want to have sex other than to have babies as a norm, but did not exactly spend
its time discussing positions and alternate orientations and whatever else you
might be suggesting is contraception teaching sexual liberation.
Are you reading contraception to equal abortion?
How could contraception be a parachute in cases of emergency? Oh know, we
MUST have sex suddenly! Pull out the contraception! Please Mr. rapist, at least
use a condom? ?????????
Or are you just completely opposed to sex that specifically avoids the possibility
of procreation? I really dont understand what you are talking about.
*Also, please check on your subject/object learning. The constant whom is
painful.
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Doomed Harlot says:

I dont think receiving child support (which can often be difficult to collect) really
insulates women from the adverse consequences of single motherhood.
No, it doesnt insulate them from all the consequences, but it sure helps while
hurting the father.
Deadbeat dads are a small percentage that are assumed to be the majority. Most
child support is collected just fine, but the guy has no way to ensure it is spend
on his child, and his visitation rights are not enforced with near the same rigidity.
You can send a guy to prison for not paying, but women can get away with
keeping children from their fathers for years.
Kathy says:
August 16, 2011 at 4:46 pm
The abortion industry and family courts would be out of business if women kept
their legs shut and men kept it in their pants. But everyone wants sex without
responsibility or consequence and to frustrate the natural procreative part of it in
order to practice hedonism. This is the real problem.
Exactly Curmudgeonloner, (sheesh I had trouble spelling that, nearly went with
lover like DH.. lol)nobody wants to do the hard hards. Like I said selfish women
and selfish men.. with scant regard for the oft end result of their fecklessness, an
innocent child.
Again I come back to what Dalrock said.
The issue isnt what is fair for men or women, but what is best for children
Thats it in a nutshell, I reckon.
August 16, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Maybe everyone could call me CL to make it easier.
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 5:12 pm
Question for alces, CL, Kathy, and anyone else opposed to sex-while-avoidingprocreation:
Do you consider this always wrong?
Is it wrong to have sex before marriage?
Is it wrong to have sex within marriage but precluding procreation?
Is it wrong to have sex avoiding procreation if you are willing to love and raise
the child if it doesnt work?
Is it wrong to delay childbearing?
Is it wrong to avoid procreation without direct barriers/hormonal reprogramming
(NFP)?
I fully agree that sex with the possibility of procreation removed is hedonistic, if
we are defining that as solely for the pleasure of the self (and perhaps the
partner). but is all hedonism bad? Are you ascetics? Is it wrong to do something
just for pleasure if no-one else is hurt by it?
Is hedonistic sex, if they do successfully prevent pregnancy, really a problem for
society?
This is all irrelevant to the actual point, since a government must make laws
based on what people actually do, not what we wish they would do, but it seems
there are completely different parallel ideologies going on here, and Id
understand what people are saying better with this cleared up.
Kathy says:
August 16, 2011 at 5:44 pm
See my reply to DH earlier in the thread , Kai. Here is part of what I said below. I
admitted to being Catholic so yes, sex outside of marriage is for me, wrong. I have
a fifteen year old daughter. My husband and I are instilling these Catholic values
in her.
..2361 Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one
another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not
something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human
person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of
the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another
until death.143
Its all about love, baby. And out of that love a possibility of new life.. The
marriage should be open to procreation...
NFP is okay, and is sanctioned by the church. I know my cycle very well. The
window of opportunity for pregnancy is actually very small.
I married for love and sex. My marriage was open to children.
Sex in marriage is encouraged because it has a unifying effect on the couple.
Its true. The more hubby and I have sex, the less arguments we have. The
happier we both are . The deeper the bond and spiritual connection.(hey it works
for me)
Im quite a passionate and highly strung person so sex reduces stress and
mellows me out.
This idea that Catholics can only have sex for procreation is bollocks.
August 16, 2011 at 5:49 pm
Those are a lot of questions and maybe a bit much to answer in a comment, so
perhaps I will think about it a little and then put it up as a post. But what do you
mean, hormonal reprogramming? NFP isnt reprogramming but avoiding sex
on fertile days, which, as Kathy points out, are few (about 3 days out of the
month, usually).

