The Vaginal Parachute

Women don’t want penalties, or disincentives, for their MissBehaving. And, judging by our overwhelmingly profemale reproductive, civil, workplace, and marital laws, women have prevailed.

Whether observing the behaviors of individuals, companies, or governments, one can conclude that economic incentives and disincentives are at the root of almost all decisionmaking. Governments go to war to prevent destruction and loss. Companies leave states and countries with unfavorable taxes, low living conditions, and uneducated workforces. People pay their taxes on time to avoid penalties.

Yet, if a married woman becomes pregnant with another man’s child, she faces no penalties, which is why she willingly chooses such an immoral path. In fact, the “system” rewards her with child support from either the biological father — if she tags him with paternity — or her unsuspecting husband, who eventually will discover her infidelity, divorce her, and be forced to provide her a lucrative “vaginal parachute” for her soft landing into singledom. What a country!

Even a mouse has to navigate a difficult maze to earn a piece of cheese. For a woman in America, in contrast, the marital maze consists only of two adjoining doors — entrance and exit — and the cheese is freely available in exchange for zero effort. Congratulations to the male lawmakers who have built this marital maze and its lopsided incentive system.

Now comes the New York Times, with its latest slicing and dicing of the 2005 US Census data. The NYT’s new conclusion is that, on average, only 49 percent of American women are married and living with their spouses — a new low. Breaking it down by race, this 49 percent average is: 30 percent of black women, 49 percent of Hispanic women, 55 percent of non-Hispanic white women, and 60 percent of Asian women.

The article goes on to say that, despite the picture for married women, 53 percent of men are married and living with their spouses. But it does not segment these men by race, as it does for women, and it does not explain to whom this majority of men are married.

Sam Roberts, the article’s author, proudly quotes “independent” women who feel liberated by removing the shackles of marriage. Sadly, it mentions nothing about the deleterious effect of marital decline on children. Roberts should have included a sidebar about the growing trend of teenage girls beating the crap out of each other, videorecording said beatings, and posting the videos on the Internet for all to see. Could there be a correlation between such MissBehaving and a society that devalues men and marriage? I’ll bet the “progressive” policy wonks never considered that unintended consequence.

In essence, the marriage rate is declining because both men and women no longer have the same incentives or desires to commit to “happily ever after,” as they once did. From everything I can see, there are zero benefits to or incentives for men to be married. But, the same isn’t true for women. Because there no longer exists a social stigma for being divorced, women see matrimony and alimony in the same mental picture, as both words have the same ending: mon[e]y. Accordingly, the main reason for a woman to marry is to have legitimate children and a means to support them … and herself.

The policy wonks aren’t out of the woods, though. For the 37 percent of American children born out of wedlock, these progressives must construct DMV-style socialized programs to parent and feed them. What we all need, for a healthier society, are more government programs, higher taxes, and kids in therapy. Right?

NoNonsense Bottom Line

I have little use or patience for endless discussion and theorizing. I continue to see the professional and financial progress of “independent women” (read “Women to Rule Men by 2010″), and I am one of the biggest supporters of female achievement — which is why I constantly rail against entitled women. So, I propose the following steps that our misandric state and federal lawmakers, mostly men, can take before the next US Census:

• Abolish alimony
• Abolish child support — for divorced and unwed mothers
• Abolish presumed child custody for mothers
• Financially penalize wives who become extramaritally pregnant
• Make Roe v. Wade constitutional — give men the equal right to opt out of parenthood.

If the aforementioned five goals become reality, our entire society will change, and the next US Census will reflect those changes. Will this happen? Never. Always follow the money. Matrimon[e]y. Alimon[e]y. Always follow the money. Politicians want votes, not change — unless that change jingles. It turns out that women don’t want change, either, unless it jingles.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 30+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables^TM (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth^TM (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.TheNoNonsenseMan.com/.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 16th, 2007 at 1:08 pm and is filed under Vox Populi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 84 views | Trackback | Print this page |

| More from Marc H. Rudov

The Vaginal Parachute

Women don’t want penalties, or disincentives, for their MissBehaving. And, judging by our overwhelmingly profemale reproductive, civil, workplace, and marital laws, women have prevailed.

