I received many comments regarding my last post. The main areas of concern seem to be divorce, alimony, child support and custody. To me, it sounds like the judicial system seems to be the problem. The judicial system often arbitrarily decides property divisions, custody and amounts to be paid on the basis of who has the best lawyer or which person’s lawyer is friends with the judge. In cases of child abuse and spousal abuse, the standard of proof is low.
For property acquired prior to the marriage, each spouse should get what he/she brought to the marriage. Property acquired during the marriage should be divided on the basis of each spouse’s contributions, including childcare and labor, during the marriage. Prenuptial agreements may help in the event of divorce. Spousal support should be for a limited term to allow a stay-at-home spouse to update job skills and find work. Alimony is different from support. It is a monetary award for the “value of the marriage,” a holdover from the days when women had few ways of supporting themselves economically. Because women now have other options and an evaluation of the worth of a marriage is subjective, alimony should be eliminated entirely.
When it comes to child support and custody, the welfare of the children shouldn’t be a casualty of the battle between the sexes. The fairest arrangement is for each parent to pay 50% of the child support when the parents have similar incomes. The percentages may have to be unequal if one parent doesn’t earn enough to pay half of that needed to feed, house and provide medical care to the children. In such cases, a parent should be able to have these amounts re-evaluated if his/her income or that of the other parent changes.
Custody should be joint and as close to 50:50 as possible. That is the fairest arrangement for both parents. Additionally, father absence is responsible for problems in both boys and girls such as experimentation with drugs, promiscuity and poor school performance. Children from intact homes have fewer such problems, so staying married for the children wasn’t such a bad idea after all. Unilateral divorce should only be permitted when there is definitive proof of abuse, drug addiction, etc. Such proof would consist of medical records, police reports and the like rather than statements or “diaries.”
Those ideas won’t solve all problems of inequitable divorce and custody, but may provide a starting point. Changing our attitudes toward marriage may prevent some divorces. People of both sexes have increasingly come to see everything as being about fulfillment of their wants and needs. Marriage is a partnership that often involves putting the other spouse’s needs ahead of one’s own. At least it is supposed to be: I am shocked when I watch television programs that depict married women making major decisions that affect both spouses without consulting their husbands. Do most married women do this? If so, I can see why many marriages end in divorce. Our society has not only become increasingly self-centered, but it also expects instant gratification and that all experiences be satisfying. Marriage may have been idealized into something it can never be: Nothing but prosperity, good times, great sex and perfect children. Life sometimes brings problems such as an unplanned baby, an aging parent who needs full time care, a sick child or a financial setback. Couples used to work through disagreements about how to handle such events so they could help each other deal with them. Now many people want to abandon their marriages when life together ceases to be fun even though the problem may be temporary.
Divorce might become less common if people chose their spouses more carefully. If someone is selfish, demanding or difficult when dating, chances are the individual’s attitudes and behavior will only get worse after marriage. Sometimes character flaws aren’t immediately apparent, so rushing into sex or marriage is a bad idea. Some comments referred to gold diggers. This is an area where men need to take some responsibility. Some women are gold diggers. Men need to learn to recognize them early in dating. If a woman only wants to be with a man when he is paying for something, she is probably a gold digger. A sad thing I have observed is that many men seem to be attracted to gold diggers, (including plain looking ones). Maybe some men think that if a woman is demanding it is because she’s “worth it.”
Men can also reduce their chances of being victims of paternity fraud by waiting until they know women well before having sex with them. Dishonesty becomes apparent over time. The male pill is still in development, but men can use condoms even when women claim to be using birth control. Not all unintended pregnancies are paternity fraud. A woman may be truthful about using birth control, but could still have forgotten or misunderstood the instructions. Additionally, all birth control products have failure rates. When paternity fraud occurs, it is almost impossible to prove in court. DNA testing can determine who the child’s father is. If the man in question is the biological father, such cases tend to be matters of “he said/she said.” Paternity fraud and gold digging are immoral. No one should be rewarded for those offenses. Yet men can avoid setting themselves up to be victims.