August 16, 2011 at 5:54 pm
I personally dont disagree with sex before marriage per se. If the couple know
each other to a reasonable degree and both are in the same page and this is just
part of their relationship not the reason they are together with precautions and
responsibility I think what happens there is their choice and their consequences
as long as they are fully aware of them and willing to take them to heart and no
abortion is not the responsible thing to do, is the easy discreet out of the issue,
dont sell me that taking care of a child for as long as he/she is alive, making all
changes in your life necessary for it to happen, is the same than getting rid of
him/her in a clinic in a few hours, and then continue your life plans like nothing
happened because Im not an idiot.
Now my problem is with casual sex. Not for morality grounds specifically but
what many people kind of dont realize is that morality was born to deal with
practical issues.
If you analyze the cost and benefits of casual sex, it doesnt add up.
The only benefit from having sex with a stranger is the sex (there is not even a
guarantee of an orgasm for women), but you risk this stranger being a potential
rapists, serial killer, STDs carrier if you go down to the extremes or to go to
less material consequences he is being a the type of guy that gets off at discussing
your sexual skills in the internet, make a chart calling you hole or pie, or
simply he gets your number and you wait for that call and he never does and you
feel like crap for that.
Really if women didnt cared for all this after the fact o if this didnt colored their
view of men and relationships in the long run. I wouldnt have an issue but given
the outrage and depression they experiment if the stranger they generously
banged last night didnt consider them beyond a thing to use, then I would say
having casual sex is stupid, stupid, stupid.
I know men dont have as many hang ups so that is why I concentrate in women
but is the same if a man feels used, or like crap if the women they had a casual
encounter with doesnt show any level of respect or appreciation for them,
stopping is also a good idea. And given the amount of women outraged out of the
college lists when they become problem or when they discover that one of their
lovers is a PUA that publishes his conquest on the net for everyone to see I will
say that yes casual sex is not a good choice. No to mention that the amount of
bitter women and men that dont believe in love, marriage or children are usually
plagued by experienced people that had tons of casual sex but little experience
with love and loyalty, every time a PUA bangs a married woman or a woman with
a boyfriend his vision of women becomes worst, women experiment the same
after being banged by men that run at the ring talk. So everything points out to
casual sex being a big problem and people shouldnt engage in it. It has bad short
term consequences and terrible long term consequences.
Now I know there are plenty of promiscuous people that will claim they are not
like that, but the numbers dont lie about how people are behaving in the long run
after a life of blissful free sex, cheating more, divorcing moreso yeah, YMMV as
usual.
August 16, 2011 at 6:14 pm
OK, heres my best answer. http://wp.me/p1M2NX-3

Have at it, lol.
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 7:59 pm
Much as it might have made sense for you to put up a blog post, I have no blog,
and figure it makes more sense to keep the discussion in one place. So Im
replying to both the comments here and CLs post.
By hormonal reprogramming, I was referencing hormonal contraception such as
the pill.
My grammar was probably ambiguous there. I meant to ask Is it wrong to avoid
procreation without direct barriers or hormonal birth control? as in using NFP
I am familiar with NFP, and did not mean to equate it to one of the others.
Though now I am. Whats the difference?

If you are purposely having sex only when you know you are infertile, then you
are deliberately avoiding procreation with your sex. What makes that so different
from deliberately avoiding it with a physical barrier? Or from deliberately
avoiding it by convincing your body its already pregnant? If its the intent to be
open to the possibility of children that makes the sex valid, how is NFP
acceptable?
It seems pretty nitpicky to differentiate there.
delaying childbearing was meant to be post-marriage, since of course we
suggest delaying it (and the entire sex part) until after marriage.
What if you wish to delay children simply because you dont want them yet? Is it
okay if its because youre trying to do something charitable in the meantime? Not
okay if its because you just dont feel ready? And again, if you were trying to
delay because of financial hardship or something, what makes it okay to do so by
having sex only when you know you cant conceive, but not okay to physically
barricade?
My question about hedonistic sex was not intended to assume that no-one else is
hurt, but reference only those cases in which that occurs.
A married couple having sex because its fun but preventing conception sure
doesnt sound to me like anyone is getting hurt.
Even if that became a societal norm, Im really not seeing the breakdown that
comes from married couples have hedonistic sex instead of procreative, unless
your society depends on a constantly massively multiplying population.
Hedonistic sex was defined above as anything which precludes pregnancy. I am
using that definition, and going with the safest kind that between married
couples who arent interested in having kids at this time.
I fully agree that there are all kinds of problems when people have random sex,
but given the massively broad definition of hedonistic sex provided, I ask whether
it is still a problem outside of the concerns of children-outside-of-wedlock and
pre-marital-or-random-sex.
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 8:06 pm
sorry, Kathy, I did see you post on a similar vein above, and the catechism is a
fairly complete answer for those for whom its the guiding philosophy.
But I would be interested in your answer to the last question:
Is hedonistic sex, if they do successfully prevent pregnancy, really a problem for
society?
It is one thing to decide that a valid Catholic marriage must be open to children.
But is sex-for-pleasure alone, and love that does not wish to produce children
from that love a problem for society with marriage still intact? Is it a problem for
society if people abstain from premarital sex but then have (catholically invalid)
nonprocreative marriages with tons of hedonistic sex?
Kai says:
August 16, 2011 at 8:07 pm
(If its too tangental, no worries. I was first asking just to be clear on peoples
backstories, as it seemed in some posts that the premises people started with
were so different as to be troublesome to communication. I grant that now Im
pretty much looking for defense/explanation of those beliefs, and its not really
relevant or necessary.)
greyghost says:
August 17, 2011 at 1:14 am
DH
MGTOW is not some guy jacking off in a corner. Take a look at George Clooney,
it may not look it on the surface but he is a man gone his own way. He said he
will not marry and father children. Some woman started talking trash and that
ended the relationship. Now he has a new one. He is not making payments on his
ex and she is free to market what is left of her vagina to land the next alpha stud.
Also with the male birth control pill little penis receptacle can steal all of the
worthless sperm she wants. (nice of you to inform us dumb men on the internet
that women actually do that) I wish you could explain why a woman that would
be happier with her cats would want to steal sperm from a 53 year old man any
way. What is the reason for a woman to have a child with out a husband? What
incentive is it?
BTW this has some wishful thinking on my part. MGTOW is hard to do and very
unnatural with out a male birth control method that doesnt require a womans
approval or knowledge. (Men do naturally love women and so do I ) So keep
laughiong while you can, but as stated earlier it is your duaghter that will pay the
price for you. (Your daughter is the 53 year old childless woman )
Doomed Harlot says:

