Boycott Family Law?

2007-08-13
By

What would happen, if one day the doors to family relations courthouses opened all across America, and black robed judges sat on their benches, bailiffs, court reporters and other court personnel manned their stations – - – but no one else ever again showed up in their courtrooms? Yes, that’s a very highly improbable scenario, given the sexual appetites of today’s men and women, but I can dream can‘t I?

It would indeed be an unusual day if such a scenario ever occurred, and if that scenario lasted a week, or a month, or a year, MY GOD, it could literally drive all the people who make a living off family relations court out of business. Imagine that.

Since I’ve had the audacity to hypothesize this improbable scenario, let me take it even a step further. How can a man facilitate the end of family relations courts? Warning: The sign post up ahead means you are about to enter, The Twilight of Family Law Zone.

#1  End all procreational sex

If you don’t have kids, you don’t pay child support, and child protective services can’t steal them.

Birth control, in my opinion, is the best option to ward off the possibility of parenthood, as I do not favor abortion (the killing of a viable human being). There are varieties of birth control devices on the market, none 100% effective, and none fool proof. There’s not an effective pill for men on the market, but research continues on that. Every man not now a parent should, in my opinion, take every precaution to avoid parenthood, given the monstrous atrocities that America’s family relations courts daily employ to destroy the lives of many good Fathers. What good is Fathering a lovely child, only to have it a very short time, then never, or rarely, see it again? Such is the very real possibility given the vast majority of rulings in family relations court, favoring Mothers as custodial parents. Needless to say, that’s the point at which Fathers often become nothing more than paychecks.

If only young men had men’s studies programs to the extent that women do, many young men could be taught the absolute imperative of avoiding unprotected reproductive sex. Such training could help them avoid the devastating effects of family dissolution and family relations court proceedings that many older men have gone through. Obviously, they would also be taught to avoid some really dangerous contacts with potentially deadly venereal diseases as well.

The beginning of reproductive choice for men begins with knowledge, and proceeds with wise use of that knowledge.

For those young men strong enough to abstain from sex, they are afforded the very safest protection from all of the maladies mentioned above, but life is a long road and it only takes one reproductive mishap to destroy a man’s life forever.

#2  End all involvement in marriage, or relationships that trigger common law marriage statutes

Marriage has long been an institution revered by societies, religions, families, etc., but have atrocities ensuing from family relations courts made the institution of marriage just too risky for men to be involved in?

# Ask a man who’s had to pay exorbitant alimony to a wife who decided to quit her job after marriage.

# Ask a man whose wife quit her job after marriage, then lies and claims her husband was abusively controlling the finances so she can get more money out of the divorce settlement.

# Ask a man whose wife cheated on him, then lied about it, then gave birth to a child that wasn’t his.

# Ask a man whose wife filed false accusations of domestic violence against him causing his arrest, humiliation, loss of employment, depression, etc. so she can game the legal system and get a leg up in the divorce proceedings.

In a previous article, I discussed whether marriage was too risky for a man to be involved in and my personal conclusion was, “Yes” from a number of perspectives.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/08/11/is-it-unwise-for-a-man-to-marry-in-todays-climate-of-misandry/

Is It Unwise for a Man to Marry in a Climate of Misandry?

“Given the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in today in family relations, in a nation of gender feminist laws, it is my opinion that it is extremely unwise for any man to marry.

Given the sorry state of affairs we find ourselves in today in family relations in a number of Churches and Synagogues across America, it is my opinion it is extremely unwise for any man to marry.”

and

“Put yourself totally at a woman’s mercy, get married.”

and

“Marriage is a social injustice where men incur all financial risks.”

#3 …

 Uh, there is no #3 that I can think of. Number 1 and number 2 should bring about the complete demise of the family relations courts and the massive industry that leeches off family dissolution and misery, including Child Support Services.

The personal misery that many men incur in their lives could further be abated by avoiding all contact whatsoever with the opposite sex, thereby destroying the domestic violence industry and the sexual harassment industry. The later may somehow manage to survive as I’ve heard speakers at sexual harassment workshops say that any behavior, avoiding contact with the opposite sex, for fear of being accused of sexual harassment, is sexual harassment. Still, covert avoidance of the opposite sex would at least make misandrist lawyers and politicians really have to stretch to continue their ruthless harvesting of Fathers’ and men’s financial assets.