Many complained that women sat on the sidelines during the feminist movement. Many women, whether uninformed or duped, are guilty of that. To their credit, some readers were aware of the problems feminism would bring since the ‘70s. If I haven’t angered readers enough by now, where were the rest of the men? It is possible that the mainstream media ignored men’s protests and arguments. However, it seems that much of the legislation could not have been passed if large numbers of men objected.
Some readers suggested boycotting marriage to force women who want families to change the system. That may not work because single motherhood became socially acceptable. Some women even choose to have babies by artificial insemination if they remain unmarried by a certain age. Does anyone fear that anti marriage sentiments of both sexes might lead to a society of fatherless children? Fatherless children are at risk for developing problems in school, substance abuse and behavior problems. Fatherless boys grow up without a man to emulate. Too many children are growing up without their fathers now. If kids today have problems, what will our grandchildren and great-grandchildren be like?
Many think traditional marriage is gone forever. That is a shame because it is the best system for raising healthy, well-adjusted children. Marriage need not become extinct. It can be changed if women and men work for more equitable laws, choose mates carefully and develop more realistic expectations of marriage.
Copyright Eva Ellsworth, 08/13/06, all rights reserved
Thank you Denis, PolishKnight and others who like posts. I was surprised and gratified to see that so many people read them.
Rate this post:
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Stumble It!
roger said,
True enough. Yet, when women want a child, they get pregnant - even over the wishes of the male. There are many, many posts on this on the internet. Some women even defend and recommend the practice as legitimate “because he won’t make a commitment”. This is blackmail, and as you point out, immoral. Yet it happens all the time because society has removed the stigmas of single motherhood and bastardy.
While fatherless children are at risk, it is these irresponsible women that put them there with cunning and premeditation. I suggest this is willful child abuse.
August 13, 2006 at 11:34 pm
fourthwire said,
There were also areas where you clearly don’t “get it” yet.
“The main areas of concern seem to be divorce, alimony, child support and custody. To me, it sounds like the judicial system seems to be the problem.”
Eva, the judicial system facilitates the actual problem, by catering to selfish, greedy, egotistical women, pure and simple.
And don’t forget women’s sense of entitlement, either. For some reason, many women expect monetary compensation for past use of their vaginas….. hence the term “vaginamony”.
Women behaving egotistically and using their superior social, civil, and reproductive rights at the expense of men’s social, civil, and reproductive rights are what OUGHT to “seem to be the problem” if you look a bit more closely and objectively.
“Because women now have other options and an evaluation of the worth of a marriage is subjective, alimony should be eliminated entirely.”
No arguments there.
But since alimony generally benefits women, don’t expect to see it disappear anytime soon.
The NOW-sows will scream bloody murder at the mere mention of ending alimony, and the legislatures and courts have no incentive to begin redressing injustices against women.
“At least it is supposed to be: I am shocked when I watch television programs that depict married women making major decisions that affect both spouses without consulting their husbands.”
You are referring to the sense of entitlement rampant among feminized women….. and it’s true in real life, not simply on television programs.
In fact, many women begin practicing such unilateral decisions as soon as they are married, after they have access to their husband’s ATM card and sperm donations…….
….. since they can have their husbands made homeless, separated from their children, and even criminalized with very little risk of consequences to themselves.
“Do most married women do this?”
Welcome to the world of men, Eva.
“f someone is selfish, demanding or difficult when dating, chances are the individual’s attitudes and behavior will only get worse after marriage. Sometimes character flaws aren’t immediately apparent, so rushing into sex or marriage is a bad idea.”
Eva, while you do not have a male sex drive, your idea that men shouldn’t rush into sex is a bit naive.
Women, depending upon their attractiveness and age, generally have sex as often as they want.
Men, depending on their affluence, power, and fame, generally have sex as often as they can.
Again, men ought to be taught as boys to practice restraint, but you are only kidding yourself if you believe that teaching restraint ought to become men’s sole means of defense against greedy, selfish bitches and gold-diggers.
