Saturday, February 12, 2005

The History of Marriage Strikes in Early Western Civilization and it's Very Bizarre Cousin in the 21st Century...

There has been certain accusations bandied about lately concerning exactly who and what is responsible for the demise of marriage. We have heard blame being affixed to Marxists, feminists, Marxist-feminist, single mothers, mothers, alimony, paternity fraud, welfare, Maggie Gallagher and numerous other culprits all attempting to fix the finger of blame on some persons, other then the ones actually responsible.

This is an important point, as many would like to blame single mothers, in particular, as another excuse to continue their campaign against mothers and their children.

Thus, let us rewind the videotape and view the historic evidence BEFORE we continue.

News Release. Date 58 BC

Information courtesy of: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/suet-augustus-rolfe.html

For those who don’t know this is 58 years before the birth of Christ.

Repeat 58 years BEFORE the birth of Christ.

He [Augustus Caesar] revised existing laws and enacted some new ones, for example, on extravagance, on adultery and chastity, on bribery, and on the encouragement of marriage among the various classes of citizens. Having made somewhat more stringent changes in the last of these than in the others, he was unable to carry it out because of an open revolt against its provisions, (Translation: Men were in open revolt attempting to have Emperor repeal the new laws which were passed to force them to begat their children within lawful marriages. Previously men spent all their time on slave girls begetting illegitimate children, which, of course, said children promptly became a burden on Rome. This was 58 years before Christ was born.) until he had abolished or mitigated a part of the penalties, besides increasing the rewards and allowing a three years' exemption from the obligation to marry after the death of a husband or wife. When the knights even then persistently called for its repeal at a public show, (Translation: Men started a riot actually in an attempt to force Augustus to repeal the taxes, fines and other threats he used against them to force them into procreating within lawful marriages) he sent for the children of Germanicus and exhibited them, some in his own lap and some in their father's, intimating by his gestures and expression that they should not refuse to follow that young man's example. (Translation: Augustus attempted to use Roman war hero and his children to encourage other young men to enter into lawful marriages and begat children within them; as opposed to their practice of having children all over the place and dumping them off on the Roman state to care for. We have no evidence that it worked.) And on finding that the spirit of the law was being evaded by betrothal with immature girls and by frequent changes of wives, he shortened the duration of betrothals and set a limit on divorce. (Translation: Men began doing everything possible to subvert the intent of the law, thus Augustus finally had to set even stricter limits on their behavior in his continuing attempts to force them into building their families within lawful marriages. Again we have no evidence that it worked)


Fast Forward to today: February 12, 2005

2063 years LATER…

We now see that ONE MAN has finally appeared who claims to be able to decisively fix the blame for the ongoing “Marriage Strike” that men have been on for the last 2063 years.

It’s Maggie Gallagher’s fault.

See below for details.

Maggie Gallagher is in hot water over her $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services, money received while her editorials were singing the praises of the Bush Administration’s marriage initiative. Sounding slightly clueless, Gallagher explained, “Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don’t know. You tell me.”

But Gallagher’s problems go beyond this ethical faux pas. While I support traditional marriage, there’s a fundamental problem with Maggie Gallagher’s approach.

Here’s Maggie’s rendition of “How Do I Love Thee?”: “Let me count the ways. I love thee while scrubbing your dishes and washing your floors… and while you claim your freedom, your leisure, your paycheck, and my paycheck as your own.”

Do I detect something other than dewy-eyed glances in that Valentine’s Day rant?

Gallagher has now toned down her rhetoric, but her fundamental worldview remains the same: Blame the man first -- and let the woman off easy.

There is no more important challenge in modern America than the strengthening of marriage, and I wish Mrs. Gallagher’s group well. But as long as their concerns are ignored and belittled, Gallagher’s approach is bound to further alienate the millions of disaffected men who feel they have no other choice than to remain on a Marriage Strike.

Information Courtesy of: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/excerpts from article: Misandrist Marriage Movement, Author C. Roberts.


