Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children
Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.
And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell,” mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.
Spreading this message may also, in the long run, be the most effective method of saving marriage as an institution. For until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that “divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.” The central problem is the divorce laws.
It is well known that half of all marriages end in divorce. But widespread misconceptions lead many to believe it cannot happen to them. Many conscientious people think they will never be divorced because they do not believe in it. In fact, it is likely to happen to you whether you wish it or not.
First, you do not have to agree to the divorce or commit any legal transgression. Under “no-fault” divorce laws, your spouse can divorce you unilaterally without giving any reasons. The judge will then grant the divorce automatically without any questions.
But further, not only does your spouse incur no penalty for breaking faith; she can actually profit enormously. Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have, also without giving any reasons. First, she will almost certainly get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong. Then any unauthorized contact with your children is a crime. Yes, for seeing your own children you will be subject to arrest.
There is no burden of proof on the court to justify why they are seizing control of your children and allowing your spouse to forcibly keep you from them. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why you should be allowed to see your children.
The divorce industry thus makes it very attractive for your spouse to divorce you and take your children. (All this earns money for lawyers whose bar associations control the careers of judges.) While property divisions and spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall comes through the children. With custody, she can then demand “child support” that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more of your income. (The amount is set by committees consisting of feminists, lawyers, and enforcement agents – all of whom have a vested interest in setting the payments as high as possible.) She may spend it however she wishes. You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction.
You could easily be left with monthly income of a few hundreds dollars and be forced to move in with relatives or sleep in your car. Once you have sold everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards, they then call you a “deadbeat dad” and take you away in handcuffs. You are told you have “abandoned” your children and incarcerated without trial.
Evidence indicates that, as men discover all this, they have already begun an impromptu marriage “strike”: refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife files for divorce. “Have anti-father family court policies led to a men’s marriage strike?” ask Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson in the Philadelphia Enquirer. In Britain, fathers tour university campuses warning young men not to start families. In his book, From Courtship to Courtroom, Attorney Jed Abraham concludes that the only protection for men to avoid losing their children and everything else is not to start families in the first place.
Is it wise to disseminate such advice? If people stop marrying, what will become of the family and our civilization?
Marriage is already all but dead, legally speaking, and divorce is the principal reason. The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law.
It is also likely that same-sex marriage is being demanded only because of how heterosexuals have already debased marriage through divorce law. “The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50% divorce rates preceded gay marriage,” advocate Andrew Sullivan points out. “All homosexuals are saying…is that, under the current definition, there’s no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly – and a denial of basic civil equality.”
We will not restore marriage by burying our heads in the sand; nor simply by preaching to young people to marry, as the Bush administration’s government therapy programs now do. The way to restore marriage as an institution in which young people can place their trust, their children, and their lives is to make it an enforceable contract. We urgently need a national debate about divorce, child custody, and the terms under which the government can forcibly sunder the bonds between parents and their children. We owe it to future generations, if there are to be any.
Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D., is assistant professor of government at Patrick Henry College and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. His book, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, has just been published by Cumberland House Publishing.
| More from Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.
Stumble It!
November 16th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
There is another thing I wanted to mention. To say that modern women are self-destructive would be an epic understatement. WOMEN have completely embraced hedonism in all its forms. WOMEN destroy their own children when they take away their father; I will never believe they don’t know this is so. If women can do this to their own children, was it the “patriarchy” all along forcing women to give a damn about children? If that is the case, women are worthless wastes of space. WOMEN debase themselves by pursuing complete sexual freedom. WOMEN carve up their bodies to pursue some ideal self-image.
Women treat men like they hate us, but I believe that really they hate themselves. Such self-destructive behavior indicates only that one possibility. And that is something that men can’t fix. Men are prudent to withdraw from such a situation. It is women that need to get their shit together, not men. It is not for men to help women find the truth of this or that. They are on their own, that is what they wanted, and that is as it should be.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Thus far, Jeff Purkiss has defined this best.
While I agree with the majority of what most of you have stated, Jeff is correct when he says that men have abdicated their responsibility. Oh, you think I’m putting the onus on men just like everyone else does, do you? OK, let’s analyze it.
Sure, this society has become quintessentially anti-male. Sure, the deck is stacked against men in the courts, in academia, in the media and elsewhere — that all is true. But correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t seem to remember a large group of Amazon women taking up weapons, launching an armed insurrection a la The Planet of the Apes, killing the recalcitrant men, subjugating the rest and enslaving every boy under 13.
What I do remember is that at one time a patriarchy existed. It has been much maligned, but it stewarded western civilization well and brought it into modernity. It vanquished or at least bayed evil forces such as the Muslim hordes, the Nazis and the communists.
Then, I remember something else. Circa 1920, MEN decided to give women the vote. This took their focus away from the domestic arena and re-focused it to the political one. It created a situation where women could COMPETE with men for political clout and for policy measures, and where politicians could capture the female vote by promising to give them what most men wouldn’t.
That’s just a brief summary, but suffice it to say that men didn’t have control wrested from them, they relinquished it. Although the gals won’t want to hear this, it’s much like with children. When kids run wild, whose fault is it? OK, when you have girls gone wild, whose fault is it?
Men were in control, where they belong. Then they opened up a Pandora’s Box. Now we have to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Good luck.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
NotNOW: “And since we all are plugging our own silver bullets, let me plug mine: Once men have access to a safe and reliable oral contraceptive, putative father registries and in-absentia child support decrees become a thing of the past. This is an important weapon in this war and one we need badly.”
Certainly quite a few men’s rights activists share in this particular vision of freedom through technology, since actual equal reproductive rights for men is not likely to happen anytime soon.
And make no mistake, quite a few women are openly or quietly horrified at the thought of men being able to control their own reproductive abilities safely and effectively without being forced to resort to the only other two forms of contraception available to men (with all of the associated drawbacks of those).
As one rights activist pointed out to me, it will be a case of men actually benefiting from reproductive technology.
November 16th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
GreatMRNI said,
“Without legal rights within the family there is no authority, without authority within the family there is no manhood.”
