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 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.
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 12:16 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 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 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 1:31 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 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 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 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 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 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 6:48 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 11:47 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 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 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 12:53 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 11:18 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 11:25 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 11:32 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 16th, 2007 at 12:16 am
correct. You move there for life, and don’t look back.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 10:10 pm
Well said Usher in #36.
America has proven herself hostile toward the average guy in family, health, work, education, justice, and mercy.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Stephen- excellent column. You are a true scholar and leader in the men’s movement.
The column illustrates that political movements are typically bottom-up. Men here who are content being in the Commenter Class, and that includes myself, have been saying this message for years. Fourthwire, one of the more articulate commenters, has held this position for years also.
I believe someone above commented that things started to go bad for men around the time women got the right to vote. The message being that because they could vote, they could then also vote for policy favoring them. The first part is incorrect but the second part is correct.
Men have been screwed since the mid-1800’s. Please check out the following link sometime:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/channel1/2005/11/margaret-sanger-more-feminist-hate.htm
The WKKK was the presursor was the Modern Women’s Movement. The book “Women of the Klan – Racism and Gender in the 1920’s”
by Kathleen M. Blee (University of California Press, 1992ISBN 0-520-07876-4 (ppb.)) documents extensively the direct lineage between Modern Feminism and the Women’s Ku Klux Klan (WKKK).
The WKKK became a very powerful controlling force both in the KKK as well as society itself. Women used various “informal networks” through churches, schools, neighborhoods, and various social groups. They formed “poison squads”, which were used to spread rumors, create sexual fears about black men, initiate “selective shopping” boycotts, and pass political information around.
Lynchings of Black men were common in the Old South. Most of these were instigated in defense of “white womanhood”. The author writes that the WKKK “dissolved a myriad of social, economic, and racial issues into powerful symbols of womanhood and sexual virtue”. Lulu Markwell, a President of the WKKK wrote, “It is the duty of the American mother to stamp out vice and immorality.” This overblown sexual imagery galvanized millions of American men to rise to the mindless protection of the purity of Protestant white woman. A Black man simply needed to be accused of rape, or of somehow spoiling white womanhoods sexual virtue and he would be hung. White men commited acts of evil in the name of evil White women.
The KKK came to believe that womanhood represented “all that is best, and noblest, and highest in life”, wherein “No race, or society, or country can rise higher than its womanhood”. Sounds alot like today’s (and yesterday’s) feminists.
The famous 1960’s feminist mantra, “No will man say that in the hand of woman rests the necessity of rocking a cradle only. She has within her hand the power to rule the world”, was actually published by the WKKK in Evansville, Indiana in the late 1880’s.
The 19th century WKKK essentially softened up political resistance to the Modern Women Movement during this time, in much the same way the military uses Navy artillery or stealth bombers to soften up enemy target before the manned assault.
The mid-1800s led to the late 1800s and then the early 20th century. Like a virus feminism continued to adapt. The early 20th century saw the birth of Marxism. Please read my commentary at:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/04/radical-feminists-useful-idiots/
Marxism became vogue rather quickly. Schools and “think tanks” were established with the most influential (for America) being The Frankfurt School.
This was a Marxist school made up of philospohers and other elites at the time, in Germany, around the 1920s. They fled Germany during Hitler’s reign (he actually gave them incentives to leave as he hated Marxists)and set up shop in the U.S., notably at Columbia University in NYC. They gained a lot of influence with elites in this country, including the government, corporations, universities, and foundations. If people wonder why the rich and famous considered Marxism “chic” in the 1960s, and why so many activists then had Marxist leanings, well, The Frankfurt School had much influence on this. Graduates of The Frankfurt School at Columbia reached high places within governmnet, corporations, universities, foundations. The goal of The Franfurt School was replacing the current social order with what we see today. The Family was one of their main targets. They have realized most, if not all, of their goals from 60 years ago.
What the Marxists have ingeniously discovered is that they could spread Marxism throughout a society and achieve their aims through the women. They were able to identify female traits and male traits and leverage these to push through Marxism.
One example: men lose much of their rationalism with regards to women. That is why we see so many manginas today. Chivalry is another example. The blind mindset among so many men concerning the protection of women and their interests. Except today they are protecting pythons. It is the same belief that “womanhood represented “all that is best, and noblest, and highest in life”, wherein “No race, or society, or country can rise higher than its womanhood”". It is why every member of the U.S. Congress voted for the VAWA. Better to take away the rights of ALL men because of the bad behavior of a very small minority of men-these are women afterall! It is also why we don’t see any women complaining about this special treatment they receive. THAT is an example of the nature of women. “Better to enslave all men so that WE women can benefit.” It is also because of nature, that men rarely speak about the sacrifices of other men. When was the last time you heard the name of a brave man who died in Iraq? We are invisible-especially when it concerns the good things we have done: sacrifice. It is also because of nature that men exaggerate the efforts of women. Remember Jessica Lynch? Hillary Clinton knows how to use this female advantage over men. She was finally treated like other candidates and forced into a corner to actually give an answer to a question. As expected, the moderator was attacked for beating up on a woman. Now the media does’nt know how to approach her.