I hate to tell you this, but MEN are the ones responsible for the current plight western society finds itself in. Men, nobody else. Women have always wanted to be married, they still do. Actually getting pregnant out of wedlock has been the traditional negotiating tool that many women used in the past to force men into marriage.

Of course that is a useless tool now because never-married men (or recreational sperm donors which would be a more apt description of them) are now given, in practically every western country, the exact same rights to children as married men, whether or not they get married.

So what’s the incentive for marriage then?

Thus MEN in western society got exactly what they have always wanted, 2063 years after the fact, but then tell me, what else is new?

SCOTLAND will become the first part of the UK to allow men to marry their mothers-in-law, the Scottish Executive announced yesterday.

The amendment was included in the Executive’s Family Law Bill which will reduce the time needed to conclude a divorce, give unmarried fathers new rights over their children and give unmarried couples some of the same rights as married couples.

Other major changes will enshrine legal parental rights for unmarried fathers and introduce safeguards for cohabiting couples.

Also, the number of children born to unmarried couples is on course to overtake the number of children born to married parents in about three years.

Mr. Henry stressed: "Reform of family law to safeguard cohabiting couples is not intended to devalue the importance of marriage. But the changing shape of society is a reality and unfortunately relationships break down.

"Family law must be updated to ensure that it reflects the needs of all our people."

The legislation, which could be in force within a year if passed by the Scottish Parliament, aimed to improve the "safety net" of family law, he said.

And he added: "We believe these are sensitive safeguards to prevent children being used as pawns when family relationships break down."

Some of the Executive’s plans - like the formal change to divorce law - need legislation in the form of the Family Law Bill, but other proposals - like the preparation of a draft charter for grandparents to have a more formal role in bringing up children - do not. These will be introduced alongside the bill which is expected to pass through parliament by the end of the year.

Alan Finlayson, a former children’s reporter and sheriff, will draw up a "parenting agreement for Scotland" to help estranged couples resolve issues such as contact arrangements.

The Executive’s proposals received a mixed response from opposition politicians.

Kenny MacAskill, for the SNP, welcomed the bill. "Scottish society has changed and evolved and Scots law must reflect that. Parental rights for fathers need to be addressed, as does the role of grandparents," he said.

Information Courtesy of: http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/excerpts from article: Marriage to In-Laws Will no Longer be Outlawed, Author H. MacDonell.


Although championed as safeguarding cohabiting couples, in fact, this law gives more rights to irresponsible men and their enablers, paternal grandparents. It gives no rights to women that they don’t already have and, in fact, will take away rights from women in their role as mothers, since it will ensure that a man who invests NOTHING, absolutely nothing, in bringing a child into the world (unless he feels like it, as there is no law requiring him to do ANYTHING until after the birth of the child) will now be designated as a father with the exact same rights to custody as the child’s mother.

So this is a threat to mothers, NOT a safeguard for mothers, but an attack on them just as it has turned out to be in every other country where these sorts of laws have been passed. It has lead to child abductions by men, even of infants, in attempts to get custody, many to avoid child support and in the U.S. 30% of the pool of custodial fathers is composed of these recreational sperm donors, so it is no small threat either.

This half-a@@ed father can now, 1 second after the birth of said child, roll out of bed, throw on his pants and show up at hospital door with ALL the rights of a married father. All of them, no difference even though he has not done a single thing to get that child to that point leaving that burden to mother, her family and friends or everyone else in society. They are even talking about extending the maternity leave of women to include men, which will now mean that every time a woman has a baby, there will be a fight over who gets to use the leave to stay home and recover from the whole pregnancy and child-birth ordeal, while also bonding with your baby.

AND guess who will be winning that fight…

Men have been trying to wiggle out of marriage since marriage was first invented. Our records only go back as far as Rome to demonstrate this but if we had better records from older civilizations, I’m sure we would see the same thing. Giving men incentive to NOT marry such as allowing them the same legal rights to children as married men undercuts women and society in our attempts to get them to marry.

If society doesn’t feel up to forcing these irresponsible male chowder heads to be good citizens, fine, but that’s no excuse to keep putting the rights of mothers and children in second place to appease these irresponsible men as they continue their 2063 year Marriage Strike.