Well, without authority within the family there is no manhood within the family. But family is not the extent of manhood. In fact, I believe that family is a limiting factor in most men’s lives. Men are explorers and risk-takers. Family is the END of exploring and risk-taking in a traditional society. I agree that men have been totally stripped of their rights within the family, and stripped of most of their civil rights. When men do a cost-benefit analysis of marriage they see that costs are very high and benefits are nil. So why would anyone get married today? Because society needs us to? Because it’s the right thing to do? Because religion wants me to? Women have beat us to the winner’s circle in the “what’s in it for me” race. We have been too busy doing the right thing, which nobody cares about anymore. Every man for himself is the order of the day.
I will advise my teenage son not to marry. I have already begun to share with him “tales from the dark side”.
David R. Usher said,
“Actually, a marriage strike is only part of the answer because it does not serve the needs of young men.”
Actually I think a marriage strike very much serves the needs of young men. Ultimately it can lead to changes that will reinstate viability to the option of marriage, for those who would choose to marry. The strike offers the chance for men to engage in the war, and if any of you have noticed, there is a movement calling themselves MGTOW which strikes me as a rebirth of manhood. Not the traditional Christian manhood of father and head-of-household, but of natural manhood. Men defining their own lives in ways that suit them, without regard for whether it suits others in general or women in particular. It is young men claiming their lives for themselves. They will deal with women on their own terms or not at all. We have convinced men, and we teach our sons, that our happiness lies in sex / family / fatherhood. This is the big lie. Once you realize that you really don’t need women, the world becomes a different place. You can easily find tomes to that effect all over the Internet, written by young men who have come to terms with reality. The sense of liberation that comes through is remarkable.
And since we all are plugging our own silver bullets, let me plug mine: Once men have access to a safe and reliable oral contraceptive, putative father registries and in-absentia child support decrees become a thing of the past. This is an important weapon in this war and one we need badly.
And make no mistake, this IS a war. Ask any casualty.
November 16th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Great point Dave, one thing I omitted when I wrote about the ivillage article was they reported a drop in teen pregnancies, a bump in the time/space continum for men. If the increase in births to single mothers, currently @ 35% iss accompanied by a drop in teen prego’s then it could mean women are increasing their visits to donor banks.
Is it possible the marriage strike is real? That men are holding back fertilizing women meaning they get pregnant at these donor banks which is what a gynocologist on the show (female of course) was stating. She even brought along a catheter they use to show all the women in the audience.
You could very well be on target Dave, the State will move to force donors to begin paying child support for those children born using their sperm.
Can’t happen in America a few of you younger men say? HAH!
The only thing the shedevils will not be able to cackle is “Well, he had is fun, now it’s time to pay”, the insemination won’t be any fun for the guys they nab and force to pay!
November 16th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Folks (med students etc) who act a sperm donors are out of their minds. States are moving in on fertility clinics to force them to divulge donor names so states can collect child support from the donors. Artificial insemination does not in any way breach the long-held tenet ensuring the “right of the child to be supported by both parents”.
Notwithstanding legal activity in this direction, any sperm donor who is arrested and DNA taken is likely to be matched to child support DNA records, and forced to support an unknown child.
A lot of med students are in for huge surprises. And the state can hardly wait to nail them because they make big money as doctors.
In my opinion, some guy should do a creative lawsuit to strengthen paternal rights by claiming that his DNA is personal property, and the exact DNA in the child is also his personal property. Secondly, if a guy were to patent his DNA as being unique, and claim infringement where he was denied paternal rights, the laws covering intellictual property might force changes in family las. Winning such a case could kick the legs out from under no-fault divorce and sole custody laws.
November 16th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Great article, even greater responses! Nice to see people (e.g. men) reading and responding.
Seems we have discovered reverse darwinism, the brighter smarter folks (men) not having children and the lessor thinking having too many ala the “single mom” group. Great. But, what else to do? There’s no revolution coming, the first one was led by the land owners, the real thinkers in America, the very ones who had something to lose. Now, that group controls 95% of the wealth, just ask Gordon Gecko on Wall Street. So, a suggestion may be do do what we CAN do and that is talk to younger men, try and tell them that having children is a myth in America, the female simply decides you are not “worth it” and you’re gone.
I had the TV on yesterday while paying bills and some show titled “i Village” was on describing in vivid detail how single women aren’t waiting for Mr. Right anymore, they’re simply having artificial insemination. “Why wait, he ain’t worth it” were the exact words used.
So, be very careful. Maybe the marriage strike IS really starting to show itself. Now, the next sep is to have men responsible for procreating. She’ll get pregnant, happliy id you as the “donor” and dump you after assuring the checks are coming in every month.
Listen to the words of all of us guys, experience doesn’t lie!
November 16th, 2007 at 5:03 am
Note: I tried posting these comments earlier but I did not see them in my broswer, so if this ends up being a double post then I apologise in advance.
I’m simply posting this for anybody whom should happen by later.
After seeing some of the more recent post by Roger Gay, Mr. Usher,
and Dr. Baskerville I though that this might be as good of time as
any to make this post. If anyone is interested in building a thrid
party several years ago I found out about a relatively new polotical
party in Canada called the Freedom Party. They have expressed intrest
in starting a branch of the Freedom Party here in the United States.
So I thought I would take this opportunity to post some information
about them.
For a number of years they have been publishing a paper called the
“Consent Journal” reading these papers will give you some idea of
what the party is like:
Consent Journal:
http://www.freedomparty.org/consent/consent.htm
They also have a audio section up here:
Voice of Freedom:
http://www.freedomparty.org/voice/xvof01.htm
I’m just going to leave the contact details here for anyone that is
interested:
The reason why I’m not publishing any of the listed email addresses
or the contact links is becuase I have never received a reply from
them by email except for Paul McKeever.
Here’s where you can call or fax them if you would like to talk to someone:
Paul McKeever’s e-mail address:
pmckeever at mckeever.com
Freedom Party Telephone & FAX:
Telephone: 519-681-3999 (Canada)
Toll free (across North America) 1-800-830-3301
FAX: 519-681-2857 (Canada)
If you like what you have heard and seen:
Membership Application:
http://www.freedomparty.ca/pdf/en/membershipform.en.pdf
I’m not a member yet. However, if there’s any postive feedback from
anyone that joins I may just become a member.