Imagine how women’s studies programs would spin this new, insidious tactic of “Patriarchy” to (in their viewpoint) further oppress women through devious power and control guerilla tactics. I can hear their comments now, “Men are abusing women by withholding sex as punishment,” and “They’re denying women the children the have a right to demand in their bodies by choice.” Hmm, I guess they’ll have to revise history some more and destroy all the old women’s studies texts that said, “Heterosexual relations with men are oppression to women.”

Women’s commissions that endlessly propose policies to further the rights, privileges and pampering of women would no doubt vigorously confront this new, insidious tactic by Patriarchy to gain back “power and control.” If sperm supplies became totally unavailable, no doubt taxpayer’s money would have to fund research to find new ways to fertilize female eggs, or clone people. Politicians would have to find new ways to punitively tax men to support the research. New programs and services would have to be built for a brave new village of people who would develop and further new procreational methods, childcare facilities, etc. – but I digress.

No doubt there will never be and end to the war on Fathers and men, no matter how hard Fathers and men work to restore their rights. Gender feminist influence in law is a misandrist reality that will plague the lives of all males for the foreseeable future, in my opinion.

Men must innovate and look at every possible way in which they can hold off the onslaught of male destroying policies, legislation and gender feminist tyranny. Turning off one light switch can save a little electricity. One man’s effort to avoid the enormous negative consequences of association with the opposite sex, can save the destruction of one man‘s life in family relations court. If one man’s life can be spared the living hell so frequently visited on Fathers and men by family relations court, this article will have been worth more than the time and effort it took to write – much more.

15 views

  • The Biscuit Queen

    Interesting idea, but you missed something: Population collapse. We need those pesky children to continue our species. However, if we started making manditory shared joint custody both legal and physical with no child support the norm, it would in effect mean the same thing. It would shrink the number of cases down to so little the industry would be perminantly hobbled. There are abuse cases (by both men and women) and there are abandonment cases (by both men and women) which would need to get dealt with, but we would finally see proof that these are pretty rare.

  • WLS

    I have to say that I prefer Usher’s idea of re-enhancing marriage—although I don’t see the guy has any plan toward that goal—to Blumhorst’s Aristophanian flight-of-fancy that men launch a procreation strike—although his assessment of the disadvantages and hazards of marriage and fatherhood is certainly sound.

    But, man: when I try to generate some interest in child custody or support action I usually get at least a few takers; when I tried to drum up support for covenant marriage legislation that was introduced in California, the turn-out was a stark and perfect zero.

  • snootfish

    Well, the boycott doesn’t have to last forever — it just has to last long enough to make a change. The boycott hopefully could be ended before the species ceased to exist. I don’t think a boycott is as improbable as it might seem. It would just require inexpensive, reliable, readily reversible, covert male birth control. If this were available, I think the birth rate would plummet almost immediately.

  • snootfish

    Actually, arguably, a boycott is already occurring.

    Many western nations are not generating enough children to maintain their populations (absent immigration).

    I did my party to continue the species but after my first marriage ended I have been very careful not to procreate again. In times past, there is a good chance I would have started a second family.

    I say the boycott has already started.

  • mruffolo

    You have the non-violent solution – a baby strike.

    If a marriage strike is difficult for some, but an excellent protest, a baby strike by men would shake up the establishment.

    “Honey. When are we going to have baby?”

    “Dear. Our relationship is important to me and I want it to be all it can be. A baby would grow our family by one more. I would be honored to have child with you, yet, now, the way family courts are structured, I risk the most if you change your mind about being together forever.”

    An explicit and popular baby strike campaign by men would send most women in a state of panic, drawing them towards rethinking marriage and divorce, then forcing law makers to rethink family law reform.

    This article ought to be distributed to each man in America. (If many of them disagree, then ask them to sit in the county’s family court one morning).

    Dude this is vision. A baby strike.

  • bombbombbombbomb

    The Biscuit Queen said

    “However, if we started making mandatory shared joint custody both legal and physical with no child support the norm, it would in effect mean the same thing.”

    The difference being a man can go on a marriage and baby strike now and that is the “means” to attain what you propose.

  • amfortas

    The two keys to ending the madness are women and lawyers. Women have shown a total lack of care and empathy toward men that they said they loved and have lost the trust of men.

    Men do not trust women any more.