Thus I have to say: Scotland just say no.

13 comments:

Pseudo-Adrienne said...

Women have always wanted to be married, they still do.Not me. But yeah, a very significant portion of women still want to marry. Then again, why bother with the selection of guys that a lot women have?

The "marriage strike" declaration made by the MRAs is beyond stupid, because *they* act like *they* just recently invented such a thing.

And as someone who took two years of Latin and has a "fetish" for Greco-Roman History, yes, I know all about how Roman men turned six shades of pissed off when Augustus passed all of his "morality laws", especially in regards to fidelity. Men have historically avoided marriage (even though most men could get away with infidelity), so this "marriage strike" is nothing new.

So the MRAs need to get over themselves and STOP acting like they invented the "marriage strike".

And that's why MRAs should praise feminists because feminism eliminated the "societal requirement" to get married among both sexes, thus helped anti-marriage men even more. Feminism practically gave anti-marriage men a candy store. And do they thank feminism for that?...NO!...whatever.

Once again the MRAs owe another one of the fundamentals of their "sacraments" to feminism. What a bunch of infants. But a lot of those "sacraments" that men have cherished, have been around even long before Augustus.

And as for Augustus; nothing screams moral values like burying your daughter alive for breaking her chastity vows as a Vestal Virgin. What a tight-a$$

NYMOM said...

"Women have always wanted to be married, they still do. Not me. But yeah, a very significant portion of women still want to marry."

Exactly...We have to accept that MOST women DO wish to be married.


"And that's why MRAs should praise feminists because feminism eliminated the "societal requirement" to get married among both sexes, thus helped anti-marriage men even more. Feminism practically gave anti-marriage men a candy store. And do they thank feminism for that?...NO!...whatever.

Exactly...Men all wanted to be like Hugh Hefner or those crazy Roman Knights, no responsibility, sex on demand with whatever willing women was available...and NOW they got it and they're STILL b*tching...

They keep acting like feminism killed marriage...no MEN killed marriage, feminism just helped women survive the transition period between depending upon marriage for their way of life and having to depend upon ourselves...

I mean I know most women STILL want to be married, but in the same token, we can NOW live successfully alone...that's probably what they're really mad at feminist for because so many women just up and went and made lives for themselves ANYWAY...since one of the things the article points out about Scotland (which is probably true in all western societies today but at a differing pace for all of them) is that at the rate single mothers are having children they will overtake married couples having children in about 3 years...

That's WHY they are changing the law in Scotland, I think, to allow never-marrried men MORE rights. Not because they are concerned about the children or the rights of cohabitating "couples" as they claim, but because they saw the writing on the wall for men...and they were rapidly heading into becoming a non-entity in Scottish society, at the rate they were going...like they are becoming in every western society if they don't change their ways...

I mean my feeling is that Scotland should have changed the law to make it clear to men that they obtain legal rights to children within a lawful marriage if they wished to protect male involvement with children... which is what many women want anyway...a legal marriage; not some jerkoff who does nothing to show commitment, good will, interest, or anything now, having the same rights as a child's mother under this new law...

Plus married men got shafted AGAIN with this change of law...I mean why the heck should men, who many don't want to be married ANYWAY, turn around and marry, IF never-married fathers can get the exact same legal rights as a married father FOR DOING NOTHIING...

I mean changing the law to give MEN more rights for LESS effort is certainly not going to do women and children any good...the only people that law helps is MEN...and enabler paternal grandparents...

It helps another generation of male chowder heads get the idea in their heads again that they can STILL have it all for little or no effort. AGAIN...

So this continued encouragement of men to NEVER grow up, to either be hanging out in the pub, the sports bar, the corner or yes, even in internet chat groups proclaiming their rights are being violated will continue...and get worse...at least in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

"...I mean why the heck should men, who many don't want to be married ANYWAY, turn around and marry, IF never-married fathers can get the exact same legal rights as a married father FOR DOING NOTHIING..."