Mezz Mezzrow Jr
November 16th, 2007 at 4:44 am
“Stephen Baskerville is aware of this unconscionable system and refuses to tell his students: ‘Go find something for us to beat you with’. He refuses to tell his students: ‘Achieve success and raise a family so you can experience for yourself the betrayal of all those ideals that I have so adamantly professed, thereby forcing you to wade through the rubble of your own family’s destruction, and giving you the opportunity to bring change to a system that nobody else could’.” (”The Birth of an American Patriot”, http://www.gndzerosrv.com/Web%20Pages/basker_patriot.htm)
As a father of 3 daughters (who have all found their way back to me) I refuse to tell them to ‘fall in love and raise a family, so Family Law can provoke your murder, and my grandkids can be used as lab-rats in Foster Care’.
The overriding agenda (by those pulling the strings) is a reduction of the world’s population. To break up families, so their children can be managed by State officials who will determine their fate at the parent’s expense. A calculated plan to use radical feminism, and all the hype that surrounds it, as a form of birth control.
I refuse to preach the destruction of the middle class, because I allowed a social policy run out of control on my watch. I believe Baskerville is testing our resolve – Do we aqueous to the ‘New World Order’, or do we fight to restore the old one?
November 16th, 2007 at 2:03 am
I’m simply posting this for anybody whom should happen by later. After seeing some of the more recent post by Roger Gay, Mr. Usher, and Dr. Baskerville I though that this might be as good of time as any to make this post. If anyone is interested in building a thrid party several years ago I found out about a relatively new polotical party in Canada called the Freedom Party. They have expressed intrest in starting a branch of the Freedom Party here in the United States. So I thought I would take this opportunity to post some information about them.
For a number of years they have been publishing a paper called the “Consent Journal” reading these papers will give you some idea of what the party is like:
Consent Journal:
http://www.freedomparty.org/consent/consent.htm
They also have a audio section up here:
Voice of Freedom:
http://www.freedomparty.org/voice/xvof01.htm
I’m just going to leave the contact details here for anyone that is interested:
The reason why I’m not publishing any of the listed email addresses or the contact links is becuase I have never received a reply from them by email except for Paul McKeever.
Here’s where you can call or fax them if you would like to talk to someone:
Paul McKeever’s e-mail address:
pmckeever at mckeever.com
Freedom Party Telephone & FAX:
Telephone: 519-681-3999 (Canada)
Toll free (across North America) 1-800-830-3301
FAX: 519-681-2857 (Canada)
If you like what you have heard and seen:
Membership Application:
http://www.freedomparty.ca/pdf/en/membershipform.en.pdf
I’m not a member yet. However, if there’s any postive feedback from anyone that joins I may just become a member.
Mezz Mezzrow Jr
——————-
http://del.icio.us/mezzrowjr
http://www.1webspace.biz/mezzrowjr/index.html
http://unotgonnalikethis.blogspot.com/
November 16th, 2007 at 12:16 am
correct. You move there for life, and don’t look back.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
David Usher, I cannot possible agree more with you.
Marriage in and of itself can be a tremendously positive personal achievement, lifestyle choice, and social structure for men……..
….. provided that those men marry in those nations that you mention in your informative post.
I lived for quite a few years as an expatriate myself, and also noticed that American men in general are in demand as husband in some nations where their rights are protected and where men can expect to be treated quite well, particularly if they take those precautions that you mention.
And I cannot stress enough how undoubtedly correct you are when you write that Washington MUST begin to take notice when significant numbers of their best and brightest men are seeking to become permanent expatriates.
You’re absolutely correct – the marriage boycott in America is only part of the solution!
November 15th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
good points Mr. Usher.
one additional fine point, however. you can and will find women very interested in you as an american male, for exactly the reasons Mr. Usher points out. However, you CANNOT bring your new bride back with you to the USA. Women change…and the environment is poisoned here and will affect her in a very negative way.
Overseas is good…but you have to stay there.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Jeff: “I’m sorry for the curve ball that’s been thrown at you.”
fourthwire: No worries there, Jeff. I have remained unmarried and not fathered any children, so I’m reasonably safe from the government intervening into my life.
I have hope for the future, but I am also a realist, cognizant that American society may be eclipsed by other societies that demonstrate enough collective wisdom to prevent their men from being increasingly marginalized and two-parent families destroyed.
Jeff: “I don’t believe you’ll find it in your damning words toward women. ”
fourthwire: I challenge you to find any falsehoods, misrepresentations, or misstatements in my “damning words toward women”, Jeff.
Jeff: “They’re only human too and are often the victims as well.”
Women are indeed human, but they enjoy a wealth of privileges, entitlements, and rights that men cannot hope to equal, at least while feminists, their sycophants in Congress and the courts, and America’s misguided chivalrists continue to support the notion that they are eternally “victims”.
While I realize that I am hand-picking a couple of anecdotal examples of modern womenhood, for your education I suggest that you do a Google search on two married couples and note how badly American women behave with impunity:
- Matthew Winkler
- William Hetherington
In both cases, those men’s Christian faith no doubt served as their foundation and guided them with hope.
Yet one was murdered and the other is rotting in prison for a heinous crime that he almost certainly never committed.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Actually, a marriage strike is only part of the answer because it does not serve the needs of young men. The best form of marriage strike is for young men to realize that the marriage and employment markets are now global markets, and to prepare themselves to permanently move to a country that supports the marriage contract and refuses to permit feminists and lawyers to socialize the family.
Brazil, Singapore, Korea, and China are four countries where marriage values are extremely important, both from a cultural and legal perspective. Some of these countries do not even allow the sale of feminist books. We call it censorship over here. I call it a real good idea not to allow alligators to come into the living room.
Forget Europe/Australia/New Zealand. All EEC countries are now legally required to adopt eurofeminist laws — which they will do all in good time. Given the instability in the Middle East, everything is risky even if it looks good in the short run.