Whether observing the behaviors of individuals, companies, or governments, one can conclude that economic incentives and disincentives are at the root of almost all decisionmaking. Governments go to war to prevent destruction and loss. Companies leave states and countries with unfavorable taxes, low living conditions, and uneducated workforces. People pay their taxes on time to avoid penalties.

Yet, if a married woman becomes pregnant with another man’s child, she faces no penalties, which is why she willingly chooses such an immoral path. In fact, the “system” rewards her with child support from either the biological father — if she tags him with paternity — or her unsuspecting husband, who eventually will discover her infidelity, divorce her, and be forced to provide her a lucrative “vaginal parachute” for her soft landing into singledom. What a country!

Even a mouse has to navigate a difficult maze to earn a piece of cheese. For a woman in America, in contrast, the marital maze consists only of two adjoining doors — entrance and exit — and the cheese is freely available in exchange for zero effort. Congratulations to the male lawmakers who have built this marital maze and its lopsided incentive system.

Now comes the New York Times, with its latest slicing and dicing of the 2005 US Census data. The NYT’s new conclusion is that, on average, only 49 percent of American women are married and living with their spouses — a new low. Breaking it down by race, this 49 percent average is: 30 percent of black women, 49 percent of Hispanic women, 55 percent of non-Hispanic white women, and 60 percent of Asian women.

The article goes on to say that, despite the picture for married women, 53 percent of men are married and living with their spouses. But it does not segment these men by race, as it does for women, and it does not explain to whom this majority of men are married.

Sam Roberts, the article’s author, proudly quotes “independent” women who feel liberated by removing the shackles of marriage. Sadly, it mentions nothing about the deleterious effect of marital decline on children. Roberts should have included a sidebar about the growing trend of teenage girls beating the crap out of each other, videorecording said beatings, and posting the videos on the Internet for all to see. Could there be a correlation between such MissBehaving and a society that devalues men and marriage? I’ll bet the “progressive” policy wonks never considered that unintended consequence.

In essence, the marriage rate is declining because both men and women no longer have the same incentives or desires to commit to “happily ever after,” as they once did. From everything I can see, there are zero benefits to or incentives for men to be married. But, the same isn’t true for women. Because there no longer exists a social stigma for being divorced, women see matrimony and alimony in the same mental picture, as both words have the same ending: mon[e]y. Accordingly, the main reason for a woman to marry is to have legitimate children and a means to support them … and herself.

The policy wonks aren’t out of the woods, though. For the 37 percent of American children born out of wedlock, these progressives must construct DMV-style socialized programs to parent and feed them. What we all need, for a healthier society, are more government programs, higher taxes, and kids in therapy. Right?

NoNonsense Bottom Line

I have little use or patience for endless discussion and theorizing. I continue to see the professional and financial progress of “independent women” (read “Women to Rule Men by 2010″), and I am one of the biggest supporters of female achievement — which is why I constantly rail against entitled women. So, I propose the following steps that our misandric state and federal lawmakers, mostly men, can take before the next US Census:

• Abolish alimony
• Abolish child support — for divorced and unwed mothers
• Abolish presumed child custody for mothers
• Financially penalize wives who become extramaritally pregnant
• Make Roe v. Wade constitutional — give men the equal right to opt out of parenthood.

If the aforementioned five goals become reality, our entire society will change, and the next US Census will reflect those changes. Will this happen? Never. Always follow the money. Matrimon[e]y. Alimon[e]y. Always follow the money. Politicians want votes, not change — unless that change jingles. It turns out that women don’t want change, either, unless it jingles.

About the Author

Marc H. Rudov is an internationally recognized author of 30+ articles and the books Under the Clitoral Hood: How to Crank Her Engine Without Cash, Booze, or Jumper Cables^TM (ISBN 9780974501727), and The Man’s No-Nonsense Guide to Women: How to Succeed in Romance on Planet Earth^TM (ISBN 0974501719).