Men treat each other differently than relative to how they treat and view women. And women treat each other differently relative to how they treat and view men. What this, in the end, leads to is unfair treatment against men and unfair treatment favoring men. The women are okay with this, and the men are either also okay with this (the mangina’s & chivarists) or they are at a loss to know what to do about it (many MRAs).
The Marxists also ingeniously figured out that by going after the young they can change the future towards their goals. It is because of their significant progress over the last 4 decades that half of this countries population is treated unfairly in the courts, the legislatures, business, schools, and just about everywhere else and yet nobody complains very much and nobody really know how to change such a huge cultural paradigm shift. The women have the largesse of rights, privileges, and advantages yet many feel like victims. The men have seen their rights and status destroyed yet many are in the dark about this, some are okay with this as mangina’s, and others simply do not know what to do about it. In two generations, marriage will be extinct, and quite possibly, nobody will think there is anything strange about that.
It’s all about nature (the nature of men versus the nature of women) and time.
The Marxist’s have figured this out.
Today, the Marxist’s and Capitalist’s have gone to bed. It’s all about raw power. The family is the greatest force against a powerful and dominating government. A strong family needs only one car, one house, one refrigerator, one….on and on. Broken or non existant families will double the market for goods and services. Again, the government and corporations work together and the marxists and capitalists work together. Since corporations look like a snapshot of a socialist organization today, one could say that the capitalists have become socialists in how they run the business. But socialists too enjoy money (for themselves and their shareholders). In the past, corporations promoted women’s issues (affirmative action). Now they’ve taken things to the next step: diversity. This will soon include, gays, lesbians, transgender groups targeted for privilege. Other groups have already been welcomed into the Diversity Tent. (Sorry, Caucasian males are still banished to the plantation).
Another area in which corporations and government work together is in labor supply. Rapidly doubling the workforce as was done when women entered in large numbers will drive down incomes. This benefits corporations. And again, it is government who is the front-man for corporations, as it is the governmnet who enforces affirmative action. Look at the illegal alien situation tody. The government is doing the dirty work for business to keep a steady supply of even more cheap labor. The government does not give a fig about “citizenship”, the middle class, or the taxpayers that make it possible for the government to even operate. They work for the corporations. Raw power. In the hands of a few.
Men have been screwed long before women got the vote. Nothing less than the collapse of society, or at the very least, getting close to the edge of collapse, will change things. When that happens, women will need men a Hell of a lot more than men will need women.
So yes.
To Hell with marriage in America.
Young men: find love elsewhere.
November 17th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
I stated above:
“What this, in the end, leads to is unfair treatment against men and unfair treatment favoring men.”
What I meant to say (typo):
“What this, in the end, leads to is unfair treatment against men and unfair treatment favoring WOmen.”
November 17th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Sorry to get off target: the polling for Marc Rudov’s latest debate (regarding tasers) on Fox’s show with Cavuto apears to be rigged. It started out at Lis-66% vs. Marc 34% and has not changed since. I don’t know if my own vote was counted.
I emailed Cavuto at:
cavuto@foxnews.com
to express my complaint at this “problem” or “intentional rigging”. I told them I was a regular viewer of Cavuto and especially of Marc’s debates and that I was deeply disappointed in Fox’s lack of fairness and balance.
November 17th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
{The following post showed up as post #52 and then disappeared. I will retry this again}
Stephen- excellent column. You are a true scholar and leader in the men’s movement.
The column illustrates that political movements are typically bottom-up. Men here who are content being in the Commenter Class, and that includes myself, have been saying this message for years. Fourthwire, one of the more articulate commenters, has held this position for years also.
I believe someone above commented that things started to go bad for men around the time women got the right to vote. The message being that because they could vote, they could then also vote for policy favoring them. The first part is incorrect but the second part is correct.
Men have been screwed since the mid-1800’s. Please check out the following link sometime:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/channel1/2005/11/margaret-sanger-more-feminist-hate.htm
The WKKK was the presursor was the Modern Women’s Movement. The book “Women of the Klan – Racism and Gender in the 1920’s”
by Kathleen M. Blee (University of California Press, 1992ISBN 0-520-07876-4 (ppb.)) documents extensively the direct lineage between Modern Feminism and the Women’s Ku Klux Klan (WKKK).
The WKKK became a very powerful controlling force both in the KKK as well as society itself. Women used various “informal networks” through churches, schools, neighborhoods, and various social groups. They formed “poison squads”, which were used to spread rumors, create sexual fears about black men, initiate “selective shopping” boycotts, and pass political information around.