Japan has slowly been succumbing to feminism since the mid-90’s, and divorce rates are rising. Prostitution is becoming endemic. Wives are hiring themselves out to entertain other husbandd, and husbands are paying for entertainment by somebody else’s wife. Its awful. Japan is a country in social decline.
Of course, doing this necessitates a willingness to adapt to local politics. Creature comforts are not as good. Staying out of politics, like everyone else does, is a good idea (but some governments might be very interested in having Americans who know how to keep feminism from destroying their country). Fact: if you have a safe future as a father and husband, and you aren’t moving to a country that has socialized business out of business, who needs to mess with politics?
A good college education, in specialty fields interesting to the target country is a good idea. Saving up a nest egg, so you don’t arrive penniless, is also a good idea. Of course, once you get there you have to choose a wife carefully (yes, mental health, prostitution, and bad temperment exists there too). And, stay away from cities where beach tourism, prostitution, and gambling are on the front page.
Having worked overseas extensively, I can say the American men are highly prized, particularly in Brazil, China, and I believe Korea. In Singapore, you would live in Malaysia (a 20-min ferry ride), probably marry there, and work in Sing. This is because American men (who are quite feminized) naturally treat women with great respect compared to local men.
When you work, try to work for a foreign corporation. Then you are not subject to a wide array of American vagaries, and may also not have to pay U.S. taxes.
It is also possible that Mexico could be a smart future destination: lots of retirees will be moving there, and I believe the Mexican government will, in time, find it smarter to compete technologically than to export laborers.
I think that nothing would send a bigger message to Washington than a marriage strike, emphasized by a lot of the smartest men in America leaving for safer shores. America survived the migration from a manufacturing economy to a leading technology society because of smart men. If the best and brightest leave, and say why when the do, Washington will necessarily have to pay attention.
Moral: If Washington won’t listen to men’s votes, the best thing to do is for men to vote with their feet. Since marriage in America is about as stupid as planting corn in Death Valley, move where you can plant your fields and reap what you sow.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
Your right, Roger. Look around a given neighborhood and you’ll find some great husbands and fathers. My evidence is not what I see in my neighborhood. It’s the statistical data coming from numerous agencies – government, academic, private liberal and private conservative. As far as the media, I don’t have my TV hooked up to anything but a DVD player and I don’t read worthless newspapers. I research only from what I believe to be credible sources. And I raise my son based on Christian values while rejecting the cultural bias that has rejected our nations traditional values. But I appreciate your insight and suspect you’re a great example for other men.
Fourthwire, I’m sorry for the curve ball that’s been thrown at you. Life is tough and I’ve certainly had my fair share of turbulence in my marriage and family. My Christian faith has been my foundation and has guided me with a hope that I pray you may find some day. I don’t believe you’ll find it in your damning words toward women. They’re only human too and are often the victims as well.
Signing off,
Jeff
November 15th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Jeff Purkiss: “I still say that men must show themselves as responsible husbands, fathers and citizens. But instead, I see much evidence that men are busy and work-a-holic, unaffectionate and uninvolved, self-oriented and sports-crazed, macho or wimpy, absent and/or abusive, all too often cheating men.”
fourthwire: In fact, most men ARE responsible fathers, husbands, and citizens, so your “evidence” is suspect at best, Jeff.
And unless you’ve been cut off from events for the last 3 or so decades, men are now FOURTH CLASS CITIZENS in their own nation (behind women, children, and pets).
Men are workaholic? Yes, Jeff….. who do you believe must PAY for those luxuries that the family consumes?
Who pays the lion’s share of the bills, who pays for the second SUV, who pays for the children’s orthodontics, who pays for the vacations, and who do you believe gets the ax if he actually insists on fiscal responsibility and moderation of spending in the family?
Hate to be the first to break the news to you, Jeff….. but American women are often quite self-obsessed princesses with unshakable belief in their own entitlements and privileges.
And here’s another “shocker” for you: many of those entitlement princesses want to QUIT their jobs, as soon as they marry, forcing hubby to BECOME workaholics, if they already were not so.
As for men “cheating”, here’s another shocker for you: both genders are cheating on their spouses, and have been doing so for quite some time.
With today’s communications technology, women can easily keep multiple sexual partners in the wings, waiting, and many of them do so.
Men also cheat, particularly after their wives accept their husbands’ sperm donations, procreate one or more times, take control of the ATM and credit cards, then pork up the poundage and lose interest in sex with their husbands.
And in spite of living with an overweight woman who doesn’t want to engage her husband in sex, but instead forces him to work harder and harder to try to earn more money to pay those bills, many of those men are too afraid to file for divorce, knowing that they stand to lose custody of any children, and simply be forced to pay, pay, pay while their ex-wives start exercising to lose enough blubber to attract the next sucker.
Try telling those men that they need to be “responsible”, Jeff.
Jeff Purkiss: “While feminism is dragging the women down the wrong path, men can have a positive influence only if we’ve got our act together. I don’t believe we do have our act together and I’m afraid we are passing down the wrong masculine image for the next generation.”
fourthwire: Bingo! The only way that men can win, under the current laws and court precedents, with respect to marriage………
…… is to refuse to play in what amounts to a rigged game.
And that’s why I support the “marriage boycott” – so that fewer men get led to the slaughter at the hands of our “family courts”, or simply remain as financial slaves to their entitlement princesses; those outcomes would present PRECISELY “the wrong masculine image for the next generation”.
Jeff Purkiss: “Let’s stop pointing the finger at other’s problems until we, as men of today’s culture can hold our own as upstanding members of our society.”
fourthwire: Let’s start pointing out the issues affecting men and fatherhood in America that have effectively reduced men to fourth class citizens, starting with men’s criminal, civil, social, and reproductive rights.
You believe that those men who were divorced and forced to try to pay, pay, pay more than they could afford to their ex-wives…………
……………….until they lost their savings and could no longer borrow money………….
….. and became “deadbeat dads”, living out of their cars, forced to eat Ramen noodles,…………………
……………while the ex-wives enjoyed the monthly vaginamony and child support checks, their boyfriends……….