August 17, 2011 at 9:22 am
I applaud people like George Clooney who have the foresight to realize that for
them the risks of marriage are not worth the rewards. I wouldnt put him in the
same category as an MGTOWer, though, because he doesnt seem to be under the
impression that he is visiting some terrible and deserved punishment on women.
It is the latter idea that I mock. First, a woman is better off remaining single and
childless than tethered for life to a man who doesnt want to be with her. Second,
a single-and-childless woman is generally no worse off than her MGTOW
counterpart. The average 53-year-old man is not sexually attractive to younger
women and is not going to have Clooneys dating success in that pool. Third, I
doubt most men will go their own way. Most men like being in long-term
relationships with women.
Doomed Harlot says:

August 17, 2011 at 9:25 am
I am genuinely curious Greyghost about what you love about women? You dont
seem to like or respect us very much. Are you just saying that you find women
sexually attractive? Or that you like women who act in particular ways you deem
sufficiently feminine, i.e. submissive? Or are you saying something else
altogether?
CL says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:32 am
I dont know who is better or worse off as an older single person, but I do know
that most of the older childless women Ive met are at least a little nutty, some
downright psycho, whereas the men in that position seem more balanced in
general. Just an observation. Not all, but in general some of the most miserable
people Ive had the misfortune to interact with have been older, post-menopausal,
childless, single women. The one who lives above me HATES me for no apparent
reason. Granted she looks like Vince Neil; Id be pretty unhappy if I had to look
at that every morning too.
greyghost says:
August 17, 2011 at 10:21 am
DH
I see things the way Clooney does and that is the motivation for MGTOW. (I
wont be getting any applause of course) Clooney is an alpha stud. PUA are beta
types that assume alpha characteristics. MGTOW are beta types that have found
that they best way to change the society is to support the status quo. MGTOW is
an unnatural thing for most men. The results of MGTOW is natural for an alpha
like Clooney and you applaud it. Your post here have taught a few men a lesson
in female nature. Your post justify the topic of the article and when the men that
are victims of this madness come up with a way to change the behavior that
doesnt involve violence it is ridiculed. (You dont seem to like or respect us very
much) And the very man (50) with a now 31 year old girlfriend that will leave
her childless if she stays with him is applauded. This is how we have the madness
we have today. It is not your fault and is the basis for the PUA community. I have
two daughters the oldest 10. Both are showing signs of thinking as you do,it is
normal. (it took me a couple years to figure it out) What is not normal is for a
civilized society to not keep that natural and savage behavior in check. That was
the question I had for Dalrock at the beginning of the comment section above. A
very difficult question to answer. For like him I am a family man that believes in
marriage, children raised with a love and god. I should be respected and admired
in a sane society. But we are laughed at accused of every abuse and though laws
of misandry treated as second class citizens. While an open cad who as was stated
thinks marriage (what Im doing) is not worth the effort is seen as acceptable.
I am a father and I have a duty to my children to not leaved them to a world like
that.
Dalrock
I hope Im not messing up the theme of your web site.
Doomed Harlot says:

August 17, 2011 at 10:35 am
Hi greyghost,
I am not elevating Clooneys lifestyle over the married lifestyle. I am married
myself. What I applaud in Clooney is that he has the foresight to have thought
through the pros and cons of marriage, and has come to a reasoned decision.
Clooney is not a cad, nor has he deprived his girlfriend of the opportunity to have
children. He has been open for years about the fact that he does not want
marriage or children. His girlfriend (assuming he has one currently, I dont
actually know) is well aware of his position and chooses to be with him anyway.
Who are you to assume that she wants a marriage or children? It seems to me
that he has been entirely respectful and above-board with the women in his life,
far from caddish behavior.
greyghost says:
August 17, 2011 at 10:42 am
Doomed Harlot
She would love to have Clooney knock her up just like the last one. Im done, and
I enjoyed the conversation. Thank you for the responses.
Doomed Harlot says:

August 17, 2011 at 11:24 am
Likewise!
Pingback: Best of the Web lately Throne and Altar
TFH says:
August 17, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Dalrock,
In theory whichever parent can better raise the children should be given
custody, and the remaining parent would then be compelled to pay child
support.
I would quibble with this. The main point is that divorce itself is INFREQUENT
in societies where women are not given the children and the associated monies
on a no fault basis.
In other words, societies where men retain custody of children have
LOW divorce rates. Men could toss out their wives on a whim, yet 90% do not.
But societies where women get custody of children have HIGH divorce
rates.
This also proves that men are more capable of putting their children before
themselves, and have a better long-term orientation than women.
The divorce rate of a society corelates closely to how much women can profit from
divorce laws of that society. Societies with divorce laws favoring men do not see
nearly as many men abusing these laws.
Kai says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Comparing childless older men and women tends to work from a base
assumption that women *want* children, and will be unfulfilled and directionless
without them at 50, while men are more indifferent to them, and not feel a
similar lack. For those who do not align with these stereotypical desires, the
stereotypical outcome wont apply.
Kai says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:54 pm
TFH says:
Only if we take as a given that the people believe married parents to be better for
their child than anything else possible. People who believe that children dont
need two parents are misinformed not uncaring.
It could also be explained as simple pragmatism. If it is women who tend more to
raise children, then it is in a mans best interest to keep around the mother of his
children to do the work of raising them. A woman, on the other hand, has less
incentive to leave the man if she will lose her children at the same time. That can
be a purely selfish motive on both parts not a careful putting the children first.
Assumption of paternal custody gives both partners incentives to stay in the
marriage, though granted, it incentivises the woman more than the man. More
complete stats would also look at which partner is more likely to file in such a
system.
Assumption of maternal custody doesnt give women a strong incentive either

way, but assumption of maternal custody combined with child support makes it
extremely easy for a woman to leave. It also gives men more incentive to stay,
since they are likely to lose their child and their wallet if they leave.
Id say that the stats more likely prove that humans respond to incentives than
that men are more honourable. (They well may be but this isnt evidence of
that).
tspoon says:
August 18, 2011 at 12:16 am
Kai your logic does so many contortions it could run away and join the circus,
with or without child support.
More complete stats would also look at which partner is more likely to file in
such a system. Weve had such a system. For ease of reference weve called it all
of recorded history up until the 60s. Men had the power to leave women, with
or without leaving their children. They didnt.
People who believe that children dont need two parents are misinformed not
uncaring.
No, theyre uncaring. They care not for the fact that children of one parent
overwhelmingly and totally undeniably are worse off in almost every measurable
way than children of two parents. Its not as if the facts arent common
knowledge. Such people care more about claiming their ideology is correct and
their actions are rationalised, than about the untold damage to other peoples lives
and society itself which is staggering toward collapse as is becoming more
apparent.
As for your claim of simple pragmatism as the reason fathers didnt abandon
mothers, a simple test of that theory would posit that noticeable numbers of men
would have left their wives when their children no longer needed maternal care,
or when the children left home, in this system we called all of history. Im pretty
sure the only time any kind of trend has been noticed, it wasnt pre-1960, and it
wasnt men doing the leaving.
Lets have a closer look at the full awesomeness of one of your logical
progressions:
Step A make the claim that those advocating single parent families are only ill
informed, not selfish or uncaring. When they bust up a family, its kinda
accidental (whoopsy), not selfish or anything bad like that. They just dont think
theyre doing something wrong
Step B then go on to claim that men who stayed with their wives because they
though the kids would benefit from having a mother, did so selfishly.
Step C then go even further and claim that the only reason men now wont
leave is because theyll lose all their stuff forever etc. While its true theyll lose
their stuff, that doesnt mean they would have left otherwise, which is what
youre trying to claim with your Theres no proof men are more honourable
statement. Its already been established that this doesnt occur, even in a system
that allegedly favours men .
Doomed Harlot says:

August 18, 2011 at 9:49 am
Men benefit more from marriage than women, especially in more patriarchal
societies. It is much easier to be content in your marriage when the other spouse
is cleaning up after you, feeding you, taking care of your kids, handling your
social obligations, cleaning your clothes, doing the shopping, and taking care of
the myriad other tasks of daily life. I myself have often said, I need a wife!
[D: Yes, no matter what choices women make they really are martyrs,
trapped by the patriarchy.]
greyghost says:
August 18, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Dalrock
This exchange on your site and this article in paticular has been has to have been
a very good learning experience for any man that has read through the
comments. The female responses have been predictively incredable. No matter
what a women will always look after what she thinks is her own interest even if it
destroys everything. A guy could print this up and take everything learned from
this guy (http://heartiste.wordpress.com/) and give a class. You are on par with
any blogger on these subjects anywhere on the web.
If any successful changes are to be made to stop this train wreck there is
absolutely no way in hell it has any chance if the changes involve cooperation or
input from women. Cockroaches, rats and wild hogs have nothing on a hamster.
I will quote the best compliment a working man can give another. Dalrock you
muthafucka
Lily says:
August 18, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Re divorce/child support etc. Sweden has a very high divorce rate. Highest iirc.
When youre talking about a regular middle class couple, the culture favours joint
custody. Child support is unusual in a joint custody situation. In the odd instance
of any financial support, it tends to be pay X sports club for after school
activities, or pay for the childs clothes.