Lynchings of Black men were common in the Old South. Most of these were instigated in defense of “white womanhood”. The author writes that the WKKK “dissolved a myriad of social, economic, and racial issues into powerful symbols of womanhood and sexual virtue”. Lulu Markwell, a President of the WKKK wrote, “It is the duty of the American mother to stamp out vice and immorality.” This overblown sexual imagery galvanized millions of American men to rise to the mindless protection of the purity of Protestant white woman. A Black man simply needed to be accused of rape, or of somehow spoiling white womanhoods sexual virtue and he would be hung. White men commited acts of evil in the name of evil White women.
The KKK came to believe that womanhood represented “all that is best, and noblest, and highest in life”, wherein “No race, or society, or country can rise higher than its womanhood”. Sounds alot like today’s (and yesterday’s) feminists.
The famous 1960’s feminist mantra, “No will man say that in the hand of woman rests the necessity of rocking a cradle only. She has within her hand the power to rule the world”, was actually published by the WKKK in Evansville, Indiana in the late 1880’s.
The 19th century WKKK essentially softened up political resistance to the Modern Women Movement during this time, in much the same way the military uses Navy artillery or stealth bombers to soften up enemy target before the manned assault.
The mid-1800s led to the late 1800s and then the early 20th century. Like a virus feminism continued to adapt. The early 20th century saw the birth of Marxism. Please read my commentary at:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/04/radical-feminists-useful-idiots/
Marxism became vogue rather quickly. Schools and “think tanks” were established with the most influential (for America) being The Frankfurt School.
This was a Marxist school made up of philospohers and other elites at the time, in Germany, around the 1920s. They fled Germany during Hitler’s reign (he actually gave them incentives to leave as he hated Marxists)and set up shop in the U.S., notably at Columbia University in NYC. They gained a lot of influence with elites in this country, including the government, corporations, universities, and foundations. If people wonder why the rich and famous considered Marxism “chic” in the 1960s, and why so many activists then had Marxist leanings, well, The Frankfurt School had much influence on this. Graduates of The Frankfurt School at Columbia reached high places within governmnet, corporations, universities, foundations. The goal of The Franfurt School was replacing the current social order with what we see today. The Family was one of their main targets. They have realized most, if not all, of their goals from 60 years ago.
What the Marxists have ingeniously discovered is that they could spread Marxism throughout a society and achieve their aims through the women. They were able to identify female traits and male traits and leverage these to push through Marxism.
One example: men lose much of their rationalism with regards to women. That is why we see so many manginas today. Chivalry is another example. The blind mindset among so many men concerning the protection of women and their interests. Except today they are protecting pythons. It is the same belief that “womanhood represented “all that is best, and noblest, and highest in life”, wherein “No race, or society, or country can rise higher than its womanhood”". It is why every member of the U.S. Congress voted for the VAWA. Better to take away the rights of ALL men because of the bad behavior of a very small minority of men-these are women afterall! It is also why we don’t see any women complaining about this special treatment they receive. THAT is an example of the nature of women. “Better to enslave all men so that WE women can benefit.” It is also because of nature, that men rarely speak about the sacrifices of other men. When was the last time you heard the name of a brave man who died in Iraq? We are invisible-especially when it concerns the good things we have done: sacrifice. It is also because of nature that men exaggerate the efforts of women. Remember Jessica Lynch? Hillary Clinton knows how to use this female advantage over men. She was finally treated like other candidates and forced into a corner to actually give an answer to a question. As expected, the moderator was attacked for beating up on a woman. Now the media does’nt know how to approach her.
Men treat each other differently than relative to how they treat and view women. And women treat each other differently relative to how they treat and view men. What this, in the end, leads to is unfair treatment against men and unfair treatment favoring women. The women are okay with this, and the men are either also okay with this (the mangina’s & chivarists) or they are at a loss to know what to do about it (many MRAs).
The Marxists also ingeniously figured out that by going after the young they can change the future towards their goals. It is because of their significant progress over the last 4 decades that half of this countries population is treated unfairly in the courts, the legislatures, business, schools, and just about everywhere else and yet nobody complains very much and nobody really know how to change such a huge cultural paradigm shift. The women have the largesse of rights, privileges, and advantages yet many feel like victims. The men have seen their rights and status destroyed yet many are in the dark about this, some are okay with this as mangina’s, and others simply do not know what to do about it. In two generations, marriage will be extinct, and quite possibly, nobody will think there is anything strange about that.
It’s all about nature (the nature of men versus the nature of women) and time.
The Marxist’s have figured this out.