Giving men equal social and civil rights to women is also important, albeit not to most women.
“Some comments referred to gold diggers. This is an area where men need to take some responsibility.”
You would do just as well to tell women that they have to take some responsibility for being raped.
“If a woman only wants to be with a man when he is paying for something, she is probably a gold digger.”
Well thanks for the newsflash, Eva. That phenomenon covers many, if not most American women.
“A sad thing I have observed is that many men seem to be attracted to gold diggers, (including plain looking ones).”
Plain looking gold diggers?
For the most part, “plain looking gold diggers” are unable to attract affluent men, and so they are reduced to leeching off less affluent men, through whichever means legal, including driving those less affluent men into debt after marrying them.
The truly prolific gold-diggers are the attractive ones, since they can remarry and enrich themselves multiple times.
“Men can also reduce their chances of being victims of paternity fraud by waiting until they know women well before having sex with them.”
Welcome to the real world, Eva.
Men can reduce their chances of being paternity fraud by not having sex with women at all, but that’s not particularly realistic.
One solution to some types of paternity fraud is to mandate DNA testing, as is the case for blood testing of newborn infants.
The NOW-sows start screaming bloody murder at the mere mention of it, which ought to give you a fair idea of how valuable such a measure would be in terms of protecting men’s reproductive rights.
Besides, as many men can attest, they can have relationships with women for many years, even marry them, trusting those women until those women act treacherously and selfishly.
You probably don’t date many women, so your ignorance on that particular point is understandable.
“Paternity fraud and gold digging are immoral. No one should be rewarded for those offenses.”
But women are frequently rewarded for both, thanks to civil, social, and justice systems, supported by feminazis.
What’s more, so-called “women’s leaders” have taught successive generations of girls that they are ENTITLED to the rewards inherent to women for paternity fraud and gold digging.
“Yet men can avoid setting themselves up to be victims.”
Indeed, that much is true. It’s a pity that many boys raised by single mothers, without the benefits of fatherhood are often not taught the importance of protecting themselves, nor the means of doing so.
The coming male birth control pill will make a major difference, to be sure….. but simply giving men the same rights of abandonment as women already have would go quite a ways toward leveling the playing field.
After all, if a mother can legally abandon their children and all responsibility for those children within 72 hours of birth, why are men not given the same rights?
Sexist double-standards, that’s why.
“If I haven’t angered readers enough by now, where were the rest of the men?”
Glad you asked. Many of them are toiling to pay, pay, pay for women’s fulfillment - walking zombies that believed in doing “the right thing”, which as it turns out was often simply leading them into legal enslavement.
Many men have long since stopped looking for sympathy or recognition of their plight. Certainly the mainstream media hasn’t given them much attention, nor the nations’ courts or legislatures.
Many of them were criminalized for one reason or another. After all, men’s irresponsibility leads them into prison at far greater rates than women who behave irresponsibility.
After all, such women are “victims”, according to feminazi-inspired public policy.
“It is possible that the mainstream media ignored men’s protests and arguments.”
“Possible”? Have you been living in isolation, Eva? It’s not simply “possible” that the mainstream media has ignored men’s protests and arguments, it’s damned certain!
“Some readers suggested boycotting marriage to force women who want families to change the system. That may not work because single motherhood became socially acceptable.”
Single motherhood may have become socially acceptable, but many, if not most women are beginning to understand that raising children on their own is far less preferable to raising children with men, depending on the intelligence and education of their women.
Indeed, it’s a tragi-comedy that affluent career-women usually see the importance of providing themselves with husbands to raise children more clearly than less intelligent and educated women do.
The best part about a marriage boycott as far as men are concerned is that it doesn’t require any action on their part - simply refusing to marry.
And you had better believe that the marriage boycott will work to force better men’s civil, social, and reproductive rights, regardless of the social acceptability of single motherhood, particularly AFTER introduction of the male birth control pill.
Remember the social and civil changes that came about when the female birth control pill provided women with efficient, effective means of controlling their reproduction?
Why would you believe that men’s marriage boycott would not ALSO achieve social and civil changes?