A couple of my friends have similar arrangements in the UK but the father pays
school fees (to the school) and the mother pays anything else (which isnt
maintaining a house and paying utility bills which they both have to do and pay
for themselves). This is most likely what Id have if we ever split up but I try not
to think about that.
Doomed Harlot says:

August 18, 2011 at 1:42 pm
Dalrock, the point is that men in more patriarchal societies (those that tend to
presume fathers should have custody) are not keeping their wives around because
they are so much more honorable than divorcing, western women. They are
keeping their wives around because they are, in most cases getting enormous
tangible benefits from their wives; the traditional wife acts as a free, full-time
personal assistant (often even if she has a job outside the home). It is not fair to
compare men who are getting this benefit to women who are not getting this
benefit, and to then conclude that the men are more honorable for being more
likely to stay in their marriages.
Now, what about the comparison between western men and western women,
given the fact that women are more likely to initiate divorce? Well, I think that
despite all the strides we have made, we still live in a patriarchal culture; that is,
it is still widely expected that women do the vast bulk of the caretaking work,
taking care of husbands, children, and elderly relatives, managing joint social
obligations, and generally making sure the trains run on time on the home front.
Western men dont initiate divorce as often because they are still benefitting from
that work that women still continue to do.
Am I saying that that fact morally justifies womens decision to divorce in every
instance? No. You are quite right that women in our society have more choices
(although the culture can certainly operate as a significant constraint on those
choices) and should take responsibility for their vows and their decisions. My
point isnt that divorce initiated by women is always A-OK. My point is that you
cant conclude, based on a comparison of men and womens rate of initiating
divorce, that men are much more noble than women when men and women are
so differently situated.
Kai says:
August 18, 2011 at 1:59 pm
More complete stats would also look at which partner is more likely to file in
such a system. Weve had such a system. For ease of reference weve called it all
of recorded history up until the 60s. Men had the power to leave women, with
or without leaving their children. They didnt.
Yes, now lets see actual numbers for all or recorded history.
Women werent leaving their men either, because it was extremely punishing both
financially and socially for both. Pretty even there.

It would also be useful to look at at what point cheating stopped being acceptable.
In the higher classes in a number of societies people were married off to people
they barely knew, and were expected to produce children together, but all else
was not really regulated. It was pretty standard for people to take lovers on the
side why leave your wife when you can keep your wife, and still get other
women?
It seems to be pretty recently that it wasnt still expected that a travelling man
might be visiting other women along the way. I dont find this very comparable to
todays beliefs regarding marriage.
No, theyre uncaring. They care not for the fact that children of one parent
overwhelmingly and totally undeniably are worse off in almost every measurable
way than children of two parents.Its not as if the facts arent common
knowledge.
I dont think the stats *are* common knowledge. the media is doing a damn good
job of suggesting exactly the opposite. children are taught that all types of
families are equally good. People are saying everywhere that happy parents are
more important than intact marriages. And its obviously not the patriarchy
selling this message.
I dont mean to excuse willful ignorance. That was not intended to be a defense.
It is simply wrong to figure a child doesnt need the other parent, and yes, people
are looking for reasons to support the beliefs they want to hear.
There are obviously no altruistic reasons to break up a marriage, so divorce is a
selfish decision regardless. But most women are not making a reasoned decision
that their happiness is more important than that of their children. They are
working from the incorrect loud echo that their children will be just fine as long
as she is happy. I still blame individuals for believing what makes things easy for
them, rather looking for reality.
I am not at all excusing the action. I am just not attributing to malice what I
believe is explained by stupidity/ignorance.
As for your claim of simple pragmatism as the reason fathers didnt abandon
mothers, a simple test of that theory would posit that noticeable numbers of men
would have left their wives when their children no longer needed maternal care,
or when the children left home, in this system we called all of history. Im pretty
sure the only time any kind of trend has been noticed, it wasnt pre-1960, and it
wasnt men doing the leaving.
But once children leave home and dont need care, its not about fathers
abandoning mothers anymore. Its about husbands and wives, and the kids arent
relevant. Fathers arent staying for the kids here either, since the kids are gone.
Now we might look and say that once children arent needed, men tend to be
happy to stay with their wife, while women come up with crap about finding
themselves, and a good number tend to leave their husbands, and therefore men
are more faithful than women.
Here I agree with your logic. As stated, I was never disagreeing with your
conclusion just with the suggestion that your premises proved your
conclusion.
Kai says:
August 18, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Do we have a modern culture somewhere in which divorce has become as socially

acceptable as it has in north america, but where men normally get custody? That
would be a good base of comparison.