But NYMOM, for men who actually WANT to have children and parent them, there is still a great deal of incentive to marry. The visitation/child support/court wrangling rigamarole is hardly an attractive alternative. I don't know of anyone who would actually prefer to do it this way, assuming they want kids in the first place. I remember an unmarried friend of mine who found himself in an unexpected pregnancy situation once. Another lawyer friend of his, upon hearing the news, asked him: "Any chance that you can work it out with her? Believe me, it would be a lot cheaper and a lot less trouble to just marry her." And I think he was right.

But anyway, I think restoring the special legal status and protections of marriage (including those with regard to children) might indeed do more to revitalize marriage in the long run than any programs the government can come up with today, and help to ensure that every child is a wanted child. However, it would be an extremely hard sell to the voters, considering that in the short-term it would affect fully one-third of children being born and almost totally excuse their fathers from responsibility for them.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I tend to post in a hurry and continually forget to sign my name.

Anne

Pseudo-Adrienne said...

But NYMOM, for men who actually WANT to have children and parent them, there is still a great deal of incentive to marryAnd what if the people don't even like each other? What if it was a one-night-stand or an on-again-off-again relationship that had more to do with sex, than any kind of emotional bonds, least of all "love"?

I've noticed that in a lot of these pregnancy situations outside of wedlock, the man and the woman were barely even together as a "couple", and the pairing had more to do about sex, then "love", or emotional bonds.

In many cases, these people are horrible for each other. The only thing that keeps them together is the sex. And if it is just about sex and the people don't even like each other why should they marry, and bring the children into what could be a chaotic, negative, and very dysfunctional environment?

There's nothing wrong with visitation because at least the two people don't have to be around each other all the time or even more than once a week. But a full blown marriage with people who probably only knew each other for three months, not really "into each other emotionally" (certainly not in love or even an official couple), and were really "friends with benefits"(in another words f**k-buddies)? And the guy is really only marrying to avoid child support, and really, didn't even want the kids to begin with?!

(Of course, women should know better than to hop into bed with moronic guys they've known for only a few minutes, days, or even weeks, and women should always use condoms with these guys, because who knows where these guys have been.)

I seriously doubt those people could successfully feign loving and respecting each other in front of the children.

Marriage, in all of its sappy, lovey-dovey image, should be about a mutual emotional, domestic, sexual committment (and of course "love") between two people. Not a selfish attempt by some guy to avoid child support payments, to pitifully make up for the fact that he can't put on a damn condom, and sticks it wherever.

And what if the guy has other children by other women?

Anonymous said...

I understand what you're saying, Psuedo-Adrienne, but I was speaking generally--I wasn't really talking about cases where babies are already in the works. It seemed to me that what NYMOM was getting at was that current laws giving unmarried dads rights are going to lead men to decide to forgo marriage altogether, figuring that they can still be dads without it, and I was just pointing out that men who really WANT to be responsible parents don't tend to see it that way--they don't want the split family scenario or a visitation schedule or anything like that because even under the best of circumstances it's a pain in the a@@. What they want is to live with their children and parent them along with a loving and supportive partner. And that's exactly why I support restoring parental rights to the context of marriage and fully protecting them within that context. That way it is clear where everyone stands. A single man who wants children would know from the outset that he will have to choose a partner and assume all the responsibilities of marriage and make a home for those children, and a single woman who wants children will know from the outset whether she will be parenting with the help of a partner or going it alone, and weigh her options accordingly. I think it's been a great mistake to take long-established laws that were originally meant to govern and protect the family and bend them to accommodate people who have not created a family and do not intend to do so.

Anne

NYMOM said...

"However, it would be an extremely hard sell to the voters, considering that in the short-term it would affect fully one-third of children being born and almost totally excuse their fathers from responsibility for them."

No because men if they wished to be involved with their children as you keep claiming they do, then they'll do the right thing and get married.

For those who don't, their involvement is NOT worth the judicial and law enforcement costs, not to mention the societal chaos created by trying to force them into a role they don't want. I mean we have practically created a form of 'bastardized' marriage for these men with women don't like and children they never wanted...and it's not good for women or children to do this...