Today, the Marxist’s and Capitalist’s have gone to bed. It’s all about raw power. The family is the greatest force against a powerful and dominating government. A strong family needs only one car, one house, one refrigerator, one….on and on. Broken or non existant families will double the market for goods and services. Again, the government and corporations work together and the marxists and capitalists work together. Since corporations look like a snapshot of a socialist organization today, one could say that the capitalists have become socialists in how they run the business. But socialists too enjoy money (for themselves and their shareholders). In the past, corporations promoted women’s issues (affirmative action). Now they’ve taken things to the next step: diversity. This will soon include, gays, lesbians, transgender groups targeted for privilege. Other groups have already been welcomed into the Diversity Tent. (Sorry, Caucasian males are still banished to the plantation).
Another area in which corporations and government work together is in labor supply. Rapidly doubling the workforce as was done when women entered in large numbers will drive down incomes. This benefits corporations. And again, it is government who is the front-man for corporations, as it is the governmnet who enforces affirmative action. Look at the illegal alien situation tody. The government is doing the dirty work for business to keep a steady supply of even more cheap labor. The government does not give a fig about “citizenship”, the middle class, or the taxpayers that make it possible for the government to even operate. They work for the corporations. Raw power. In the hands of a few.
Men have been screwed long before women got the vote. Nothing less than the collapse of society, or at the very least, getting close to the edge of collapse, will change things. When that happens, women will need men a Hell of a lot more than men will need women.
So yes.
To Hell with marriage in America.
Young men: find love elsewhere.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
You don’t have to get married to be destroyed by the courts. They can do everything to a single man, and then some, that they do to a victim of divorce.
The only surefire way to avoid becoming a slave to the state is to stay away from women altogether.
Just try explaining that to a young man in his late teens or twenties.
Every generation wants to pass on their knowledge about how to avoid the pitfalls of life, but few children learn from our experiences, they learn from their own.
We need to do more than hope for a public debate on this issue.
Kevin Merck
November 18th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Denis said:
“Nothing less than the collapse of society, or at the very least, getting close to the edge of collapse, will change things. When that happens, women will need men a Hell of a lot more than men will need women.”
Women need men NOW a lot more than we need them. If they didn’t “need” us, they wouldn’t be trying to turn us into slaves. The only rational response is to not care, to not let our emotions be used against us. Emotion and caring are women’s games, we cannot win at them and should not seek to. Refuse to be a slave.
November 18th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
All,
A Marriage Strike does not truly fulfill the needs of young men, who naturally want to have a healthy relationship and marriage to a woman. That is why planning one’s life to live and work abroad, to marry there and stay there, is the rest of the answer.
I would point out that the “marriage strike” is already well underway, if social data is correct. Men are naturally boycotting marriage here because they know it is a rigged proposition. So, organizing a marriage strike would not do anything that is not already going on.
However, it appears to me that truly “organizing it” into an proactive movement might be far more difficult than we imagine. A lot of young men are what psychologists call “lost children” — not involved and trying to stay out of trouble by staying out of sight. Men on campuses, who have to walk on eggshells around the feminist hierarchy in order to graduate, are notoriously difficult to organize. They are terrified of the wrath feminists can inflict on students who get out of line (in reality, there is much more bark than bite — but most men are terrified of being called a bigot and a woman hater in public). There is a much larger group of uneducated men, often living on the fringe of society working dead-end jobs, playing videogames or hanging out in chat rooms.
The huge problem with addressing these sorts of maladaptive behaviors is to get the individual to see what they are doing, why they are doing it, show them how to achieve political change, and motivate them to get involved. That means that two defense mechanisms on the onion that have to be peeled away before we can even reach these guys.
So, it appears to me that a “marriage strike” would have to be more an acknowledgement of what is going on, perhaps led by a few fearless and dedicated leaders who, over time, would be willing to spend a lot of time going to college campuses organizing men who are sick and tired of it all. We would have to speak for the masses, and not expect tremendous grassroots involvement in the early stages. However, with brilliant organizing on college campuses, it is possible to ignite a sea-change break-out movement. There are some young men who are very angry about all this stuff, and they are the individuals most likely to break out of the feminist mold and stand their ground no matter what. It would only take one major campus to make this a national story.
November 18th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
As I have said before, if women are so independent, just look at the covers of women’s magazines the next time you’re waiting in line at the super-market.
They are a little sexier than the 50’s but it’s still about getting a man, breaking up with a man, foo, diets and looking beautiful.
Those magazines wouldn’t stay there if they didn’t sell.
One other comment. Has anyone ever seen a book with the title, “How to Find a Wife?”.
November 18th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
What is extremely telling here is that at the bottom of this article (at the moment) is an advertisement for Kessler and Schwartz PC, who runs an outfit called http://www.georgiadivorcelawyer.com, with a pretty girl taking a phone call.
Anybody who thinks men have a chance of having a decent married life in America need to see the writing on the wall, and act accordingly.
Trial lawyers running both the Republican and Democratic parties (big law firms close to K-street) are keeping family law reform issues off the presidential and Congressional tickets for good reason — they don’t want the reforms that would necessarily follow were these issues to break out into the larger public political debate.
