Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Interesting Follow-up to Marriage Statistics Post - Again the comments are more interesting then the actual post

In response to Polish Knight's comment about St. Valentine I have re-published the following post. St. Valentine was from what was called the Eastern empire (Constantinople). He lived in a period long after what we know of as Rome had already collapsed (about 300 or so years later). Yet, even in ancient Rome soldiers, on active duty, were not permitted to marry BUT after serving were expected to do so. That's probably why one of the punishments Augustus Caesar proposed was that former soldiers would be sent to the far provinces in Germany to serve if they refused marriage.

Additionally, I also wanted to head off the usual 'marriage strike' posts which I predict someone will begin shortly.

I have said this many times but it bears repeating: there is no marriage strike being organized by men, as men have never wanted to marry in any time, in any place. Thus men not wishing to marry is historically very normal behavior for them. Rather it is women whose behavior is changing if the marriage rates are actually falling in our society.

As hard as it is for men to believe, women are actually the ones making these changes if we are to believe this statistic.

************************************************************************************* 

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$$
10:47 PM
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.
4:20 AM
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.
12:39 PM
Anonymous said...
Sorry, I tend to post in a hurry and continually forget to sign my name.

Anne
2:36 PM
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?
3:59 PM
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
4:40 PM
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...
12:08 AM
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...
12:52 AM
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...
11:02 PM
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
12:22 PM
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...
11:35 PM
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.
4:48 PM
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...
7:07 PM
Post a Comment

62 comments:

PolishKnight said...

NYMOM, that was quite a lot to read! I don't want to ramble so I'll try to hit just a few key points.

Saying that there was a marriage strike back in ancient Rome does NOT prove that "men not wishing to marry is historically very normal behavior." Uh, there is a LOT of history between Ancient Rome and today. In addition, you yourself have said that men invented marriage to get access to those precious kiddies so it's weird for you to argue that the men don't want what they invented...

Regarding your claim that women's behavior is changing. I think we need to clarify what that means.

When it comes to women wanting 1950's Wally Cleaver breadwinners, most women are still fundamentally the same as they were 100 years ago. When their socio-biological need is not met, they compromise sometimes dramatically. They may wind up as childless spinsters, or hit the ol' sperm bank, or for poorer women go on welfare or child-support.

But this is hardly a "change" anymore than the climate really "changes" from fall to spring. Fundamentally, the women are the same as they ever were and these changes are fragile and artificial. Eliminate welfare and that's the end of single motherhood for the lower classes. As men wise up (and they are) and fewer useful idiots get women knocked up AND then produce income, more "deadbeats" are produced.

And that's the problem: Chivalrous patriarchal society can blame men and try to heap more resources upon such single mothers but the taxpayer balks eventually at funding the mess especially as more illegals join in on the fun.

This is one pattern that's common with Rome: Despite your claim that men sought to oppress women to benefit men, it's really men that are ordered around to "share" their wealth via marriage, when need be, because SOCIETY and WOMEN need our resources so much. There will always be slave women in Rome, or illegals in the USA, to produce children but will they grow up to be useful citizens WITHOUT the men?

Finally, let's address the main question: Is there a marriage strike "organized" or at least being held by marriagable men (moreso than in the past?)

Honestly, I don't think so. I think that men are taking their TIME in marrying more both because they get to sow their wild oats (as I said, a main benefit of men from feminism) and because, well, they CAN. At the age of 30 or so, they have a biological/personal clock that doesn't really start going off until they're 45 or so AND most will become more mature, successful, etc. making them more attractive as they age.

At that point, they can then be the pickers and I think they are now more SELECTIVE in their choices in terms of women's attitudes, etc. than in the past. They can get a high income career women because, well, there are so many available! And since they're usually sexually experienced by then they can easily weed out the best ones. For those men of means, there's no need for a marriage strike. It's like a post Christmas supply sale! (Those are pretty great BTW. LED lights galore!)

Anonymous said...

To PK's perspective I would add that as usual you girls are busily telling us what we think.

Numerous surveys and studies have asked non-marrying men themselves why they do not marry.

The number one reason by far is that sex today is readily available outside marriage. Who made it so available? You did.

The second is that cohabitation is readily available. Who made it available? You did.