    Lawyers on the other hand have made a great show of affecting empathy with women in order to dispossess men AND women of the fruits of men’s labour. Lawyers are totally untrustworthy to start with and there is no prospect of them ever gaining trust. To trust a lawyer is to already be a fool. One only resorts to a lawyer when desperate or guilty. Lawyers hate the innocent as the innocent usually haven’t got enough money.

    To change the system, both of those parties to the fraud and destruction of men and marriage must be made to pay. They must feel the cost of their actions. There is no reason for them to change otherwise.

    Women will become increasingly uncomfortable, not finding a man with whom they can safely procreate. The marriage strike is a necessary but insufficient strategy. Men must eschew sexual relations with women and when pressed, let them know why. Women must be made to pay for even simple sexual pleasures provided by a man. Men must start and continue to place a very high value on their sexual giving ability. This will mean taking all the enraged insults but at least men will be safe from the Family Court and from the NewSpeakFatherhood burden.

    The Lawyers on the other hand will turn their attentions to other means of ripping off men and a simple reduction in the business stream from turning off the divorce tap will be soon replaced with mass pursuit of false allegations. On both sides. Lawyers only make money representing the guilty. The guilty after all are the only ones with money. That’s why they always represent the women who can bring a home and contents portfolio, previously ammased and paid for by the man they have stolen it from, to be easily ravaged. The women are usually so engrossed with revenge and do not see the money being taken from them by the lawyers until too late and even then blame the husband.

    Already the accused in a false allegation is considered guilty and have to prove innocence, so no lawyer is going to make a buck representing any but the rich accused (like the Duke Boys whose parents had to cough up 3 million) or those with an asset base.

    So to turn that tap off, men should divest themselves of all assets at a fairly early age, say 25. Establish a Trust, run by a brother or friend and all income and assets to go in that trust. Men must own nothing. Men must be only Trustees or beneficiaries or borrowers from a Trust. That will make it just not worth while Lawyers ever harassing men again. Nor the State. Not that they would bother as there would be no one to pay their fees.

    Lawyers have no ethics. Legal Ethics is a phrase which means the exact opposite of the regular meaning of the words. Frankly, just drying up lawyers income is hardly enough. Most lawyers have given up the right to be considered members good standing in society. Lawyers are fit only as game.

    Like ‘good women’, good lawyers are so thin on the ground that it is barely worthwhile looking for one.

  • The Biscuit Queen

    In an ideal world, all men would go on strike, the strike would be well publicized and in a few months women would as a whole realize that the men were serious and things would change.

    In the real world intelligent, well-off and middle class men of all races would boycott and stop having kids. Some poor but aware men would join the boycot, but the poor would likely not boycott since they have bigger fish to fry (say, food and shelter) and we all know those with the least means procreate the most. The ignorant and uncaring and short-sighted of all economic levels would continue to have children, as well as the Christian right wingers, and we would have a very different landscape.

    The ‘strike” would not be publicized so that the average person knew what was happening due to infighting, and we would create a generation unable to continue to run the country (or world) due to too few people and too many uneducated and/or poor folks (although we could educate them but that takes immense resources since they cannot pay themselves.) Those with the most advantagous DNA for higher reasoning (of all economic levels) would be withholding it.

    The good news is the devout Jews and Christians, who do not listen to these trends, would continue to procreate, so perhaps there would be hope yet. I guess that depends on the point of view. I see the uprising of feminism and socialism coinciding with the downfall of Judao-Christian values, so to me it seems clear they are incompatible. This goes beyond simply sexual mores to basic rules to live by including for both men and women responsibility, financial freedom, hard work, decency, frugality, and common sense. Reading Proverbs, for example, is an enlightening example of how the Bible is an important reference of human nature and how to make a sucessful society.

  • http://citizensrule.net right2parent

    “Uh, there is no #3 that I can think of.”

    I’ve got #3 covered. Minnesota’s Chief Justice Blatz once said “this court system would come to a screeching halt” if it was all pro-se.

    We don’t need “manditory shared joint custody” to bring down the child support system. We need every man met with a notice of child support liability from a IV-D agency, or an order for child support from a family law judge to motion for dismissal if the record doesn’t substantiate the necessary fact that the agency determined you were an absent parent under the law, and that you had an opportunity for a hearing to contest the designation.