Some of you might recall Dr. Mark Klein’s attempt at the presidential run. His positions on family law were perfect. He actually won the SRLC poll in Memphis, on write-ins — but the RNC ordered the Tennessee to quash the numbers. I know about this because I was there and watched it all happen.
We all knew that Klein couldn’t win because of his complete lack of political record and his position on the War. I told him this from the beginning, but I don’t think he grasped it. He took the RNC’s actions personally — a big mistake. The purpose of the RNC’s action was not to wipe out Klein — it was to erase the family reform issues he so passionately and eloquently called for.
So, America is faced with a presidential election in which no candidate in either party deserves anything better than a C- grade. None of these people are talking about the core issues driving American decline, our platform of runaway spending, our lack of health care, our pending retirement problems, etc. We know that marriage-absence is the greatest problem America faces. When things get bad enough, one of the parties will have to talk about it. Until then, be prepared for soem tough years in America, and keep your hardhats on.
November 19th, 2007 at 12:48 am
One item yet unaddressed about this piece is the quote from Mike McManus suggesting that the impact of same sex marriage is relatively unimportant.
Certainly, divorce and the formalization of illegitimacy as a federally-sponsored activity are dual blows to the institution of marriage. However, if NOW forces same-sex marriage on America, it will greatly hinder if not substantially prevent the recovery of the institution of heterosexual marriage.
The current trend of “hooking up”, living together, and not getting married by young men and women is the predictor that same-sex marriage will become highly attractive to young women, who will marry each other and abort all future possibility of heterosexual marriage.
This situation is in a very fluid state. It is ripe for N.O.W. to achieve its long-awaited end-state, to make marriage predominantly a feminist enterprise. Given the fact that N.O.W. has fully achieved every other goal it set out to accomplish, it would be tremendously unwise to pretend that same-sex marriage is not a major threat to the restoration of heterosexual marriage.
Those who study volcanos know that the eruption is just the first round of damage. It is the pyroclastic mud flows that come when the column collapses that wreaks even more widespread damage. The situation with marriage is quite similar. The eruption is finished, the mud flow of same-sex marriage is on the way….
November 19th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Under a Clinton Administration and with a Democratic-controlled Congress, N.O.W. and same-sex marriage will have powerful and accomodating friends. An important point to keep in mind is that American women and the feminists have not really taken over much of anything over the decades. Men have simply relinquished and surrendered their rights. It started with the baby-boomer males and continues today. Boys in single-parent households today no nothing different-it is the norm to them …and normal. They grow to disrespect their father’s who are not around and they grow to resent the mothers who are around. It is the wholesale wreckage of the heterosexual community. Lesbians have always led the way and American women have always followed…..and American men have always stood by silently.
One day America as a nation will finally see that the country is finished. The old may be the only ones who understand that they brought this about by their silence. The young simply will know nothing different.
I on the other hand think America is already finished because most people do not see what is happening today-by the time most people do, it will be too late.
Let the country collapse.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
It won’t be much better under Republicans. They are shying away from all social issues in droves. None of the leading presidential contenders opposes same sex marriage and/or civil unions.
This country is in for a very rough decade. I have a few folks in high places in the Republican party who agree with me. The party is lost chasing the dollar-vote, while voters who don’t live on K-street are left to pick from the lousy merchandise both parties are putting forward.
The fact is, we can’t elect what the Parties refuse to put before us. There are many card tricks that work this way too.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Stephen Baskerville,Ph.D
Excellent article and boatoad of comments. But if a male copulates with a female are condoms 100% proof that your are not the father? Maybe she got pregnant by someone else. What about us poor wretches who already are married? DNA tests may or may not be exculpatory.
How about the loneliness issue as you grow old (unles man gets killed in war). Is the nursing home the only hope we have?
November 21st, 2007 at 2:53 pm
“How about the loneliness issue as you grow old (unless man gets killed in war). Is the nursing home the only hope we have?”
This issue comes up often among men when they first consider that there’s no good reason to marry in America these days, after one does a truthful and accurate cost-benefit analysis.
First of all, even marrying does not protect men from loneliness. It’s quite possible to be married and lonely, particularly those men held in marriage through threats and weakness, where the man has become little more than an economic slave to his wife.
Just as importantly one must remember that around 50% of marriages end in divorce, including two-thirds of all new marriages.
So, by marrying in America (or other Western nations), a man STILL stands a significant chance of being divorced and faced with the threat of loneliness…. yet be forced to pay, pay, pay to an ex-wife who no longer provides sex, companionship, or any other comfort to her ex-husband.
The key to avoiding loneliness in old age is no longer “marriage”. For modern men, other social structures must be created to replace the companionship and social needs. Friendships with other men are key examples of such social structures.
And believe it or not, since women tend to outlive men anyway, there’s never any shortage of older women to provide companionship for surviving older men.