The third is that men stand a good chance of losing their kids and most of their assets in the event of a divorce. Who brought about this state of affairs? You did.

While you're insisting that men have never wanted to marry, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of us have done so and still do so today. If the numbers are declining simply look at whose behavior has changed.

And clearly that crap being bandied about in the Scottish Parliament has nothing to do with "appeasing irresponsible men." It is nothing more than an attempt to open up for women yet another pathway into men's wallets and I guarantee you that women are all for it. If they lose some of their exclusive control over children in the process then they have only their own greed to blame.

Come on, girls, send back your CS and welfare checks and send a message to our lawmakers that you don't want to be oppressed by our resources!

But again, don't worry about my "panties." I have less than zero interest in single mothers by choice or in "controlling" them or anyone else. I don't consider it a moral choice but your morality is not my business. Just don't come to me asking for money to underwrite it, directly or indirectly, because I prefer to use my resources on my own family, thank you.

Meanwhile solid two-parent families, even if they are the minority, will always rule because they produce the most wealth and the highest-quality offspring with the best chance of raising successful and productive generations to follow them.

They're the ones that all hope for western civilization rests upon.

Richard

PolishKnight said...

Richard, in reply to your claim that women brought about men losing their assets in a divorce. On the one hand, that's the law and written mostly by men BUT... something that I find interesting, so many women seem to take advantage of it.

Let's consider V's bodice ripping film "The Dutchess". She's right that men did enjoy legal advantages in divorce at the time but even back then few men divorced and most treated their women well. These women were the mothers of their children and they saw no interest in destroying their lives.

There's a popular stereotype portrayed in the film "The First Wives' Club" where aging men dump their loyal wives who built their fortunes to chase after pretty young bimbos (portrayed, ironically, by Sarah Jessica Parker) but the reality is that most men were not in a position, or desired, to do such a thing.

I've seen NYMOM and V claim that men are couch potatoes and don't help around the house and that they're "only good for one thing" (money) which is parallel to the ol' "women are good for only one thing" line but I know for a fact from men in my family line and my wife's that wasn't the case. Maybe the men weren't great at housework but most helped out and some were even more fussy than the women at it. (After all, most of the great chefs are MEN!)

This all boils down to women trying to have it both ways (get a hold of more money in the workplace while still getting men who earn more than them) and rationalizing that decision and dealing with the fallout. I've addressed that problem head on. Granted, it's not a very "nice" solution and doesn't make EVERYONE happy but the status quo isn't doing a great job at that either.

I honestly am asking you, as a third party between NYMOM and myself, what you think is a solution beyond just waiting for the world to crumble around us and drink cool aid.

Anonymous said...

Part of the solution I believe will come in time. Presumed shared parenting will remove much of the incentive for divorce.

The rest of it will probably be too much for the public to swallow. But in a nutshell, keep the rules simple enough for simple minds. Return family rights/responsibilities exclusively to married families. For the unmarried, let mothers control AND support the children on their own.

Instead of appealing to the dads who "contribute nothing," or the taxpayers who contribute even less, perhaps they can turn for help to the enabling maternal grandmothers that NY wants to give rights to, if they have any spare cash left over after a lifetime of drawing CS and welfare on their own fatherless kids, that is.

If the moms can't support the kids, the state can take custody of the kids until they can, just like in the days when "that's the way it used to be and everyone was just fine with it" (one of NY's favorite sayings).

If women will opt out of motherhood at the risk of a custody fight like NY says (and which I don't buy), then let's see how many will opt out at the prospect of no check AND loss of the kids.

That would be a vast undertaking but it wouldn't cost any more than welfare does and it wouldn't last long anyway because lower-class single motherhood would dry up before the water got hot.

That would leave only the tiny minority of middle/upper-class single mothers by choice, and them I don't care about if they can pay their own way.

Richard

NYMOM said...

I agree with many of these proposals Richard.

I don't think single parents should be allowed to litigate for visitation or child support...you shouldn't have those kinds of rights w/o paying the same costs everyone else does...

Anonymous said...

Glad to hear it, NY.

NYMOM said...

"In addition, you yourself have said that men invented marriage to get access to those precious kiddies so it's weird for you to argue that the men don't want what they invented..."