…… but kept restraining orders on their husbands, effectively cutting off any contact between the ex-husband and their own children…….
Do you believe that any parts of such commonplace scenarios in American society today provides men with any basis whatsoever in “becoming upstanding members of our society”, Jeff?
November 15th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Actually Jeff, what I see in my neighborhood are very responsible men in intact families being very good men, and very good fathers. They are very successful in business, they coach the kids in various sports, the are involved in their schooling, and they provide “enough” affection. I don’t know what it is your are seeing in your neighborhoods. But certainly, watching the world through the biased prism of television is not the way to build an opinion. The media is corrupt and corrupting to people that spend too much time looking at it.
Raise your boys the way men were raised in the 40s 50s and 60s and they’ll turn out just fine. It is when you try to appease the social pressures coming from the mass media that you run in to trouble.
November 15th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
…Jeff ..The main problem is 40-50 years ago the feminist broke up mens social networks such as the Elks clubs, bowling leagues, ect. ect. with the chant “breaking the patriarchy”.
men are now divided and conquered, and are indoctrinated by constant exposure to agit-prop; to keep us seperated and suspicious of each other!!
November 15th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
I’m not defending feminism, or the courts, or the education system of 40 years ago. Yes we should defend the rights of men, especially fathers who want a relationship with their kids. But just treating the symptoms won’t make the problems go away.
I still say that men must show themselves as responsible husbands, fathers and citizens. But instead, I see much evidence that men are busy and work-a-holic, unaffectionate and uninvolved, self-oriented and sports-crazed, macho or wimpy, absent and/or abusive, all too often cheating men. While feminism is dragging the women down the wrong path, men can have a positive influence only if we’ve got our act together. I don’t believe we do have our act together and I’m afraid we are passing down the wrong masculine image for the next generation.
Let’s stop pointing the finger at other’s problems until we, as men of today’s culture can hold our own as upstanding members of our society.
November 15th, 2007 at 5:31 pm
[...] Not Marry, Do Not Have Children MND: News and Commentary Since 2001 ? Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D. Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children November 14, 2007 at 11:36 am ? [...]
November 15th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
..Jeff Purkiss..
Fourthwire…
…Men must first fearlessly stand up against the feminist leviathan.
.. And yes jeff, 40 years ago we trained our teachers/social workers….ect. ect. to focus on the girls educations..”help the girls more they have been oppressed for millions of years” was the mantra!!
Well thats all fine, but what males have done is in effect abandonded our next generation of males because of it!!
November 15th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
TMOT I have heard what you said before. It is true a common law contract will not protect you, that is just one of many things a man can do. There are a hundred ways to protect what you have from a bitch exwife and the state. Asset protection has become a fine art in this country because of an over zealous and greedy legal system. Trust me it does work. The only problem is I learned it too late, I could have saved myself a lot of loss and pain,if I had only known this twenty years ago. My goal now is to learn all I can and help others avoid the pain and lose I have endured for so long.
As far as marrying the state, well if you know anything at all about the legal system, you will understand contracts. When you ask the state for permission to marry, ie a marriage license, you are asking them into the relationship. Whether you know it or not. They will then be dictating the terms. Whether it is having children, how those children are raised or in the event of failure( ie divorce) how you will fair afterward, which is usually not too well if you are a man. The state wants control and that spells MONEY. You can’t put them completely out, but with some planning and for thought, you can reduce the states involvement and sharply reduce the damage they can do to you in a divorce. You can actually come out with at least some of what you worked so hard to acquire.
I believe this is what will stem the “divorce epidemic”. Once a woman can’t come out a winner, she will stop this. It is simple really, take away the financial incentive to wreck the marriage and this will slow them down. Once they come out more devasted than a man does, this will put a stop to the bull shit!
November 15th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Without legal rights within the family there is no authority, without authority within the family there is no manhood. I don’t understand why people seem to miss this very important point. If subjugation is your desire, then by all means get married. You will however be at the mercy of an ill-logical, overly emotional, socially programmed female that most likely hates men.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Jeff Purkis: “I believe, over the past four or five generations, men have slowly abdicated their roles and responsibilities. The symptoms of failed manhood are feminism, rampant homosexuality and epidemic divorce rates.”
fourthwire: Jeff, you might try explaining as much to those millions of American men who have been PREVENTED FROM EVEN SEEING THEIR OWN CHILDREN.
Or in other words, your sense of “cause and effect” needs some serious introspection.
Besides…….. What makes you believe that “failed manhood” is any more relevant to your perception of waning marriages than “failed womanhood”?
80% of divorces are initiated by women, Jeff.
And the majority of those women receive financial payouts, custody of any children, and more following those divorces. Yet you seem to believe that “failing manhood” is to blame? Curious bit of logic there, Jeff.
Jeff Purkiss: “Men must reclaim their God-given purpose.”
fourthwire: Men must reclaim their civil and criminal rights, first.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Dave Usher, kudos for your change of opinion about the “marriage strike” being a baseline for change.
And your words of warning about cohabitation is vitally important to understand, particularly from the standpoint of our nation’s misandrist DV and reproductive laws.
Marriage and reproduction in America, from a man’s perspective is not fundamentally dissimilar to married men having grenades Superglued to their bare torsos…… with women holding lanyards tied to the grenades’ pins.
Those women are being provided with financial incentives to yank on the lanyard and run away, leaving their husbands to fend for themselves, however briefly.
The women are also being encouraged by mainstream media’s estrogen channels to feel no twinges of conscience for yanking on the lanyards and collecting their payouts.
And those emergency services and law enforcement agencies that men would normally expect to receive assistance from, removing those Superglued grenades removed from their torsos were actually being paid according to the number of exploded torsos collected off pavements.
Not a perfect analogy of course, but it does reflect the degree to which married/cohabiting men are entirely at the mercy of individual women’s consciences or lack thereof, rather than enjoying the actual protection of civil and criminal law.
November 15th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
An honest (without anger) witness is most persuasive.
When a man express disbelieve in my witness, I usually follow up with, “But do not take my word, go to the county’s family courthouse. Sit close to the judge’s bench to hear for yourself. Also, if you have the nerve in the hallway outside the courtroom, then ask a divorcing dad, ‘how’s it going?’”