August 18, 2011 at 4:13 pm
I think the question of divorce in Patriarchy is a bit more complex than what we
have exposed here. First in cultures were men have the power they also
understand very well the responsibility, they get the custody of their kids but
leaving their wives means that they are going to end up at the mercy of society,
they might starve and/or ending up beggars or prostitutes, so a wife really
needed to do something awful to earn this level of cruelty, like adultery for
example.
Feminists never ask about what was of the men the women left to find
happiness?Men dont write books about their misery or about they having to
reduce their standards of living to support his ex-wife lifestyle and a string of
boyfriends and no seeing their kids.
I think the closest portray in the media about fathers desperation after divorce
was Mrs. Doubtfire and I plan to do an analysis on that when I get my blog
because I consider that movie the precursor to Eat, Pray and Love so I call dibs
on it Dalrock
.
I wouldnt say mens reluctance to divorce was born out of pure altruism, even
though we already discussed many times that womens tears are a powerful
weapon to soften the hardest heart of a man, unlike mans tears that are usually
just bringers of contempt for a woman that is already out of love.
But in Patriarchy women are heavily controlled by their fathers, very few men are
going to just arrange a marriage for his beloved daughters to a man that already
showed cruelty to a wife abandoning her or that clearly abused her, even if he
wouldnt love her it would be a waste a good marriage usually multiply a man
status, picking a poor husband will reflect badly in his family. That is something
stupid free women do, pick a man with a history of abusing other women because
it feels right and its going to be different with me, men know a lot better and
hence men in patriarchal societies there are many social deterrents for men to get
a divorce, socially in our culture is acceptable for a woman to leave a man
because she is unhappy and date again like nothing happened even if she
showed cruelty to his ex-husband by denying him access to his children, raping
in him divorce court or/and spent his money on luxury trips, because supposedly
he must had done something to deserve it and this is something men usually do
to, except men from the manosphere I had seen many of them refusing to date
divorced women and single mothers, but the majority of men will assume that the
guy was at fault, that is a different situation in a true patriarchal culture,YMMV.
Joey Giraud, from America says:

August 18, 2011 at 10:23 pm
One thing this blog shows is that conservatives are equally as likely as liberals to
advocate social engineering.
I suspect that these statistics distract from the huge variety of actual situations.
My mother divorced and then proceeded to board me and my brother out to a
variety of foster families. OTOH, my grandfather banished my grandmother,
remarried, and proceeded to treat my father as a servant. Bad mom, bad dad, all
varieties in one traditional, Christian family.
Homosexuality had nothing to do with it. It was all conceit, selfishness and
hubris.
If it matters, I too am a divorced dad who fought like hell to have shared custody.
I dont pay my support to the state, I pay her directly. Yeah its unfair, but
whining about it isnt going to help the kids, and thats whats important.
And Im sure not waiting for any collapsing bubbles to make the best of things.
August 19, 2011 at 7:12 am
One thing this blog shows is that conservatives are equally as likely as liberals
to advocate social engineering.
Are you under the impression that standards and social engineering shouldnt
exist like a sector of classical liberals and libertarians? I thought traditional
conservatives were famous for their authoritarianism and particularly the
accusations from liberals of them being totalitarians. I believe that yes political
freedom can and probably should be allowed to a degree but that the whole ideal
that social engineering is bad is flawed and unrealistic. A society, a community
and a government of any sort that functions and exists has to have some sort of
social engineering (whether its towards liberalism, moderation or conservatism).
August 19, 2011 at 7:14 am
African-American man on Maury dancing that he is not the father ->

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vt2i0ts-uck
August 19, 2011 at 7:15 am
That is how it seems. But it is not people like Kathy who make the laws, and it is
not people like Kathy to whom I was referencing.
Thank you for the clarification. Appreciated.
Pingback: Alpha Women, Beta Men | Dalrock
Joey Giraud, from America says:

August 19, 2011 at 8:36 pm
@alcestiseshtemoa,
Its pretty clear to me that people everywhere love nothing more then to tell other
people how to behave, and thats not going to change. The phrase social
engineering is a conservative charge against liberals, and it sounds pretty scary,
doesnt it? Kind of 1984 and all that.
I dont have a stake in this, I figure society will go whatever way it does (*).
Complaining and advocating can have an effect, to the extent that people are
willing to listen and change. Sites like this one arent really going to reach a larger
audience. Everyone here seems to agree with each other already.
But I really doubt that western societies are going to return to traditional
patriarchy. The core of Feminism isnt the silly fantasy of total equality in
personal relationships, which is fading away, if slowly.
The core is legal equality, something I do support, if only because I think its a
bad idea to use laws to engage in social engineering.
IMO, the state should get out of the marriage business altogether. There should
be a variety of standard contracts to address all the legal issues that traditional
and gay marriage are concerned about, like insurance, visitation rights and so
forth. Childbirth should carry a requirement to have a contract of obligation
signed by mother and father, regardless of any other factors. Then the legal
system can deal with problems using breach of contract, rather then judges
decide like Solomon who gets the baby and who gets the shaft.
Its a pretty radical change, and I have no expectation that it will happen in my
lifetime. But I believe it will happen someday.
(*) actually, in the very long run I believe human society will begin to suppress
sexuality in some technological way. Our sex drives, male and female, will be seen
as a chaotic force destabilizing society. Im not in favor of this, but I bet it will
come to pass. Talk about your heat death.
August 20, 2011 at 4:01 pm
But I really doubt that western societies are going to return to traditional
patriarchy. The core of Feminism isnt the silly fantasy of total equality in
personal relationships, which is fading away, if slowly. The core is legal
equality, something I do support, if only because I think its a bad idea to use
laws to engage in social engineering.
Personally I believe there will be a long decline followed by an abrupt and
tremendous fall. Traditional conservatism will probably return since societies
tend to go in cycles and rarely in a linear direction but it will be late.
August 20, 2011 at 4:02 pm
And when I say late I meant the apocalypse has ended where liberalism has
done its best to destroy everything and has suceeded to an extent. Basically
imagine a post-apocalypse setting.
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Incest Edition
ritmo rioplatense says:

August 21, 2011 at 5:45 am
Fathers all around the country are put in jeopardy of going to prison for money
they dont have, based on actions which are taken in the name of their own
children. Undoubtedly the vast majority of fathers make every effort to not
allow this injustice to poison their relationship with their children, since they
know that their children are merely pawns being used by the childs mother and
the system. However, this kind of heavy handed tactic combined frequently with
denial of time with and influence over their children has to impact the
relationship negatively.
When push comes to shove there is really only one way for men to halt the rising
tide of injustice, and that is by being willing to kill. To just say the hell with it all,
Im going to make a statement written in blood. Until that happens, the
authorities whoever they are will just keep pushing.
Why are more men not driven to murder as a result of this injustice? Its
ultimately the only statement that will be heard.
Self-control is not always a good thing, nor is murderous passion always a bad
thing. When the proverbial piece of paper is curled into a tube, you cant just
flatten it back out you have to curl it back the other way, and hard.
Pingback: Linkpost, 8/21/11 Organicist
Pingback: The economics of divorce theft and exploitation, and why we should repeal unilateral no fault
divorce. | Dalrock
Pingback: Thou shalt be true to thyself | Dalrock
Pingback: Cord Ivanyi is not a mangina! | Dalrock
Pingback: Nothing is more subversive than the truth | Dalrock
Pingback: Charts on delayed motherhood | Dalrock
Pingback: Why wont these Peter Pan manboys man up and marry aging flighty selfish career gal sluts
already? | Dalrock
Pingback: Authority always comes with responsibility, whether you accept it or not. | Dalrock
Pingback: Warn men: Beware Christian marriage doublespeak and hair trigger for wife initiated divorce. |
Dalrock
Pingback: Warn men: Beware Christian marriage doublespeak and hair trigger for wife initiated divorce.
Patriactionary
Pingback: Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family praises heroic unwed mothers | Dalrock
Pingback: Warn men: Beware Christian Marriage Doublespeak and Hair Trigger for wife Initiated Divorce
By Dalrock | Christian Feminism Watch
Pingback: The missing fear | Dalrock
Pingback: Is frivolous divorce overstated in the manosphere? | Dalrock
Pingback: Dalrock Repost: Beware Christian marriage doublespeak and hair trigger for wife initiated
divorce. Dating On The Move
Pingback: The College Boyfriend | Dalrock
Pingback: Mark Driscolls feminist foolishness posing as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock
Pingback: If Mark Driscoll werent so foolish he would be wise. | Dalrock
Pingback: Rediscovering Masculinity Elephants & Trees
Pingback: Do not be alarmed. | Dalrock
Pingback: Women are innately good. | Dalrock
Pingback: What, Me Worry? | Dalrock
Pingback: Porn: The Evangelical Get Out of Marriage Free Card | Christian Men's Defense Network
Pingback: Craven | Dalrock
Pingback: Updated U.S. Custody and Child Support Data (2009) | Dalrock
Albert says:
July 18, 2012 at 12:48 am
The governments claim that it is acting in the best interest of the child are
laughable beyond belief.
If this were true, then why is child support paid to the state and not to the
mother? Better yet, why cant the father just pay for things directly, like clothes,
school supplies, medical expenses? Also, why is an obscure and secretive formula
used to calculate child support payments? Why not just have the father
reimburse the mother for expenses based on receipts she provides. These things
arent allowed because if they were, then the government couldnt get its greedy
hands on any of the money, and wouldnt be able to skim some for itself. The
best interest of the child argument is a smokescreen. The state is really acting in
its OWN best interest and using innocent children as pawns. Also, arrogant
family court judges, corrupt lawmakers, and nosy social service bureaucrats
should mind their own business and stop smugly lecturing fathers and telling
them what level of support they must provide to THEIR children. It seems that
the same people who delight in lecturing fathers about their responsibilities are
conspicuously and conveniently silent when it comes to enforcing a fathers
visitation rights. Where are these same righteous snot noses then? The answer is
that it is not profitable for the state to enforce a fathers visitation rights, while it
is profitable to collect child support from him. Its about money, not the best
interest of the child.
aspen says:
September 12, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Wow. You all have way too much time one your hands.
Pingback: Heres how it works, men: We say jump, you ask how high. | The Woman and the Dragon
supporter says:
October 15, 2013 at 2:45 pm
CLASH OF THE TITANS: MARRIAGE VS CHILD SUPPORT: WHO WINS?