First of all you invented it to keep, manage and control property...didn't you ever read about why the Catholic Church forbids marriage amongst its priests? Historically they used to be able to marry (and in the early church women were permitted to be priests)...It was an attempt by the church to gain back control of property that priests were tying up in private inheritances and using marriage between families to keep that control (even after they were dead)...

So this is not about men wanting children but wanting control of society...

Let's not pretty it up...men are control freaks...

NYMOM said...

"They may wind up as childless spinsters, or hit the ol' sperm bank, or for poorer women go on welfare or child-support.

But this is hardly a "change" anymore than the climate really "changes" from fall to spring. Fundamentally, the women are the same as they ever were and these changes are fragile and artificial."

Well only time will tell Polish Knight if these changes are permanent or temporary. Just like when bottles were invented for women who could not breast feed; NOW I don't know any mother who doesn't use them...even when she is perfectly capable of breast-feeding and doesn't work...that old bottle is everywhere in the park, in the nursery, in the car...

Sooooo.

It remains to be seen.

NYMOM said...

"Honestly, I don't think so. I think that men are taking their TIME in marrying more both because they get to sow their wild oats (as I said, a main benefit of men from feminism) and because, well, they CAN. At the age of 30 or so, they have a biological/personal clock that doesn't really start going off until they're 45 or so AND most will become more mature, successful, etc. making them more attractive as they age."

Well then you better hustle back to Mens News Daily and let them all know of (what I agree) was a benefit of feminism for men. Since many of your brothers keep claiming feminism gave them no benefits.

NYMOM said...

"And clearly that crap being bandied about in the Scottish Parliament has nothing to do with "appeasing irresponsible men." It is nothing more than an attempt to open up for women yet another pathway into men's wallets and I guarantee you that women are all for it. If they lose some of their exclusive control over children in the process then they have only their own greed to blame."

It's always painted by men that these new laws and public policies are a benefit to women and children, but when the smoke usually clears it's generally a benefit for MEN as it increases their control over women and children...like this proposal clearly did. It forces women into defacto marriages with men they might not even know very well or care about if they do know them...

NYMOM said...

"Meanwhile solid two-parent families, even if they are the minority, will always rule because they produce the most wealth and the highest-quality offspring with the best chance of raising successful and productive generations to follow them.

They're the ones that all hope for western civilization rests upon."

Again that remains to be seen Richard as your numbers continue dropping...

NYMOM said...

"There's a popular stereotype portrayed in the film "The First Wives' Club" where aging men dump their loyal wives who built their fortunes to chase after pretty young bimbos (portrayed, ironically, by Sarah Jessica Parker) but the reality is that most men were not in a position, or desired, to do such a thing."

That's because men didn't have to divorce in the past since society allowed you to cheat right through your marriage. Although for reasons of securing inheritances men invented divorce and practiced it...

Ordinary men had no need of a legal divorce, they had nothing to negotiate over. This class just practiced what was known as the 'poor man's divorce' just abandoning your wife and children...

Actually I was reading about some tribe of North American indians where EVERYTHING in the marriage belonged to the wife in the event of divorce and I realized that the ONLY thing of value was the children...they had communal living arrangements in a long house and even shared farming tools, land, etc.,.

So basically when a man divorced in that society he packed up his bed roll and his weapons and went back to his original long house...

Of course then these men had no interest in fighting for custody as control of nothing passed to them through their children...and they were perfectly happy to leave them with their mothers...as most of western men were happy to do until the child support laws were changed and enforced...(notable exceptions were kings and titled lords which were not the majority of men anywhere)...

PolishKnight said...

Richard, it's worth keeping in mind that NYMOM doesn't think that single mothers should be able to sue men for child support, but rather "society" should when millions of them go on welfare. Despite NYMOM saying that welfare motherhood is just an aberration, this caveat keeps coming up because without it, and men's income, millions of children would starve to death and that would be the end of the nice little social experiment.

I think NYMOM is sincere in her offer, even as limited as it is, but I think it's impractical and unacceptable to most women. Most women want the right to sue for child-support either as single mothers or after they get divorced and in addition want a welfare state or generous benefits for mothers as a form of substitute housewifery. That's what THEY want.