Best times are Monday through Wednesday between 9 and 11AM. It’s free and reservation or invitations are not necessary.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Yes, the foundation of a society is the family. Yes, modern politics is anti-male, anti-husband and anti-father. But how did we get into this mess? Why have so many women embraced feminism and so many men embraced homosexuality?
I believe, over the past four or five generations, men have slowly abdicated their roles and responsibilities. The symptoms of failed manhood are feminism, rampant homosexuality and epidemic divorce rates.
Men must reclaim their God-given purpose. And the best hope for this will be in the next generation of men. We must mentor our boys and pass on a vision of authentic manhood that will reverse the trends of family breakdown, community disconnectedness, faith erosion, and national crisis.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:46 am
I agree. Whenever anyone has said “It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all”, or “At least you had kids (from your marriage)” or some other kind of glib platitude, I make it a point to disagree.
I usually respond “If I had it to do over again, I wouldn’t. That goes for both the marriage and the kids.”
That often gets their attention.
November 15th, 2007 at 11:38 am
…David Usher…you hit the nail right on the head mentioning the fact that most change comes from education/ Academia!!
…I would encourage all mens rights activists who are serious about challengeing feminist doctrine….To enroll/ or re-enroll in even a community college like free man comment #6.
Evening classes are availeable in most cities!!
November 15th, 2007 at 9:20 am
The only winning move for men in the marriage game is not to play. There is no other option. Just listen to the guys you work with, they all say the same thing. I love my kids but it’s the worst mistake I ever made.
For women, the court system and the legions of parasitic government employees there is absolutely nothing wrong with marriage and divorce. It’s working according to plan. They couldn’t make it any better for themselves. Don’t expect that to change anytime soon.
Maybe someday it will all change but until then the best you can do is take your toys and go play somewhere else.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:28 am
I think it’s ironic that one of the most effective things the men’s movement has done so far — the marriage strike — is something that was not a coordinated effort. It has come about not because of a national call for action, but because millions of individual men have decided that marriage is not for them.
People have already started noticing, and we can expect (and have already seen) that our enemies will purposely lie about it and “not understand” its origins. The media will try to make it seem like it’s just the lunatic fringe of the “men’s movement” who think it’s a good idea, when in fact millions of men are involved. Less than 50% of US households are now the traditional nuclear husband / wife/ children arrangement. Gee, I wonder why.
Feminists will twist it to make it seem like it’s not the men who are choosing to avoid marriage, but women who are avoiding it cecause they can’t find any “good” men anymore. Or else they’ll say we are irrelevant anyway, the old fish without a bicycle thing. Or that women are somehow simultaneously the victims both of marriage and of the marriage strike, as though that were possible. Whatever it is, it will be a lie, though.
Tthe bottom line is that peoplea are starting to notice. We are taking away the thing that matters most to women — their dream of being married — just as feminists and the misandrist courts took away our dreams of a loving nuclear family.
We should continue to strike until we can trust the system to treat us fairly, which in my mind means actual court decisions that are fair across the board on all issues.
November 15th, 2007 at 8:04 am
Robert Stevens said,
I will not ever…. ever get “legally married”. I will however do a common law contract with the woman I love! In this way the state cannot intrude on the arrangement. We make the decisions, not the corporate state.
____________________________
What country/state do you live in Robert? Common law marriage is considered the same as a “legal” marriage when the time comes for ‘common divorce’ in most states (US). Don’t be fooled into thinking that by not having a marriage license you will not be taken to the cleaners if she so desires….
TMOTS
November 15th, 2007 at 4:33 am
Please explain more how bar associations determine judges’ careers.
How could the Bar Association have influenced Judge Clarence Cooper to reverse his initial stance against IMBRA?
November 15th, 2007 at 2:47 am
elusive wapiti, thank you for your acknowledgment.
In addition to all this marriage strike activism, we should also scream for the enforcement of the Peonage Law.
They HATE that!
November 15th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Men would also have to be very strong about not living with women or letting them move in. The acid combination of domestic violence laws (which allow a woman to seize the man’s home and property even if she is only living with him and not even on the lease), combined with community property laws (considered married by the state after a few years of shacking up), means that men will have to be roommates.
This is a lot to ask, but its what men will have to do to reasonably protect themselves.
November 14th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
While I had originally thought that an organized marriage strike might be either misconstrued or ineffective, I’m beginning to think that an organized marriage strike in which men set a baseline for change, and boycott the institution until they get what they want.
This would be the most likely avenue to get campus men to rise up and take on campus feminist institutions, because young men already largely understand this problem. I am willing to bet that most of them don’t like it, and wanting a better future for themselves, would get involved.
All change begins on college campuses. It would not take too many men on a campus to get things moving, particularly in this day when email moves ideas fast as electrons.
The caveat: not marrying often means living together, and sex being what it is when one gets into college and beyond, this spells even greater increases in illegitimacy (which increased from 26% in 1996 to 36.2% in 2006). So, men would also have to learn to either abstain or to rigidly use visible means of birth control, such as a diaphragm or condoms, so as not to be taken advantage of by women who lie about use of birth control in order to have their way with men.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
In a culture that teaches boys and men that they have less value than women do, and where girls are taught “men are pigs” … all reinforced by seeing a grown man, with: More years of life, more education, a higher status economically, getting down on his knees like a commoner in front of the Queen, and believing that this humiliation is romantic instead of humiliating … while he is begging her to marry him…so that he can risk losing his home, and his children – working hard to get a good career for a good life and then forced to live poorly the next ten or twenty years, while she dates and some other man pays… while the X husband faces prison and is denied visitation … and lshe aughs at him behind his back, or smugly takes the check … as feminist attorneys “stick it” to men… this is so obscene and I can only marvel at the restaint of my gender.
Boys brought up by women and film makers/advertiser in a world where boys are portayed as horny, stupid, and of little value, UNTIL he figures out what girls and women want… while fathers are not spending enough time, those same fathers often brainwashed about gender issues too… Those boys won’t stop begging to get maried because of a book, most boys are not reading such books and men are too busy… a book – or a few remarks by a handful of men warning younger men won’t override what they have been taught … because they have learned that getting sex, having a woman, is a much better deal for a male than having a man is for a female.