    It doesn’t take a law degree to recognize the agency and courts are overstepping their authority to establish a child support order for a dependent child who doesn’t fit the established definition of a “dependent child” in state and federal legislation. This argument gets nowhere when only one person can be out-manuvered by corrupt judges and lawyers, but if enough accused deadbeats brought the same argument at the same time, it would force a review of the issue. There is strength in numbers (if they are on the same page).

    If fathers would learn a little more about their rights and responsibilities as fathers, petitions for divorce by deserting mothers claiming “no-fault” would be met with demands to show cause for a change in custody when the father currently holds that status by right. It isn’t a legal right “granted” by statute, it’s an inalienable, natural right that requires proof of abandonment or neglect under a strict scrutiny standard before the state can “award” it to anyone else. A no-fault petition is insufficient if it asks for custody without claiming you are unfit to maintain your current status as the children’s natural guardian.

    Manditory shared joint custody capitulates to the feminist’s aim to destroy family government. It is an admission that father custody no longer exists. No-fault didn’t change everything. Past court desisions didn’t change anything. Anything you can cite relates to proceedings under laws to determine the placement of state ward. They are laws that kick in After it was determined you were unfit to maintain your guardianship status, not as a means to remove it.

  • college activist

    right to parent.. I”‘ve got #3 covered. Minnesota’s Chief Justice Blatz once said “this court system would come to a screeching halt” if it was all pro-se.”

    Maybee a lawyer who reads hear could offer some advice on pro-se !! in divorce courts

  • http://citizensrule.net right2parent

    college activist,
    Maybe, but don’t hold your breath. It certainly won’t be a family law lawyer.

    Let me know if you find a lawyer even interested enough to to look into it.

  • Virtue

    We need to do everything possible to undermine the sexual power of women.

  • conservativation

    Amfortas, Again and yet again! Great post, gut honest, well considered ideas yet to appear and simultaneously disappearing from idiom, fleeting from lack of reference, but, valid. Truth as it once was, maybe, or how it must be some day, if said day materializes.
    Your post is boiled down, fibrous peelings removed, soft and over ripened and bruised like fruit mishandled, ignored, or dropped.
    Enough lame writing ; Sorry, I was inspired by reading the Pulitzer winning fiction “The Road” this weekend….great book!
    What you suggest as the identities of the culprits aligns well with the world I see. I don’t think we are imagining it! I won’t belabor, but add the pastorate to the list. To differing degrees depending on where one is in the world, and even in this country, the pastorate carries a part of the responsibility for the mess, and therefore the stool has three legs that must be kicked out from under.
    As to the legal pontifications about parents natural rights that I read above, I agree wholeheartedly but I am not optimistic anyone in authority anytime soon will recognize these as valid. Shame that.

  • Ed

    Awe you guys, ir can’t be that bad.

    Just kidding, 80+ trips to win custody I know it’s much worse. Thing is ever see a young man in love? Of course we all have and despite the humor of watching them fawn over a gal its pathetic what lies in wait for him down the bridal path. I liked the idea of the men’s study program as a MANdatory series of courses in HS or college, both would be fine.

    But.

    Return with me to the young man in love/lust. I’ve told young officers in training to be careful of what they wished for. They didn’t listen and many have already paid the price with our ranks growing daily. One young man told me it would be okay to be divorced down the road, he wanted to experience fatherhood. Don’t think he quite understood that once she throws him out the backdoor he really is a father in name only, the name on the checks he will write to support said child.

    BQ keeps beating the drum and I like what she is saying about equal shared joint custody but that I think is the dream we all have that will never come to be. As always Amfortas writes what is the truth and the sane but again the women rule here on good ole Main Street USA.

    I guess my personal (and the personal is political – remember) choice, and it is a choice, was to stop marrying them after two bad marriages. Stopped dating them because they really don’t get it, at least the ones I met. And stopped putitng up with their weird bulls**t. They really are empowered and they gosh darn actually really believe all the crap they were fed these past decades about how “they’re worth it” “I am woman, hear me roar”, and of course my fav “multitasking”. I suspect no one told them that doing 20 things at the same time and doing them all wrong is not something to be proud of.

    So far I haven’t exploded and oddly I have more money at the end the months as they pass. Funny tho, like cigaretts I still get the urge once in a while and remember the Good ole Surgeon General’s warning they made the mfr’s put on the label:

    “May be hazardous to your health”.