Oh the Oprah-crowd will shake their blubber in rage and blame men for their “selfishness”.
The feminazis will probably espouse lesbian communes for raising children collectively.
But as more and more women face a life of either single motherhood or doting on their cats, they will begin to grudgingly pressure Congress and the courts to provide more rights to men.
It will not be pretty, nor will it be done smoothly. The mainstream media will do its utter best to ignore or manipulate men’s rights issues and activists.
But as more and more women are unable to find husbands, they will search for answers, eventually even for answers that they might not like.
“Does anyone fear that anti marriage sentiments of both sexes might lead to a society of fatherless children?”
And just how would that differ from the present situation where the greed and selfishness of Western women has led to a society of fatherless children, Eva?
“Fatherless children are at risk for developing problems in school, substance abuse and behavior problems. Fatherless boys grow up without a man to emulate. Too many children are growing up without their fathers now.”
You are preaching to the choir, Eva. Men like Denis and Dave Usher have been writing along those lines for quite a long time now.
The feminazis, the courts, the legislatures, the school systems, and most women apparently didn’t give a rat’s ass about those children who have been growing up without their fathers for decades now.
Yet you seem to believe that MEN ought to continue to engage in marriage, placing themselves at risk of reproductive rape, financial catastrophes, and even criminalization to support children….. children that individual men might not even WANT?
Why is it that men are asked to sacrifice more of their rights, health, wealth, and happiness to keep society working…..and women enjoying their privileges?
Let women start to discover the fruits of their war on men….. and fathers.
Let more women discover that “independence” has its price, particularly when they cannot expect vaginamony…. or child support taken from men through the power of the courts.
Here are a couple of trends that have the feminazis worried, Eva:
- Fewer women want to be associated with “feminism”.
- Fewer women want to place careers as a permanent highest priority for their adult lives.
The worm is turning, Eva.
As greater numbers of men stick to a marriage boycott, and simply enjoy themselves without providing any legal, financial, or personal vulnerabilities that gold-digging bitches can use to their own advantage will enjoy a generally higher quality of life……….
…… While more and more women will learn the price of their “independence”.
Why should men be concerned with supporting the very society that so willingly bestows them with fourth-class citizenship, Eva?
Or that very society so eager to enslave them simply so that some self-centered, egotistical women feel “fulfilled”?
“Many think traditional marriage is gone forever. That is a shame because it is the best system for raising healthy, well-adjusted children.”
Apparently those sour hags claiming to represent women’s interests to our courts and legislatures don’t agree.
And they have accomplished far more to destroy the nuclear family than men have done.
“Marriage need not become extinct. It can be changed if women and men work for more equitable laws, choose mates carefully and develop more realistic expectations of marriage.”
Until women realize that “more equitable laws” ought to be favored over simply providing women with greater civil, social, and reproductive advantages over men’s interests marriage will continue to suffer.
And most women will start to take notice and demand change to Western nations’ laws ONLY when their own privileged lives and expectations suffer.
That phenomenon is practically coded into their genetic makeup, after all.
August 14, 2006 at 1:46 am
tasmaw said,
No matter how careful you are, women change, (are not constant or dependable) and have all of the control in a marriage. Legal, sexual, financial, social, work, pick your field and women have the advantage. I don’t know what I’ll do, but I’m not playing this game any more.
August 14, 2006 at 7:56 am
fourthwire said,
“The NOW-sows will scream bloody murder at the mere mention of ending alimony, and the legislatures and courts have no incentive to begin redressing injustices against MEN.”
August 14, 2006 at 9:56 am
Factory said,
It may seem a little harsh, but I hope to God every last stinking feminist and one-time supporter, as well as every last entitled princess out there (which pretty much encompasses every female in NA) finds themselves single and lonely at 40.
Every. Last. One.
You women EARNED this, you pushed and cajoled and shamed and belittled and accused until you got “everything you want”. This world was made by white upper-class educated women, supported FULLY by every single woman I have ever met, and defended to this day as “proper”. Proper - not fair, since all of these women freely admit things are not fair or just….it’s just “the way things are”.