I see it as an educational campaign to enlighten voters who care, mostly women probably, because much of what is going on is hidden from view by media outlets and people like you who keep painting fathers involvement as a positive good, when it's fact this is frequently not the case...

NYMOM said...

"I've noticed that in a lot of these pregnancy situations outside of wedlock, the man and the woman were barely even together as a "couple", and the pairing had more to do about sex, then "love", or emotional bonds."

Exactly...so why would we think that these two people are going to be able to get along well enough to be able to raise a child together for 18+ years. We've almost created a sort of bastardized form of marriage for them and it's been a recipe for disaster, mostly for women and children...

"In many cases, these people are horrible for each other. The only thing that keeps them together is the sex. And if it is just about sex and the people don't even like each other why should they marry, and bring the children into what could be a chaotic, negative, and very dysfunctional environment?"

Exactly...but when you look at the average parenting plan put out there in many states now, you are going to be spending as much time interacting with that guy as IF YOU WERE MARRIED w/o any of the support systems to give you any control of the situation like having a good relationship with your in-laws (you don't have any) or being able to rely upon the police in your community to enforce your custodial status if a problem should arise (mothers can NOT automatically assume that they can count on that anymore, it's on a case-by-case or county-by-county basis)...

Plus you cannot not just automatically decide to leave the state to go to law school or for another job, that's out. You have to negotiate over which school district, doctor, church, daycare, et al your child will attend. If your child can spend Christmas with you (do you know how many women I know who haven't spent a Christmas with their own kids in YEARS)...

So basically you're making my case for me...you're right people this casually connected can NOT be forced into an 18-21 year commitment, they just can't...

"There's nothing wrong with visitation because at least the two people don't have to be around each other all the time or even more than once a week."

You are right there is nothing wrong with visitation AND if that is ALL that was involved I would never mind it...

I wouldn't have this blog today actually, I wouldn't have bothered...as who goes on a 'mission' over just visitation. I'd just be relaxing watching tv and happy that I raised my children well and can now just sit back contentedly and plan for my own retirement, but guess what, it's NOT just about a once a week visit...

It is about giving another person who did NOTHING to bring forth this child, NOTHING, the EXACT SAME LEGAL RIGHTS AS A MOTHER TO HER CHILD...and by doing this allowing that other person to use that legal status as a 'club' issued by the state to hold over every women's head who decides to have a child...

It has the potential to roll back every one of the rights you and most other women today take for granted, every single one...IF we allow it to continue...

That's what it's about.

It's not JUST visiting...it's much bigger then that...and as much as you've read on this blog, you should know that already...

All these posts I'm putting up here are news stories, I don't just make them up...about court rulings or public policies against women making it MORE likely that MORE mothers will lose their children, abductions where children are taken on a visit and never returned, about murders of children involved in these custody to evade child support schemes and even about the propaganda being used to make women THINK it's all just about men wanting to be good fathers and help us raise our children...

Visitation, actually, is the least of what I talk about here, the least...

NYMOM said...

I'm actually a little miffed at the governor in my state Governor Pataki for recently talking about a proposal to forgive the child support debt of men who marry the mothers of their children...

I have no problem with a father and mother chosing on their own to marry but we shouldn't be rewarding a choice that appears to be more geared to making money off the backs of children then with a sincere committment to them...

This is a dangerous and short-sighted proposal that is probably the flip side of giving never-married fathers legal rights and almost JUST AS BAD...We should never make children "worth money" to people, never and Pataki knows this as our state does NOT even allow you to buy more then $5,000 in life insurance for children after a few well-publicized murders of children for life insurance proceeds...

This has the potential to make 'children' worth a heck of a lot more then $5,000...

Frankly children being worth money was the 'root cause' of the horrible Jerica Rhodes situation, as well as thousands of others that we don't even know about yet, where fathers took custody to avoid paying child support...

The profit in 'children' MUST be removed...

Anonymous said...

"...and people like you who keep painting fathers involvement as a positive good, when it's fact this is frequently not the case..."