    So there.

  • mruffolo

    Right now the government spends more time and resources creating awareness of the consequences of driving violations (for example, drinking, disobey speed limit) in drivers education and with road signs, than compared to the consequences of marriage violations (she is unhappy…you do not make her happy, financial abuse, emotional abuse, VAWA laws, and more).

    I expect that the American government would be disincline to create awareness of judgments by statistics in family court, as I suspect the truth and national awareness would cause mild hysteria and great confusion in many American men.

    Today the family courts are secretive. It’s that way for a reason – to not cause a mutiny of the marriage and procreation for population growth. The family court publishes few statistics with exception to child support money and yearly divorce totals, however, criminal courts publish their statistic by gender, race, zip code, type, among others.

    If the state government made obtaining a marriage license as a difficult as it does obtaining driver license or American citizenship, I suspect that the marriage and birth rate would be trending lower, near zero.

    With national awareness of the truth

  • http://www.dontmakehermad.com/ John Dias

    I wonder if anyone with legal knowledge can answer this:

    Could a prenup be designed in such a way that it bound both parties to adopt a presumption of 50-50 joint custody in the event that children are born? Right now we call such an agreement a “stipulation” and it occurs when both parties come to a custody agreement after the child is born. Why not wrap the stipulation into the prenup? It might solve this whole custody/divorce mess in one fell swoop.

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    If they are willing to commit the CRIME of peonage, then all other legal strategies as suggested herein are likely to fail. Oh you might win once or twice when the court is caught off guard, or there are facts that generate sympathy for your client, but if it is designed to make any fundamental change in the way things are done, they will find a way to circumvent your argument and impose their tyranny.
    Stipulations and pre-nupts can be found “invalid” as being “unfair” to the lady who came into the marriage with “nothing” and therefore must not be allowed to leave the marriage with “nothing”.

  • DadWith2Girls

    Methinks this outstanding dialogue invites yet another unpeeling… already it could make up the syllabus for Intro. to Men’s Studies 201. (It would have to be a 200-level course, because men would be required to complete Women’s Studies 101 as a prerequisite. ;-)

    Which is to suggest, what if the Gender Wars actually provoked men into deeply interrogating their culturally cultivated desire — indeed — “addiction” — to pussy?

    And I apologize for collapsing all the bourgeoise Harlequin romance, rapture of initial lustful love, tingling synapses of flirtation, electric appeal of getting some strange, idealistic poetry of soulmate-seeking, the joyous lubricated mental friction of speed-dating, the kinetic projection of cyber-sex, … et. al. … into “pussy.”

    (What passes for the commodity of Love these days…)

    WHAT IF men started to reflect upon why they have placed their desire for access to vaginas above so many other critical life values?

    What makes a man sacrifice his dreams, his income, his spirit, his present and future identity ….

    for access to an increasingly tedious exchange with an increasingly indifferent female who objectifies him as a success object, while he loses his interest in idealizing her as an erotic destination?

    Bottom line — why do men sell out so cheaply, so readily, so foolishly, and so young?

  • The Biscuit Queen

    “Bottom line — why do men sell out so cheaply, so readily, so foolishly, and so young?”

    Same reason there is only ever one large war per generation- older men live and learn, they know better and age mellows passions, but an 18 year old is all niave emotions and vibrant passion-that hooks em every time.

  • John Black

    The reason there is only ever one large war per generation (if true) is probably because it takes a generation for the defeated side to recover and go at it again.

  • amfortas

    You want a reference, Cons. Try “the Evil Deeds of the Ratbag Profession” by Brett Dawson. 1998. http://www.campac.net.au/bsdawson

    The whole shoddy demise of truth in the legal business from the middle ages to the present sorry mess.

    TBQ, you hit the nail, M’dear. “an 18 year old is all niave emotions and vibrant passion-that hooks em every time.” Cannon and fee fodder.

    Soon after that, Justice
    suicided off a nearby cliff.
    Lover’s Leap, a place then
    from which many a couple had gazed out,
    seeking the broader vista.
    Now has Disabled Access.

    Was it in despair?
    Perhaps sympathy with the others.

    No-one saw her silent fall.
    Was she pushed?
    Who could gain?
    Her handmaids will argue for a time and time,
    billing Innocence by the hour.