Which tells me that women are aware that they’re screwing men over HARD, they just don’t care.
So men are saying “screw you” back.
The fact that women don’t like it, and are starting to argue (once again) that men are eschewing thier “responsibilities” adds icing to the cake. See, we are doing this PRECISELY BECAUSE we’re sick as hell of the “responsibilities” women keep telling us we have.
I got an idea. You are woman, I hear you roar, you can do anything I can do, only better. So try this on for size. Fix it yourself….call me when you’re done.
August 14, 2006 at 10:06 am
debi912 said,
It’s only acceptable when there is a camera in someones face, or if you tow the party line. For the rest of us, we get the most vile and disgusting insinuations smashed in our faces when we speak out. I’m not easily offended, but I lost 2 allies in the school because of it.
August 14, 2006 at 10:11 am
Baby Information » Blog Archives » Kiss Up To The Muslims = Newsmakers' & Politicians' Solution said,
August 14, 2006 at 11:21 am
fourthwire said,
It’s right up there with the best that the Gonzman or Denis have written: concise, articulate, and as subtle as a brick through a windshield……
August 14, 2006 at 3:05 pm
PolishKnight said,
There’s a lot of meat in what you wrote but I’m going to try to be succinct and to the point as best as possible:
The concept of spousal support is partly founded upon alimony. Working class men who divorced and maybe found themselves struggling to re-establish themselves with a new home and without a spouse were just told to deal. If they worked at a grunge job and couldn’t live well, that was tough. Welcome to the world of men.
Custody arrangements should be based upon awarding the child to the one able to support them including financially. I loved hearing one jerk social services worker glibly observe that the ability to financially support a child wasn’t grounds for custody hearings because money could be transferred from the other parent. How sick is that? So someone working long hours to protect and provide for their family doesn’t count except when it comes time to treat them like an ATM machine. Women who gestate children into poverty or with birth defects due to alcohol abuse on the other hand, hey, write them a check! What a sick system.
The financial breadwinner should get first shot because they earned it. If they abuse this right, by denying visitation or access to the children to the other parent then it seems right to take away custody and make them pay a penalty through support.
This is the most important thing to remember: Married men _earned_ respect and still do so. They share their income with their spouse to help raise families while most professional women would rather die childless or alone than marry down. Feminism has only established itself as a philosophy of material pursuit for women. But that doesn’t mean that men are totally saints and women sinners. I don’t agree with you on the men chasing after golddiggers part (more on this later) but men do need to be held responsible for selling out to feminism in the interests of the sexual liberation movement. Since feminists are now gradually cutting ties to women’s liberation and acting increasingly like sexually repressed puritanical sisterhood nuns, many men are waking up.
I don’t think men choose golddiggers outright although many still do act foolish and flash cash to impress women. But it’s difficult to flush out honest women because all women, even honest decent ones, require men to demonstrate their ability to be breadwinners. A man who tries to ferret out golddiggers by refusing to pay for dinner on a date will insult and confuse her. It’s possible to gauge how decent a woman is by her attitudes about other things: religion, friends, family, men. How does she handle conflict? Is she generous emotionally? Is she honorable?
Unfortunately, there is no 100% way to know if a woman is a “good nut”. (I guess get one of those willy wonka eggucators or squirrels) So men need to be prepared at all times to stand up for themselves in the relationship and show that they are willing to protect and defend themselves and quite frankly, their family. Women respond to their environment and if a man provides one that shows he values, and defends family and the marriage I think they respond to that too.
I disagree with a marriage strike because as you say, women will just become unwed mothers and the feminists win with socialist benefits anyway. Red stater men should have children and families, on their own terms, and on their timetables. A 40 year old man is better off marrying a 20 year old woman to have children than a 30 year old man deciding to engage in a “marriage” strike. Men have biological advantages as well and they should use them.
One thing that remain clear in these times is that feminism is a big illusion. We live in this magic bubble. The notion of “equality” and goodies for women based upon victim status are laughable in the real world outside of western mores. The left is so decadent that they are now sympathizing and even cheering on their cultural enemies.