Of course a man can still turn his back on the country that turned ITS back on him – move overseas to a nation where men are treated well, and with the care and caution that Dave emphasizes, choose a wife….. and remain married in that country with her.
November 21st, 2007 at 3:24 pm
65. fourthwire,
Thanks for somber observations. One poiticans said “I would rather die on my feet, than live on knees”. Yet when it came to feminist issues in state legislature, he puckered up and kissed feminist’s posterior.
But you give some light at the end of the tunnel, even though the thought of leaving America scares me. Several years ago we visited Germany for about a week (with day a trip to Austria) I thought my heart problem was recurring and called the cardiologist back in America. She assured that it is just anxiety and take nitrate until I come back and see her. Then it has been OK.
November 21st, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Anti armchair general, no reason to fear leaving America.
Take that from someone who has lived as an expatriate for over a decade.
In fact, in some parts of the world outside of America and E.U. nations, men experience MORE freedoms than they do in America.
As for health care, don’t jump to the conclusion that living abroad means inferior health care.
In fact, I have received superior health care in some of the countries that I have lived in that exceeded any expectations that I could have received if I were living in America.
November 23rd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
I heard the other day on FOX News that the number of divorces was down in America. The first thought that entered my mind was, “What about the number of people marrying?”
Personally, I think FOX News (overall) tends to present news in a chivalrous, conservative, right wing manner that unwittingly tends to support many of the gender feminists’ agenda items, and the shoddy coverage of this topic is but one example, IMO. The last I heard, the marriage rate was down in America. It’s too bad a more intelligent look at the whole “downward spiral” in male/female relations wasn’t gone into by FOX news. In all fairness, maybe so many people are un-documentably co-habitating (shacking up) that an honest assessment is not feasible. What ever happened to investigative journalism to find the answers to these questions???
It appears to me our entire news media is in a “downward spiral” as regards objectively, accurately, and honestly reporting “news.” Thank goodness for places like MND where an erudite scholar like Dr. Baskerville can still convey a scholarly message to sincere students of scholarly learning.
We are clearly getting too much pseudo-science from our culturally Marxist indoctrinated educational institutions, entertainment institutions, and news institutions – especially in the area of gender relations and male/female relationships. When gender feminist propaganda, cloaked in the illusion of objective reporting passes for conservative news coverage, you know America is in deep, deep trouble.
Happy Thanksgiving Dr. Baskerville. Thank you for your courage.
November 23rd, 2007 at 3:43 pm
All I can say is Wow!!!!
The volume of response to this article is huge.
Similarly, blogs like dont-marry.com are extremely active.
This is obviously becoming an issue with many, many people.
November 24th, 2007 at 9:29 am
i am 56. been married 2 times. both ex’s have a great lifestyle…nice homes, lots of friends (need that network of other women don’t you know), ability to travel, buy stuff and spend, spend, spend. the house on the lake is gone. well not gone, just gone from me. she has the pontoon, jet skies, neighbors who have the same stuff and all the toys to go with it. so where do you think the kids and grandkids like to hang out? who do you think they believe produced all that “stuff”?
stay single and don’t reproduce! ever.
November 28th, 2007 at 10:14 am
[...] Dr. Stephen Baskerville at MensNewsDaily wrote that “…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.” [...]
November 28th, 2007 at 11:58 am
The poor state of marriage (read: divorce) is the white elephant in the room. Though America has one of the highest divorce rates in the world, leadership is afraid to address the problem as it will rock the feminist boat.
Life is short, and I desire to raise a family. I have begun steps to secure citizenship in another country. Why work for decades to have no family to share the fruits of labor. Or worse have the fruits taken away for little or no reason, against your will to be given by to the enemy.
America is no place to be a father. The risk is too high.
I am not surprised the boys are lost – preferring drugs, sex, alcohol, violence to mast the pain for growing up in a dysfunctional feminist family.
American family may get worse for children when the parents are the same sex.
November 29th, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Man I apologize for reading this so late but Dr. Baskerville, just an outstanding piece. Truly well done, honestly.
December 1st, 2007 at 11:02 am
In today’s judicial hellhole we call America, there is slight chance that marriage laws will ever change. The American Bar Associtation and the ATLA wield far too much influence to let that happen. Why do you think lawyers donate so much money to politicians who fight tort reform?
And let’s see, a huge percentage of elected officials are . . . trained lawyers! Do the math.
The only way that things COULD change is if states got out of the marriage game alltogether and marriage became a private contract between two parties than could only be argued and enforced in a civil court. In this way a marriage contract could be as enforceable as any business contract. Most judges are loathe to mess around with well written business contracts, as opposed to family court judges, who are all too ready to ignore precedent, evidence and common sense as they go along. A civil court judge would not be long in his job if he were identified as a wing-nut by the legal community. Remember, judges keep their jobs because of lawyers.