Interesting isnt it when the two go head to head. Its a battle Europe have dealt
with, and the more traditional states in the Union are still battling with. The
battle starts when a child is born to a married couple, but the child is not the
biological product of the husband. In Europe, child support rules, and the
biological father always pays. Some states enforce the husband to pay regardless.
In goes to prove how far child support has come to replace marriage as a way or
organising society. And replacing a mans consent.
Michael says:
October 25, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Anyone see this?

MAN LIVES IN CAR TO MAKE CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/child-support_n_3287716.html
stevet says:
December 9, 2013 at 5:34 pm
I have a problem with the system of DNA testing. I dont believe they are true. I
have asked to do my own test on my supposed kids. Found out the equipment is
all owned and controled by the freemason members . Patents also. Very fishy.
Dont believe anything I cant prove myself.
Rande says:
March 7, 2014 at 11:29 am
I have enjoyed reading how my plight is echoed in the voices of so many here.
Badger really champions my experiences. God only knows that child support is
really, more often than not, just govt. sanctioned bullying of innocent fathers who
would love to parent their children but are maligned worse here than in China or
Russia. I am amazed at how we throw our stones at the Russians and Chinese
and N. Koreans for human rights abuses while in the same breath laud and
magnify abortion and stripping fathers of their children and wealth right here in
America. We are by far the biggest civil rights hypocrites the world has ever seen.
God is damning America for her Godlessness. Bless us? (laughter in heaven when
those who have done this are going to need Him to hear their cry one day and he
turns a deaf ear to them, according to his word.)
Single Dad says:
March 31, 2014 at 12:35 am
After being forced into fatherhood, I have become aware of the baby-mama
injustice and this article basically summarizes it all well! Thank you for this post!
A+
Peter Lomtevas says:

April 7, 2014 at 5:21 pm
The Fed pays a matching fund for every order of support its courts enter. So no
politician will ever stop a system that protects kids.
Sarah says:
April 14, 2014 at 2:46 pm
well if you dont like it, then dont put your penis in there
whatwasIthinking? says:
August 10, 2014 at 1:33 am
TFH says:
August 17, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Dalrock,
In theory whichever parent can better raise the children should be given custody,
and the remaining parent would then be compelled to pay child support.
I would quibble with this. The main point is that divorce itself is INFREQUENT
in societies where women are not given the children and the associated monies
on a no fault basis.
In other words, societies where men retain custody of children have LOW divorce
rates. Men could toss out their wives on a whim, yet 90% do not.
But societies where women get custody of children have HIGH divorce rates.
The divorce rate of a society corelates closely to how much women can profit from
divorce laws of that society. Societies with divorce laws favoring men do not see
nearly as many men abusing these laws.
I suppose men arent inherent freeloaders then? Or we arent taught to have our
hands out for financial support, in other words, we are accountable and generally
take on our ($)responsibilities. Contrary to popular myth. Sure there are
deadbeats. But I think this is more the exception and in fact sympathize with any
fathers enlightenment moment when they realize what it really means becoming
a father. Under a microscope of scrutiny and expectation, always always expected
to and punished for not dolling out. Rarely if at all recognized for the extras, god
forbid a 50/50 custody situation with two completely funcitonal and capable
parents from day 1 and one parent (gender not specified) still gets to squeeze
the other for money and there is no real financial imbalance, both parents are
relatively poor. And yet, again, one parent will be made to doll out, pay the price.
Dont ever assume I get my kid every other weekend though ok? Snotty super
moms on the playground!
lol otherwise, parenthood is a wonderful experience. Just be forwarned about the
inneviteble child support hooks in you
Pingback: And the pendulum swings | Something Fishy
Leave a Reply
Dalrock
The Twenty Ten Theme.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

The Child Support Catastrophe - Dalrock

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Child Support Catastrophe - Dalrock

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The child support catastrophe | Dalrock

About these ads

Thoughts from a happily married father

Post Marital Spinsterhood

Church Apathy About Divorce

What do you think she is seeing that none of her fellow

Latest U.S. Custody and Child SupportData