Rudov’s books, articles, blog, and podcasts are available at http://www.TheNoNonsenseMan.com/.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 16th, 2007 at 1:08 pm and is filed under Vox Populi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 0 views | Trackback | Print this page |

| More from Marc H. Rudov

The Vaginal Parachute

Women don’t want penalties, or disincentives, for their MissBehaving. And, judging by our overwhelmingly profemale reproductive, civil, workplace, and marital laws, women have prevailed.

Whether observing the behaviors of individuals, companies, or governments, one can conclude that economic incentives and disincentives are at the root of almost all decisionmaking. Governments go to war to prevent destruction and loss. Companies leave states and countries with unfavorable taxes, low living conditions, and uneducated workforces. People pay their taxes on time to avoid penalties.

Yet, if a married woman becomes pregnant with another man’s child, she faces no penalties, which is why she willingly chooses such an immoral path. In fact, the “system” rewards her with child support from either the biological father — if she tags him with paternity — or her unsuspecting husband, who eventually will discover her infidelity, divorce her, and be forced to provide her a lucrative “vaginal parachute” for her soft landing into singledom. What a country!

Even a mouse has to navigate a difficult maze to earn a piece of cheese. For a woman in America, in contrast, the marital maze consists only of two adjoining doors — entrance and exit — and the cheese is freely available in exchange for zero effort. Congratulations to the male lawmakers who have built this marital maze and its lopsided incentive system.

Now comes the New York Times, with its latest slicing and dicing of the 2005 US Census data. The NYT’s new conclusion is that, on average, only 49 percent of American women are married and living with their spouses — a new low. Breaking it down by race, this 49 percent average is: 30 percent of black women, 49 percent of Hispanic women, 55 percent of non-Hispanic white women, and 60 percent of Asian women.

The article goes on to say that, despite the picture for married women, 53 percent of men are married and living with their spouses. But it does not segment these men by race, as it does for women, and it does not explain to whom this majority of men are married.

Sam Roberts, the article’s author, proudly quotes “independent” women who feel liberated by removing the shackles of marriage. Sadly, it mentions nothing about the deleterious effect of marital decline on children. Roberts should have included a sidebar about the growing trend of teenage girls beating the crap out of each other, videorecording said beatings, and posting the videos on the Internet for all to see. Could there be a correlation between such MissBehaving and a society that devalues men and marriage? I’ll bet the “progressive” policy wonks never considered that unintended consequence.

In essence, the marriage rate is declining because both men and women no longer have the same incentives or desires to commit to “happily ever after,” as they once did. From everything I can see, there are zero benefits to or incentives for men to be married. But, the same isn’t true for women. Because there no longer exists a social stigma for being divorced, women see matrimony and alimony in the same mental picture, as both words have the same ending: mon[e]y. Accordingly, the main reason for a woman to marry is to have legitimate children and a means to support them … and herself.

The policy wonks aren’t out of the woods, though. For the 37 percent of American children born out of wedlock, these progressives must construct DMV-style socialized programs to parent and feed them. What we all need, for a healthier society, are more government programs, higher taxes, and kids in therapy. Right?

NoNonsense Bottom Line

I have little use or patience for endless discussion and theorizing. I continue to see the professional and financial progress of “independent women” (read “Women to Rule Men by 2010″), and I am one of the biggest supporters of female achievement — which is why I constantly rail against entitled women. So, I propose the following steps that our misandric state and federal lawmakers, mostly men, can take before the next US Census:

• Abolish alimony
• Abolish child support — for divorced and unwed mothers
• Abolish presumed child custody for mothers
• Financially penalize wives who become extramaritally pregnant
• Make Roe v. Wade constitutional — give men the equal right to opt out of parenthood.

If the aforementioned five goals become reality, our entire society will change, and the next US Census will reflect those changes. Will this happen? Never. Always follow the money. Matrimon[e]y. Alimon[e]y. Always follow the money. Politicians want votes, not change — unless that change jingles. It turns out that women don’t want change, either, unless it jingles.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 16th, 2007 at 1:08 pm and is filed under Vox Populi. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. | 18 views | Trackback | Print this page |

| More from Marc H. Rudov