Sadly, much like News Years resolutions, wanting something doesn't necessarily mean getting them. A super chivalrous state (using the term "chivalrous" loosely as most modern westerners understand it) is unsustainable.

What we have is a good ol' tragedy of the commons. Richard doesn't want his daughter to give up possible dreams of becoming a doctor or engineer and at the same time doesn't want to consider the fallout of women's equality on his male children and on society in general.

Anonymous said...

Oh I know, PK, and that's why I say the solution is too much for society to swallow at least in the near future. There's been a lot of time for the "smoke to clear," as NY puts it, on unmarried mothers having claims on men's resources whether thru CS or welfare but still women are all over it.

Of course she continues to contradict herself. "Men" are somehow masterminding this Scottish scheme to further open their wallets to women in order to gain the "control" over women and children which they supposedly aren't even interested in.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

The government over there is simply responding to whatever the women are hollering for, just like here. And it's always money.

For the rest, guilty as charged. Most dads are.

Richard

NYMOM said...

"Despite NYMOM saying that welfare motherhood is just an aberration, this caveat keeps coming up because without it, and men's income, millions of children would starve to death and that would be the end of the nice little social experiment."

I believe it is an aberration; but only time will tell whether or not mothers can take care of their own children from their own resources. I believe since the whole 'welfare state' is fairly recent, since about the 1930s, that most mothers can and will care for their own children. AND they'll do it from their own resources.

But again, only time will tell if I'm right.

NYMOM said...

"What we have is a good ol' tragedy of the commons. Richard doesn't want his daughter to give up possible dreams of becoming a doctor or engineer and at the same time doesn't want to consider the fallout of women's equality on his male children and on society in general."

Well Richard, I guess you see what I'm talking about with this whole mens rights movement. AND I don't think Polish Knight is a bad man (from the little I know of him over the internet here and on other sites, most of his responses appear decent) but basically for him and the whole movement he's a part of, and he is a part of it, life is a zero sum game. Where everything women achieve is taken from men, thus they have less...

So ultimately if you support him and the whole MRA movement it means your daughter, sister and other women you care about will have less.

Since that's what they are about...
undermining the gains women have made over the last forty or so years for the so-called good of 'society'...

Which is why I'm glad I have created this site. I see it as a voice in the wilderness giving women an alternate viewpoint on this whole fatherhood and mens rights movement business.

It's not a good thing for children and certainly not a good thing for their mothers (although it could have been). Basically it has morphed into another club to beat down women with and force them to toe the line or face losing their children...

PolishKnight said...

Zero Sum

NYMOM, I don't pretend to speak or represent the whole MRA movement anymore than you would represent the feminist movement. My position is considered radical even by Richard! Nonetheless, it's also very pragmatic and logical.

The very notion of "equality" is a "zero sum game." It's simply the nature of mathematics. If you need to make A = B, then A, or B, will need to give something up to balance the equation. Women cannot all earn as much money as men, on average, AND at the same time marry up. It's like politicians of old promising their constituents that they would all earn an "above average" wage. Or that everyone would be a gold medal Olympic athlete...

It's ironic that you've accused men of not sharing with women throughout history yet here you are griping that women will get less, due to my suggestion, but fail to consider what women get out of marriage not just financially, but also emotionally when they marry up. When a woman earns a lot of money, she's a prime candidate for spinsterhood and when she earns little, and no men are available to support her, she and her children often wind up poor or impovershed as a ward of the state. Where's the "gain" for women there?

When you talk about the so-called "gains" women have made for the good of society, I chuckle. As I said, it's been mostly about women getting more mad money to blow on luxuries or to deal with the problems created by women's one-sided equality (expensive daycare and fertility clinic treatments for aging career women, for example.)

Regarding you being a voice in the wilderness as an alternative to the MRA movement. I WISH we were mainstream and that you were the only voice opposing us but the opposite is true with the most significant opposition to the MRA movement coming from chivalrous patriarchal western men. When those guys are gone, then things will change and FAST and I will appear to be a moderate by comparison (check out women's rights in North Paris, France or the suburbs of Amsterdam.)