August 14, 2006 at 3:28 pm
emarel said,
So what…? Okay, so men pay up somewhat through taxes, but I’d hardly call that winning for women. Just wait, that cute little tyke is going to grow up to be a son or daughter completely unmanageable by mom.
“Red stater men should have children and families, on their own terms, and on their timetables.”
When you get married, its not too bad until you buy the house. The second you buy the house, you’ve lost a lot of your power to set terms. The very second you have your first child, you’re screwed.
“A 40 year old man is better off marrying a 20 year old woman to have children than a 30 year old man deciding to engage in a “marriage” strike.”
Really? Yesterday’s modern 20 year old young mom is most likely going to be tommorrow’s 30 year old complaining, critical, bitchy, black-hole of endless needs. A 30 year old man coming into his stride has the world by the balls…
August 14, 2006 at 5:34 pm
mruffolo said,
I prefer the marriage strike. It’s great exercise of self control, and it is easier on the wallet.
I also enjoy watching the reaction from another pretty face when she is ignored. I learned from this that when we lust, woman are empowered.
Since refocusing my time and energy, my relationship with others have been build up.
I have come to prefer the quiet life, away from a quarrlsome feminist (I live in Chicago, the land of liberal feminism).
August 14, 2006 at 7:41 pm
zed said,
Calling what is happening by the terms “strike” or “boycott” is a compelling sound bite, but it masks the reality of what is happening. Women have generally been far more pro-marriage than men in general - we’ve been hearing about how men “are afraid of committment” for about 30 years, and before that there were the infamous “shotgun weddings.”
What we are seeing is much deeper and more signifcant than a “strike.” If the laws were changed tomorrow, vast hordes of men would not “go back to work.”
The reality is that there has been a fundamental change in the social values regarding marriage and families. The destruction of the father role and the rise of single motherhood has taken away half of the “carrot and stick” motivation for men to marry. The culture has basically said “to hell with the carrot, give me two sticks.” The only motivations left for men to marry are guilt trips, blame and shame - which aren’t working all that well.
A recent survey of young people (I don’t remember the exact age range) found that over 40% did not believe that fathers were necessary in children’s lives. If future men don’t see that role as necessary or valued, they probably aren’t going to do it.
The needed change goes far beyond just legal reforms - the entire cultural attitude and values will have to be changed for marriage to come back as a serious social institution. Legal and financial incentives will have to be restored, as well as social and emotional ones.
Men are burning out on being the indentured servants to a self-indulgent culture and self-centered potential mates. The recent divorce rulings in the UK, for example, award the ex-wife financial rewards completely out of proportion to her contribution in creating the assets she is handed. The old-style “patriarchs” have been hunted pretty much to extinction, and the new generation of men have learned the true costs of supporting the culture on their backs.
If women want to exercise their “choice” to breed another generation of dysfunctional sociopaths …, well feminism always has been about “choice” without regard to the consquences or effects on other people of those choices.
In the long run, the financial burdens of single mothers will fall even divided on childless men and women. My share of the tax burden is thus diluted and still far less than taking on sole responsibility for supporting my wife’s chilren, plus I get the benefit of not having to listen to her constant nagging, whining, and complaining.
August 14, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Paternity Dna Testing » Paternity Dna Testing - Some Thoughts on Marriage, Divorce and Children said,
August 14, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Dna Testing For Paternity » Dna Testing For Paternity - Some Thoughts on Marriage, Divorce and Children said,
August 14, 2006 at 10:04 pm
child labor laws » Blog Archive » Child labor laws - Some Thoughts on Marriage, Divorce and Children said,
August 14, 2006 at 10:39 pm
bad credit » Blog Archive » Bad credit - Some Thoughts on Marriage, Divorce and Children said,
August 15, 2006 at 12:19 am
Denis said,
I predict a “perfect storm” in approximately
20-30 years. At that time, there will be another generation of boys without fathers. Currently almost 50% of our secondary schools are made
up of underperforming minorities(Blacks & Hispanics). Many live in dysfunctional
“families”. 70% of Black families have no father present. In second generation Hispanics (and higher) the percentage is even higher than this. We are looking at a HUGE increase of out of wedlock births that will perpetuate itself, generation after generation. Huge social costs that will not correct the root cause (if history serves as a guide).These people will not be in college in 20 years. They will be in the lower or underground economy. And in 20 years, the U.S. will have to compete with the Chinese and Indians with less than half of it’s workforce. Because of the huge social costs, half the population will have to compete with China and India with a punitive tax burden.