Make marriage solely a private contract between two parties, and the lawyers still stand to make money through contingency fees. They can still have the loser pay their bills as well, although that happens somewhat less in civil court. Either way, the whole thing hinges on making sure the legal shysters can continue to hit paydirt. But the big drawback with this plan is that lawyers will start convincing middle class women to sue their spouses for 20 million dollars.
Plus, if you took the state out of marriage, what would happen to all of the Nanny State jobs that are connected to the family courts? Where would all the half-assed social workers and child support payment beaurocrats go? Believe me, the state has a vested interest in making sure that marriage laws stay right where they are.
Will there ever be a cure? Who knows. But we have to try something.
December 1st, 2007 at 3:43 pm
BTW:
Don’t mean to babble on, but there’s also the fact that that America’s feminazi princesses just can’t do without the Nanny State and its financial and legislative support.
The only way things will REALLY change is when women start to suffer the same abuses as men. Remember, women are earning more than their male counterparts in America’s major cities. When they start having THEIR fortunes pillaged; when THEY start having to pay ridiculous sums in alimony; when and if THEY start to lose sole custody of their children – things will change. There’ll be a massive uproar, believe me. When WOMEN start to lose, we’ll all hear about it.
Today’s women say that it’s unromantic for men to want prenuptial agreements. Tomorrow’s women will tell men that it’s unromantic for them NOT to want premuptial agreements. I can just hear the doublestandards brewing!
The marriage crisis is the premiere stage for today’s gender war against men. It’s the misandrist battle royale. That’s the real problem. Once feminists are done with men altogether, they’ll cast us aside, have children through artificial insemination, and have the state pay their daycare costs while they go off to their ‘careers.’
December 2nd, 2007 at 11:08 am
So the answer to this problem is the declaration that we need a national debate? What makes us think we will have a fair shot at the podium or that anyone other than father’s rights people will be interested in our message?
Why should we think that the public is ready to hear this message? Isn’t it possible that society isn’t ready for the message we have to offer and a “debate” would be premature and unsuccessful?
It’s a fact that State and local governments rely heavily on the revenue generated by the “child support” industry to balance their books. The States are absolutely convinced they need this money to survive.
We are also talking about taking away the livelihood of millions of people. Unnecessary judges, lawyers, caseworkers, psychologists and all the rest will be out of a job. That translates into millions of mortgages, car loans and all the rest that accompanies these high paying professional jobs. We’re talking about a huge economic impact.
The simple fact of the matter is that it’s going to take a lot more than a national debate to rectify a situation that is so far “out of control”. There will never be sweeping changes gained by means of “reform”.
These people love to hear the word “reform”, because it means more of the same, under a new name, with a slightly different twist.
People should get use to the idea, that we are in for decades more of this oppression, with the possibility that it will only get worse.
Who was it that said, “Desperate times call for desperate measures”.
• mass incarcerations without trial or charge
• forced confessions
• children forcibly separated from parents who are under no suspicion of legal wrongdoing and parents stripped of the care, custody, and companionship of their children without explanation
• government agents entering the homes, demanding and examining private papers and personal effects, and seizing the property of citizens who are under no suspicion of legal wrongdoing
• official court records, including hearing tapes and transcripts, doctored and falsified with the knowledge of court officials and evidence fabricated against the innocent
• defendants denied the constitutional right to face their accusers
• bureaucratic police authorized to issue subpoenas and arrest warrants against parents, with no hearing and contrary to due process of law
• special courts created specifically to process parents for political offenses
• forced labor facilities created specifically for parents
• children instructed to hate their parents with the backing of government officials
• children forced by government officials to act as informers against their parents
• children abused and killed with the backing of government officials
• knowingly false allegations, for which no evidence is presented, accepted as fact without proof, overturning the presumption of innocence, and not punished when demonstrated to be untrue
• parents ordered by government officials to separate from their spouses, on pain of losing their children
• parents forced to pay the private fees of court officials they have not hired and whose services they have not sought or used, on pain of incarceration
• parents suspected of no legal wrongdoing punitively stripped of their property and income, sometimes at gunpoint, and reduced to penury
• government officials using the mass media to vilify private American citizens, and political leaders using their offices as platforms to verbally attack private American citizens, who have no right of reply or opportunity to defend themselves
• parents jailed without trial reportedly beaten, in at least one case fatally, and denied medical attention while in police custody.
Stephan Baskerville
March, 2007
December 2nd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
You’re right, merck, the only thing to do is walk away. We’ve all had the opportunity to discover that no one is interested in a debate about these things.
December 2nd, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I’m not walking away from anything. I’m just saying there’s no reason to believe that a debate will change anything, and that a premature debate may even do more harm than good.
There’s a lot at stake for the people who rely on this industry for their livelihood and to think they will change their ways just because we are right is foolhardy. There is also a great deal at stake for every State in this country that relies so heavily on the revenue created by this industry.