(Go to Hallmark Cards – it gets worse year by year – women are praised, boys and men are portayed as sex starved idiots who are unworthy of the bodies of women) To think that all the years of propaganda that both women and men are fed can be slowed down by a new book… it’s not likely.
But those tens of thousands of boys who have seen their fathers get the shaft – add a book, add a touch of advice from men, and we will have a strike going on that will get the attention of everyone within a few years. I will tell my son not to marry until he is older, at least, much older… and I will worry that I am setting him up with my values and fears. But how can I let him marry when I see what is going in on the courts with my brothers.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
I will not ever…. ever get “legally married”. I will however do a common law contract with the woman I love! In this way the state cannot intrude on the arrangement. We make the decisions, not the corporate state.
I have ,by extensive research.found a way for men to consider marriage again and the possibility of fatherhood. I have found that if you know how the corrupt and crooked system works, you can make it to where they( the state) can’t create much of a problem. You will still have to deal with them, but at arms length, not like an eight hundred pound gorilla on your back! Once you learn how to put the public servants back to behaving like “servants” and they understand that you are the soveriegn and they are the servants. You will make the decisions , not them!
A man can reestablish his negotiatiion position, the woman will no longer be able to ally herself with the state and run over you. Women will learn to behave themselves and the orignal God created plan for marriage and family will once again a safe proposition for men!
November 14th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
“Once you have sold everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards, they then call you a “deadbeat dad” and take you away in handcuffs”
Don’t forget that after they have stripped you of your ability to make money, including the revocation of professional licenses even though you have had no record of professional negligence or misconduct, you’ll be incarcerated for non-payment of child support.
Roger Knight is right. Debtor’s prison is back my friends.
“I think that if people want to get married, they ought to be doing so without a marriage license. This means that the government cannot intrude on the basis that you are (or once were) married”
I head somewhere the that “power to tax is the power to destroy”. A corollary is that the power to license is the power to destroy. I submit that it’s not heterosexual misbehavior that was the cause of the debasement of marriage, as Mr. Sullivan asserts. Instead, I contend that the State’s annexation of marriage has nearly destroyed marriage, in much the same way that the Roman Empire’s assimilation of the early Christian Church nearly led to the Church’s destruction, and directly resulted in the Reformation, several European Crusades, and centuries of warfare.
“I cannot believe how someone who sees the severity of the problem like Steven does still embraces the State as the final arbiter of a divorce”
Now I make no claim to know Mr. Baskerville’s mind, but I suspect he thinks there’s a better chance of making marriage an eforceable contract under civil law rather than evicting the State from marriage altogether.
Moreveor, despite the fact that I agree with many/most here that the State’s involvement is nothing but bad, I don’t think that the majority of people will be able–or willing, in the case of security-seeking women–to shed the State-grants-marriage-and-divorce paradigm.
“…while men retreat to their careers, hobbies and activities with little interaction with children. Can such a society exist very long?
“
The answer to this rhetorical question is no. The involvement of men in the family is crucial to the social development of children. Without the fathers, society devolves into a Hobbesian cesspool of poverty, crime, and desperation. Funny how Feminism doesn’t understand this, but then again, feminism is kinda like an auto-immune disease that attacks the very social organs that sustain it.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
A well argued statement of the position most western countries have moved into. A return to the ‘old’ way is well nigh impossible, as is ‘enforcing’ contracts. There will always be poor marriage decisions and a way out will always be needed. Human affairs can deteriorate when those involved do not do the maintenance work.
What needs to change is the incentives. Presently, as Steven states succinctly, there is too much incentive to women to break faith and destroy love; a huge financial incentive. There is also a huge financial incentive for the legal players and judiciary. These all need to be removed. The main force that is active against our society today is the Lawyer Profession. These scum need to be contained and if necessary, eradicated.
The ‘Statist’ route is unwanted but an inevitability of civil affairs. One would no sooner want the State to cease interest in commercial contracts. And the same commercial contract considerations need to apply to marriage. That is, unilateral breaking of contract demands compensation to the aggrieved partner – rather than the encouragement to the corrupt one that modern marriage breaking gets.
Tony Ananda’s point is true but not relevant. If A can kill B, and C can kill B, B still ends up dead by either. That civilisations can die from several causes does not reduce the effectiveness of any one cause. The decline of marriage will fundementally weaken and eventually destroy our civilisation regardless of other forces acting against our civilisation.
As I said to Joyanna in my Presidential inteview….
“Fourth Question: Do you believe in marriage between a man and a woman? Would you let gays get married?
I am glad you asked that, Joy. Or should I call you Mistress Joyanna? I believe strongly in marriage. And fidelity. Men and women are a coupling made in heaven and I will cast into Hell-on-Alcatraz ( I will be re-opening that place by the way) all those anti-Family Court scum that have done so much to destroy it. We may need a few more similar island prisons but I will make sure we don’t go down the old luxury apartment route.
The ‘old’ idea of marriage is what I have in mind. Vows, held to by adults. For better and for worse. No backsliding when the going inevitably gets a bit tough. In sickness and health. Marry a loony and live with your choice. Loonies need love too. Maybe choose more carefully. Marry a man, not a wallet. Marry a woman, not a mirage. Get some character and maturity before you even start.
None of this divorce at whim carnage. There is a lot to undo. Gays marrying? A pervert’s fantasy. No way. Not that I care a monkeys toss about this or that person’s sexual proclivities but Marriage is about love and male-female bonking and family, which means children. Children need a father and a mother; no ifs, no buts. No rampant single-motherhood nonsense either. Knickers up and knees together if you ain’t hitched.
My Administration will get out of the Marriage business altogether. None of my damned business managing the process. Contract law is quite able to deal with it. Break your contract and you have to compensate your partner. There is nothing complicated about it. Equal dissolution by mutual agreement? Fine. No unilateralism. Take out what you put in and split the jointly developed assets as per input. No more of this corruption by lawyers and judges stripping family assets. No more massive payouts to crooked partners. Kids? You are both wholly, jointly and severally totally responsible. Deal with it. Do it right or I will then step in and whack you. Poison their young minds against one or the other and its out a high friggin’ window, like a Professor.