  • WLS

    The answer to Dias’s question is a flat _no_, and that applies to child support too. In California it’s a matter of statute amply interpreted in case law; all other states I believe cover the issue similarly.

    The legislature revisited the issue a few years ago in connection with Barry Bonds’s case: the attempt by some legislators to make such a preclusion apply to spousal support as well was rejected, although they did impose a rule that a prenup include a declaration that each party either have an attorney or state that they understood they had a right to one.

    A `stipulation’ is when opposing parties jointly petition the court to order something: it must be non-coerced and in the case of child custody or support is in no way binding on the court, although in practice they usually go with it unless there’s something clearly outrageous about it.

    There have been proposals that the law recognize that parents can agree to try collaborative approaches to resolving disputes over the children for a specified period of time before litigation is allowed to proceed, but nothing along that line has been codified so far.

  • WLS

    Actually the child support statistics one usually hears apply _only_ to IV-D cases, although the census bureau also compiles the results of survey questions in which the parents state what they claim they are owed or pay. The statistics on the rate of divorce are not exact counts but based on sampling, although they look reasonably well done.

    With the overall out-of-wedlock birth rate over 30%, it’s hard to see how marriage policy is controlling population.

  • DadWith2Girls

    OK, B.Q. — I had you in mind when I posted that question. (Really I did.)

    So, to re-phrase — “why do men of all ages sell out so cheaply, so readily, so foolishly, and so completely in compliance with Feminism Inc.?”

    No blaming hormones now, B.Q. (No Brad Pitt fantasies, please…)

    I’m looking for your theoretical logic.

    Also, (it goes without saying) — no dog metaphors…..

  • The Biscuit Queen

    I think most men are at heart good people who want loving relationships with a woman and their (the couple’s) children. The way to get that love has always been through marriage. 50% of marriages stay strong and last a lifetime; those examples show that it is not marriage which is broken but the people who enter lightly into it and the court systems which destroy them.

    Men also tend to put all their emotional eggs in one basket-where women will spread them out to other friends, men tend to rely on a woman for emotional health. Men are also happier and healthier when in a marriage on average.(Warren Farrell)

    Men also have either bought into or talked themselves into the idea that the only men who are screwed in court are those who deserved it. I have heard this line again and again by men I know who really have no clue just how bad the courts have gotten. It is easier to believe it is the men and not the sytem which is wrong. That way they assume if they are good husbands and fathers they will not be in danger of retribution in court.

    So I think the idea of taking a chance (something men are hardwired to be willing to do) on a relationship is not so scary as the idea of living a life alone for most men.

    There, not a single dog reference.

  • Ray Blumhorst

    “So I think the idea of taking a chance (something men are hardwired to be willing to do) on a relationship is not so scary as the idea of living a life alone for most men.”

    Divorce, onerous child support, and the pain and isolation subsequent to divorce are more than cures for loneliness so is marriage followed by a brutal divorce a necessary step in learning to avoid marriage, sexual relationships with women, etc.?

    Let us hope men have the ability to change “the male role” they have been cast into for their own health and well being. Let us hope men can successfully learn a new role, evolve, or at least avoid the role that has caused them so much misery and death. The risks and disadvantages far outweigh the advantages, IMO.

    “50% of marriages stay strong and last a lifetime; those examples show that it is not marriage which is broken but the people who enter lightly into it and the court systems which destroy them.”

    That’s one possible explanation among many, but certainly not the only explanation. “Broken” strikes me as an overly broad explanation that masks a myriad of reasons divorce occurs in people’s lives. Here’s one often used. He/she got fat and ugly, or he/she got “old.” Is natural aging, or a natural slow down in metabolism a sign of something needing to be fixed in aging people, or a sign of America’s “forever young” brainwashing that constantly assails us through all forms of media? I tend to think that (primarily) mass media is “broken” and needs fixing.

  • Ed

    Woooo, you guys!

    BQ, thanx for the input. never have I read a woman write about how men are just good at heart folk who want, truly want a good relationship with their wives and children. Thanks.

    I was just watching ole Winfrey Windbag on TV, topic of the day was “women who work vs women who stay at home”.

    Lotta wind exchanged between the many “moms”, those who work, those who stay at home. Those who work, those who stay at home. Those who work, those who stay at home.