Caucasians in America are not reproducing in great enough numbers alone to replace those that die. We have had 40+ million abortions in the last 30 years and that is 40+ million taxpayers and potential taxpayers lost. The growth of government spending when increasing numbers of baby boomers retire will continue. Men will continue to retreat from society. As more and more women see men turning away some of these will wonder why. Some women may even one day be capable of an honest look at how men have been treated unfairly. But America is like an oil tanker that is going to fast and heading for a crash. It won’t be possible to turn the ship “on a dime” (the point at which enough people wake up to the reality of the catastrophic situation it is in). The trends do not look good. America is slowly collapsing.
The government, politicians, and elites have caused so much social damage that it is impossible to steer the ship in the right direction in time. There will be increases in gang activities. Incomes will drop because we will not compete well with China and India, and this will breed discontent all over America. China will be a military threat challenging us across the globe, jockeying with the U.S. for dominance. We have replaced the male archetype with the feminine archetype which will be completely unable to deal with these problems-many of which it created.
We as a nation have been very slow, and are only now beginning to see that feminine evil exists. We have long recognized masculine evil. I don’t think America will come to grasp the extent of feminine evil unless it is spoken about out loud.
The intelligent man chooses his friends wisely. Any male that is a feminist enabler is the problem. American women who are feminist and feminist sympathizers are the problem. American women who claim to be for men’s rights but part ways with men when their own biases get challenged are the problem. The intelligent man chooses his friends wisely and plans his life intelligently. The feminists, feminist enablers, feminist sympathizers, and the government have done almost everything they could (I’m sure they will continue to think of new ways however)to make it impossible for men to have trusting(stable) relationships with women.
The intelligent man sees what’s going on and plans his own survival accordingly. The matriarchy will one day be existing in a living hell of it’s own creation.
Afterall, men have been displaced from fatherhood and from the larger society. In 20-30 years: Who will keep the standard of living propped up? Who will keep society safe? Who will pay most of the taxes? Who will meet the future security challenges?
Increasingly and noticeably, this burden will fall on the women. Will they rise to the challenge?
American men have no responsibility whatsoever to save America from itself. American men have been the target of a deliberate war against them. It is the women who have the greatest interest in correcting the injustices against men. They will lose the most.
By the time these realities become obvious the government,and the larger society may see what has happened, but by them America will have lost it’s place in the world, and will be vastly worse off then it is today.
Blame feminism.
August 15, 2006 at 8:37 am
PolishKnight said,
So what…? Okay, so men pay up somewhat through taxes, but I’d hardly call that winning for women. Just wait, that cute little tyke is going to grow up to be a son or daughter completely unmanageable by mom.
You’re assuming that they’re rational enough to know that or that the feminist leaders care. They find it delightful to see women more wretched and dependent upon the state. Look at what happened with the inner cities.
I see a lot of red-stater men married and usually with kids and it’s utterly demoralizing to the aging professional career or feminist women. Of course, if a man can’t find a decent woman, he shouldn’t settle. He should also date foreign women if possible.
August 15, 2006 at 8:53 am
adult blog » Blog Archive » Some Thoughts on Marriage, Divorce and Children said,
August 16, 2006 at 1:31 am
dennis said,
For years, I wanted to meet a woman who wanted to be with a good man. I never found a good woman. They were all sleeping with married men and men who were “friends” but didn’t love them.
It’s sad, isn’t it?
September 21, 2006 at 8:39 pm