Hmmm...now where did I "paint" unwed fathers' involvement as a positive good? While it certainly CAN be, it's true that it's frequently not and I think it would be a greater good for children in the long run to restore the special status of marriage. That is what all of my comments in defense of fathers have been about--married fathers. Their rights and responsibilities, which they signed on for, must be scrupulously protected.

I'm sorry if your father was a disappointment, it's a tragedy when kids don't get to benefit from all a good dad can offer, but I would have suffered a great deal without my dad and so would he have without his, and many, many people feel the same. And, honestly, if you are going to try to "reeducate" the public on this issue (and you will have to convince just about the entire western world since unwed parenthood and changes in the law to accommodate it are increasing all over Europe and the UK, not just here), then it will really do no good to lie and try to "paint" fathers in general as irrelevant in their kids' lives. Too many people know this is not true, and such an attitude will hurt, not help, your cause, no matter how desirable your ultimate goal might be.

Anne

NYMOM said...

"I'm sorry if your father was a disappointment, it's a tragedy when kids don't get to benefit from all a good dad can offer, but I would have suffered a great deal without my dad and so would he have without his, and many, many people feel the same. And, honestly, if you are going to try to "reeducate" the public on this issue (and you will have to convince just about the entire western world since unwed parenthood and changes in the law to accommodate it are increasing all over Europe and the UK, not just here), then it will really do no good to lie and try to "paint" fathers in general as irrelevant in their kids' lives. Too many people know this is not true, and such an attitude will hurt, not help, your cause, no matter how desirable your ultimate goal might be."

Well I'm sorry but sometimes social change cannot be stopped just because a LOT OF PEOPLE used to benefit from something that no longer exists in that form...

When the divorce rate was low and a 'family' was one legal entity where roles were clearly defined, then yes, fathers were great, they helped mothers raise children in a partnership and the whole thing worked...

Today that is simply not the case.

It won't be us deciding these things anyway, at least not me, as I already raised my children...it will be the next generation deciding these issues and from the looks of things they are picking unmarried single parenthood over and above married parenthood as the vehicle to raise their children within...and I don't think people are doing that because they had these wonderful loving fathers in their past that you keep talking about...as I think if so many people DID have that, wouldn't they be trying to recreate the same wonderful family structure they had as children...

You can close your eyes to that reality but there are a WHOLE lot of people like me out there whose fathers were nothing but a figment of Focus on the Family's imagination and YOURS...

Anonymous said...

"I'm actually a little miffed at the governor in my state Governor Pataki for recently talking about a proposal to forgive the child support debt of men who marry the mothers of their children..."

Might I ask what the wisdom would be to continue to collect child support arrears from a man married to the children's mother?

The scenario: every month, the man's paycheck is garnished by CSE and a new check is cut and sent back to his house. Hmmm....

Basically, that debt would also be the mother's debt at that point.

Also, it would be unconstitutional under the 14th amendment I believe since married parents don't have to pay child support.

NYMOM said...

"Might I ask what the wisdom would be to continue to collect child support arrears from a man married to the children's mother?

The scenario: every month, the man's paycheck is garnished by CSE and a new check is cut and sent back to his house. Hmmm...."

Well quite obviously it would be ridiculous...but I don't think that our governor should be encouraging men to marry women and take on the burden of fatherhood when they MIGHT not be all that interested in either the woman or the child...but more interested in wiping out a debt...

I mean New York doesn't allow you to buy a life insurance policy on a child worth over $5,000 because we had a murder a few years back (or an attempted one) of a child by its parent to get life insurance...so WHY would our governor encourage marriage to wipe out a child support debt that could be worth a LOT more then $5,000...

The bottom line is that our society has to figure out a way to make our children NOT WORTH ANY MONEY...since too many people appear to be making money on the backs of children and no good can ever come from it...

That was my point...not the logics of how to do it...but the vision to know that it needs to be done...

As this is a site to encourage discussion amongst 'like-minded' people to come up with strategies to amend the current situation...or did you miss the first page of my blog...