Regarding clubs beating down women and taking away their kids. Many grandparents raise children simply because single mothers are using them as a proxy for what a husband would have done (financial support and housing). The same thing with the state: As Barry Goldwater once put it: The state that gives you everything you want is the same one that takes it all away. If women want help from men, grandparents, and society then those three entities are going to have an attitude that they have earned access to their children and they would be right. There is no free lunch.

PolishKnight said...

Time after Time

NYMOM claims: "But again, only time will tell if I'm right."

PK responds: NYMOM, let's try this on for size: If a man turns 21 or so and says that, hey, he's been used to being supported by his parents for all of his life and that he'll need to rely upon them for the next 20 years or so until he gets his act together, maybe, and supports himself, how many parents (smart parents) would buy into that?

Men don't get a lot of time to drag their feet from women. That's what "manning up" is all about it. Either women man up, or they don't. They've had at least 2 generations and numerous freebies to get their act together and they're still as sexist as they were 100 years ago.

The patiarchy wasn't that bad if women seem to be clinging to it so much!

Yeah, women will live up to equality someday... How about "lending" me 50 grand and I'll get it back to you...

NYMOM said...

"Yeah, women will live up to equality someday... How about "lending" me 50 grand and I'll get it back to you..."

I would but I would also have to charge you 100% interest so you'd have to pay me back $100 grand...

AND you would still be complaining...

PolishKnight said...

You didn't specify a time period. I'm cool with that then. I'll repay you 50 years from now. Even if I just put it in the bank at 3 percent interest, I would have $219K!

I recently entered a contest for AMEX where they gave me an option, if I won of course, of a million dollar payout ($33K over 30 years) or a half million now. I took the bird in the hand, of course.

Regarding complaining... I love it when women such as yourselves use the whiner accusation. You've accused us of never sharing ANYTHING with women throughout history but fail to notice those comfortable lifeboat seats on the Titanic (with rich women bringing their LUGGAGE while leaving human beings behind), those free dinner dates, marrying up in income or remaining spinsters if you earn a lot, etc. Women's liberation has been nothing but one big, long goodie grab with, granted, the only thing men getting out of it is women becoming more slutty before marriage and this warm, fuzzy feeling that their daughters will be able to do as they please (even if they have a significant chance of spinsterhood.)

Seriously, NYMOM, we're adults here. Woman to man (or mother to man): Most women still crave and even demand traditional men who will bring as much financially to the table as possible. How is it unfair or whiny of me to observe that this is incompatable with equality? How am I the one being unreasonable? (Ok, those are rhetorical questions.) On the contrary, I accept women for who they ARE.

On the other hand, I find it amusing that you and V claim that all househusbands are really just lazy slobs. Even if that broad generalization was true, so what? Shouldn't women be tolerant and wait for "time" for men to figure out how to pick up after themselves just as we are supposed to wait a thousand years for women to figure out how to pick up a tab? How about cutting us men some of that slack?

virago said...

"On the other hand, I find it amusing that you and V claim that all househusbands are really just lazy slobs. Even if that broad generalization was true, so what? Shouldn't women be tolerant and wait for "time" for men to figure out how to pick up after themselves just as we are supposed to wait a thousand years for women to figure out how to pick up a tab? How about cutting us men some of that slack?"

How about you go fuck yourself! We've waited thousands of years for human rights. We don't owe you anything. In fact, you owe us even more!

PolishKnight said...

There's an old saying, V: If someone says they'll meet you in the middle, they usually are standing on the dividing line.

If sexist chivalrous entitlements were in such violation of your "human rights", you wouldn't need so much time to stop clinging to them.

Richard said he couldn't join me in being tough on women's equality because he worried about his daughter but you don't seem terribly concerned about your sons' well being. Why not just treat him like a serf and exploit him until he's 18 and throw him out the door? Oh, wait, that's what welfare and child-support unwed mothers do to their sons. Already done. Then they gripe that there are so many "bad men" around threatening them walking home that aliens must have plopped out and raised (since the mothers are never to blame for anything). For your daughters', whose going to provide for them the sexist chivalrous perks they crave when fewer such men are being raised?

You treat chivalrous patriarchal providers like the settlers treated buffalo.