    Not one man, father, dude invited to talk about the entire issue that is a child(ren). What about that? What about the other 50% of the genetic base of a human being. Not even considered. Doesn’t even enter the topic or the discussion.

    Perhaps thats the crux of many of the blogs, they’re our kids too. So, mommy decides she can’t drop off little Adolf at daycare and daddy-o just better be okay with that. Or else. And I’m not advocating either side is right or wrong. Just the lack of a thought process that this decision, like so many others, is a “family” decision. Or should be.

    Or else he can get a third floor walk up and see the kid on the off weekend and Wednesday nite from after school til 8 pm. If she decides thats okay.

    So, my read: Boycott family law? Hard to do. Boycott family all together. Let’s give the place back to cock roaches. The Duke case, the constant lies by feminists can’t stop the family courts, no one can.

  • The Biscuit Queen

    “That’s one possible explanation among many, but certainly not the only explanation. “Broken” strikes me as an overly broad explanation that masks a myriad of reasons divorce occurs in people’s lives. Here’s one often used. He/she got fat and ugly, or he/she got “old.” Is natural aging, or a natural slow down in metabolism a sign of something needing to be fixed in aging people, or a sign of America’s “forever young” brainwashing that constantly assails us through all forms of media? I tend to think that (primarily) mass media is “broken” and needs fixing.”

    Amen Ray, Amen.

  • WLS

    That many men who haven’t been there “have no clue just how bad the courts” are (they’ve actually _always_ been very bad, but that’s another issue) doesn’t explain why so many men who know they have been “screwed in court” take it so easily, with so much complacence. That many are so accepting is an important factor in the quick dismissal—the public assumption they are marginal or unfit parents, or lack respect for authority and law and order—that those who conscientiously try to defend themselves usually receive.

  • Ray Blumhorst

    “Bottom line — why do men sell out so cheaply, so readily, so foolishly, and so young?”

    Same reason there is only ever one large war per generation- older men live and learn, they know better and age mellows passions, but an 18 year old is all niave emotions and vibrant passion-that hooks em every time.

    TBQ: I forgot to thank you for that diplomatic phrase, emphasized above in bold. It is the kindest euphemism I have seen associated with, the decline of men to aging, in a long time. From what I’ve seen it tends to be true.

  • mruffolo

    One reason boys may act foolishly around a woman is that they are not trained up in the way they ought to go. Most boys lack leadership from a natural father and or a male teacher/coach.

    Catch 22

    Also, Proverbs warns boys against whores. Maybe more boys ought to study the bible in small men’s group.

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=24&chapter=1&version=47

  • mruffolo

    Iron sharpens iron.

    Men ought help hold other men accountable – a father ought to help hold his son accountable.

    With divorce visitation at four days a month, it is improbable a son will grow up to learn how to live life, to learn actions and words that keep the son blameless. out of trouble.

  • The Biscuit Queen

    The conflict between the mens movement and Judao-Christain religion has been long and complicated. Both sides have issues and both sides have valid complaints. The sad thing is the Bible is a tool which cannot be equalled when it comes to teaching our children values for life-not just sexual values but everyday life lessons. Having a father sit down with the Bible with his son is probably the best way to teach a boy how to become a man in a healthy, well rounded way-likewise for women to teach their daughters.

    4 days a month is NOT enough time to be a parent; although it is better than nothing it is not good enough.

    We all get locked into battles about small points and the greater message is lost.

    I wish there were easy answers, I really do.

  • DadWith2Girls

    B.Q.,

    With respect… if only 50% of the dogs you trained became compliant and obedient, how would you interrogate your success as a dog-trainer?

    Would you blame the nature of the dogs?

    Would you reflect upon your own ideology & methodology?

    Somehow I believe you see the Bible as a training manual.

    Jesus was untrainable. A heretic in his day. Indeed, arguably, a revolutionary.

    Every social institution he confronted was laid to ruin….

    Funny what a polite discourse about dogs can lead to, philosophically, yes?

    Have you ever put a “bad” dog down?

    ;-)

  • Athein

    Yes, I had a prenup stipulating that I’d get 50% equal and shared custody if we divorced.
    What a joke.
    My own lawyer told me that the moment my wife claimed I committed child abuse those provisions go out the window.
    Why don’t those lawyers tell us that a prenup is totally a waste of time and money when it can be totally set aside by a judge for no reason or any reasonl.






Search