I don’t think most of you people have any idea what we’re up against. This is institutionalized slavery and will not be corrected by a good old fashioned debate.
People need to stop going along with the program. When the day comes that your freedom, your children and the future of our country are more important than your own skin, then we will be making progress. Until then it’s all talk, and talk ain’t going to change a dad-gum thing.
December 4th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Question: I see many conservatives, such as Michael Medved, promoting marriage as the solution to our national problems. What is your take on these conservatives? Have you done any outreach to them?
December 4th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Instead of hoping for a debate that has the potential to accomplish absolutely nothing, maybe ACFC and Baskerville need to think about moving their operations to Wyoming or North Dakota.
These States are sparsely populated and provide the “movement” with the opportunity to organize in a place were a relatively small number of eligible voters can influence the outcome of elections.
Baskerville and ACFC could encourage people to relocate to one of these States for that purpose. I would make the move in a heartbeat. If people aren’t willing to make these kinds of sacrifices, then get use to the idea of “more oppression”.
I think … Senator or Governor Baskerville … has a very nice ring to it. This is entirely possible. North Dakota already has a large percentage of the population in favor of shared parenting as we saw in 2006.
December 5th, 2007 at 7:27 pm
It is widespread misconception that half of all marriages end in divorce. Serial divorcers inflate the rate
December 5th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
“It is widespread misconception that half of all marriages end in divorce. Serial divorcers inflate the rate”
From a guy’s perspective, it doesn’t really matter since there are zero benefits to marriage that are not already available to them without incurring the legal, financial, and social risks inherent to men in marriage today.
And whether or not you are correct, it’s men who bear the burden of the risk.
December 6th, 2007 at 5:32 am
[...] Custody” on his syndicated radio show. Baskerville recently published an article titled “Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children”. Despite the universal acceptance of Dr. Baskerville’s analysis on the state of marriage, [...]
December 6th, 2007 at 8:22 am
[...] Into Custody” on his syndicated radio show. Baskerville recently published an article titled “Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children”. Despite the universal acceptance of Dr. Baskerville’s analysis on the state of marriage, [...]
December 6th, 2007 at 10:42 am
[...] Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children [...]
December 6th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I had to deal with a few serious issues that prevented me until now from reading Stephen Baskerville’s article and all of the comments that were made.
I agree with all of what Stephen Baskerville identified in his article and in his subsequent comment (#76). I also agree with those comments that were made that indicate that the “marriage strike” is a very serious calamity. However, it seems to me that hardly any of the commenters realize how serious that calamity is in the so-called “free West”.
The West and all developed nations, Japan, China and India included, have begun an irreversible course of self-destruction that will end in all of the developed nations being depopulated.
Nature abhors a vacuum. That is also true of a demographic vacuum. Whether it is through osmosis or through a violent implosion, something will always and unavoidably move in to fill a vacuum, even a demographic one. It is quite clear what it is that will fill the demographic vacuum in the developed nations. It will be nothing other than people from nations that still uphold the existence of the traditional nuclear family and the need for humanity to propagate itself.
The question is for how long the UN-promoted depopulation of the world (down to a billion people or less – perhaps as few as 300 million people in the whole world), and the related UN-promotion of the equalization of population densities throughout the world will progress by relatively peaceful means. It appears doubtful that the relatively peaceful global peace can be maintained much longer, just as it was no longer possible for the Roman Empire to maintain its Pax Romana once the Roman Empire began its collapse for very much the same reasons that are causing the collapse of the developed nations now: greed and corruption, excessive taxation and the deliberate destruction of the means by which the traditional nuclear families could continue to maintain themselves.
The “Barbarian” invasions were triggered by the collapse of the Roman Empire. They were not the cause of that collapse.
The collapse of the Roman Empire was the beginning of the dark age that followed and lasted for a thousand years. We should worry about how long the dark age will last that is beginning now. It is too late to worry about anything that could possibly be done to ward off that dark age.
Civilizations come and go. Ours has had the bun.
–Walter Schneider
December 8th, 2007 at 1:16 am
I have a theory as to what happened to the Neanderthals.
The Neanderthal women adopted the feminazi mystique. Why not? They were almost as strong as their men, which is considerably stronger than the average Cro-Magnon who is not a football player.
Because their lawyers liked to make money without the bother of actually proving or disproving wrongdoing (risky business that) they enacted “no-fault” divorce legislation. This made it easy to asset strip the men and force them into peonage to pay the alimony and child support.
The Neanderthal men said, “Fark it! I won’t fark ‘em!”
No more Neanderthal children. No more Neanderthals.
A society the punishes parenthood disappears.
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:38 am
[...] a comment » Advice to young men: Do not marry, do not have children By Stephen [...]
March 17th, 2009 at 5:19 am
[...] 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….(Full Story) [...]