My first 100 days will see a wholescale dismantling of the anti-Family Court, along with most other Courts too. There will be much gnashing of teeth, for those few legal carrion that retain their teeth. Corruption will be severely dealt with. I will be seeking out true men and women but expect to find only a few. There will be Appointments of ordinary sensible people to the Bench. Preferably heavy goods vehicle drivers and electrical linesmen. The words ‘Truth’ and ‘Justice’ will be brought out of retirement. All will be equal before the law and no particular group’s ‘interests’ will be put above another’s, even if they are only two foot tall or have genitals of a particular kind. Law will take its place as a subordinate of Justice.
There will be much rejoicing by those on the Left, as, for a while, I will institute just the sort of Court processes they seem to love. Just for them. Secret Courts; guilty until they prove themselves innocent; the judicious use of accusation from all and sundry; no need for evidence; blind eye to perjury; lots of whimsical technicalities. Oh my. There will be fun for all. I might even televise some. They love that sort of thing. Reality TV.
Dispossession will be a normal base level punishment. Restitution and recompense for all that these parasites and thieves have abused, good people, mainly chaps as it happens, will take some time. The rest of some Judges and lawyers’ lives I imagine. Their families and friends are going to be thoroughly pissed off with them.
For the rest of ‘We the People’ it is back to the Magna Carta and Habeus Corpus. Justice, Truth. Equality.
November 14th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Steven Baskerville wrote:
Again, the ridiculous appeal to statism, and by a member of “our side” to boot. Why must marriage be an “enforceable contract?” Enforceable by who? An arbitrator or judge? Steven, you concede the premise that the government has intruded into our lives. Whether it is family law or contract law, you have made the government into the decider. With your solution, it’s just a matter of how severe a judgment the government should be allowed to apply.
I think that if people want to get married, they ought to be doing so without a marriage license. This means that the government cannot intrude on the basis that you are (or once were) married. No marriage should be a legal phenomenon. The breakup of the marriage should be a matter recognized, permitted, or granted by a non-binding authority which cannot grant or divide wealth. This can be a church, the local community, a couple’s extended family, or even their own personal belief systems. Social pressure, religious pressure, and one’s own conscience ought to be the only ties that bind couples who seek a divorce.
I recently commented on this in David Usher’s blog. I cannot believe how someone who sees the severity of the problem like Steven does still embraces the State as the final arbiter of a divorce. With Steven’s approach, aren’t we merely trading one monster for another (seemingly) less severe monster?
November 14th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Marriage in our up and coming North Amerikan Union is doomed and will soon be done away with, just like the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.
Oh well, it’s what the women always wanted…………………………..
November 14th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
…The un-televised marraige strike is already underway!!
..From my experience, It seems it’s mostly the poor and uneducated that are marrying, and the middle class are having kids at 40 that are coming out with special needs because they waited so long!!
..Can such a society exist very long???
November 14th, 2007 at 1:31 pm
As a man in his late 40s who has returned to college to pursue another degree, I find myself associating with early-20s men and women on a regular basis. All in all the students are quite pleasant, and, in many respects, I am filled with pride and optimism regarding the future of our country – through my association with our next generation of leaders.
However, regarding marriage, I believe that our country is heading in an unfavorable direction. NONE of the men I meet are eager to get married as they consider marriage to be a burden, inasmuch as it is: A) a long-term commitment (the longer the better, they hope), and B) it bears deep responsibility.
Virtually ALL of the women I speak to consider themselves ‘independent women’ and I get the sense that when they think about marriage they are principally thinking about ‘the wedding’ and how ‘marriage will work for them’, not the long-term commitment and requisite sacrifice that marriage entails.
Considering the aforementioned divergent perspectives on marriage I believe that marriage in this country will continue its devolution into a very expensive ceremony with a much more expensive (with a long-term emotionally devastating) aftermath, leading to a band of estranged fathers who are shamed and left to foot the bill for their offspring, with whom they cannot spend time, while ‘independent women’ juggle the responsibilities of career, children, (renewed) dating, and family/friends.
And why is this? Because the quest for perfect equality between the genders created these unintended consequences?
At some point it seems that a significant number of educated men will abandon this scheme altogether and choose to remain unmarried and take all of the available precautions such as to not sire a child – perhaps the worst condemnation of what our American culture has become – the decision to NOT bring a child into this world.
And at some point one would think that educated women, maternal instincts fully intact, will have to decide if raising children alone is worth it, rather than dedicate herself to her career, hobbies, and friends without the responsibilities of child rearing.
Perhaps, we shall evolve to culture where every woman has just one child and juggles these responsibilties with her career, hobbies and friends – the Murphy Brown syndrome – while men retreat to their careers, hobbies and activities with little interaction with children.
Can such a society exist very long?
November 14th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
That may be true, Stephen, but every advanced civilization has fallen. They have fallen with strong marriage and child rearing traditions and customs in place. Our civilization will also fall due to many factors, not just feminism and the decline of marriage. Therefore the implication that the decline of marriage is a threat to our civilization is less relevant than you suppose.
November 14th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
>Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
As always, a well written, cogent, succint and straight forward disemination of the facts. Unfortunately, it is an equally damning testament of our current “march” toward a fartherless and Marxist/Socialist society.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
This message ought to be forwarded to each single man that we know.
Additionally, if his new book gives similar advice with clarity and persuasion, then we ought to give the book to each friend as a Christmas, birthday, or engagement gift.
Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family
http://amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/105-4121586-3449228?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Taken+Into+Custody%3A+The+War+Against+Fathers%2C+Marriage%2C+and+the+Family%2C&x=15&y=23
A call to arms against feminism’s selfish war on family. Cool.
November 14th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Bravo, Stephen. this is the message that I give to any young man I meet who is comtemplating marriage. It also helps that more and more young men are concluding that today’s young women are not marriage material.
Not enough yet are concluding this, however.