Regarding blank-ing myself: You don't want to believe it, but I had plenty of 30 something career women willing to date me because i was among the best remaining available bachelor to meet up to their sexist needs. I've never said that this made me a stud. Just the contrary, actually. I give myself a honest 4 out of 10 on the attractiveness scale but as Einstein and West Virginia marriage laws put it: Everything's relative.

I've done more with that 4 and with a working class background than most upper class attractive career women could do with a silver platter handed to them. Men denied you "human rights" (note, voting rights aren't "human rights" since resident aliens are not allowed to vote) not only because we CAN, among with the other multitude of things we can do better that don't involve squeezing out starving babies, but because you squander any resources we do GIVE you.

You have a point: A thousand years from now we'll still "owe" you a living because you'll still be NEEDING us oppressive sexist patriarchs to support you. That is if this whole victim-entitlement nonsense doesn't collapse within our lifetimes...

virago said...

Very impressive PK. However, I am left in infer that you must really suck in bed. On that other post, you said NYMOM and I never have anything good to say about our husbands. That's not true in my case. The man can fuck all night long, and I have multiple orgasms EVERY TIME. He's extremely well-endowed. I really doubt your wife can say the same. I feel sorry for her. It must be hard for her not to throw-up when your viagra kicks in.

Anonymous said...

ROFLMAO! Drinks all around, PK! I knew V was going to pull out the small penis line at some point and by golly she didn't disappoint us. Don't you love it when they're reduced to this?

Better get a good night's sleep after straining your brain so hard to come up with that one, V.

Richard

virago said...

Well, than have a drink and a good night's sleep for me Richard. I'm going to be too busy having sex.

PolishKnight said...

Using Someone for Sex

Wow! I AM stunned and, at my age, that takes a lot! You've got it backwards, Richard. V isn't accusing me of having a small penis but rather the opposite: she's trying to brag about her hubby's sexual prowness to make up for some insecurity of her own. And it sounds like pretty hollow bragging to boot.

Look carefully at my comment above. I'm not claiming to be a stud. Never said I was nor needed to be. My point is that is NOT what is at the core of a good relationship including being a good parent. It's about taking care of each others, and each others children's, essential needs. If V's hubby was such a catch, she wouldn't have tossed him out and leashed him. To extend, pardon the pun, an old saying: It's what you do with it that counts.

V provides an opportunity for one of my favorite observations: No matter how great sex a woman may get, blah blah blah, she's still being "f-ed" by the man. Friends and female relatives told me that even when the guy was great looking and performed like an Olympic athlete, they still felt like, and I'm quoting literally here, like "he used her for sex!"

I view women's, and my own, sexual enjoyment as our own respective personal responsibilities. Most men can have multiple orgasms anytime and nearly anywhere. (There's a great Clinton story about that where all he needed was a blanket on Air Force 1 even with a high schooler in the next row!) So what? V has unintentionally revealed that her domination of her hubby goes even to the bedroom itself. Where's her pride in HIS enjoyment? Her whole view of men on this forum has been about what she can squeeze (another pun) out of them and griping about us holding out (another pun) on her. The perpetual Queen Victim whom the world (us) owes a living to.

Here's what I can and love to say about my wife: She's the greatest. Period. I am proud to gone halfway around the world for her, whether I had to or not, because she is worth it. She's not perfect, but she doesn't need to be for me to love her. She sees that sentiment in my eyes everytime I come home and I see it reflected right back.

And that's enough for me and I consider myself lucky. Those are my values.

Anonymous said...

Nuff said, PK. It's different for someone like V, I guess, but one thing I wouldn't do is discuss my private life with my wife to a bunch of misandric strangers on the internet. Because I love her.

Brings to mind a painfully appropriate proverb concerning pearls and swine...

Richard

PolishKnight said...

Job Description

Richard, I think we have both discussed our "private lives" here and this is what these forums are about: People's families and our roles as parents but also, as importantly, as spouses and members of the community.

As I said previously, NYMOM (perhaps unintentionally) refers to motherhood as if it's in a vacuum. That if ALL a mother does is "mother" and she should get society's adulation. Being a decent mother, and minimal father is something else: A father doesn't just buy food and give it to the kids, he has to EARN it. He has to get along with his spouse. He needs to set an example as a father, breadwinner and spouse for the children to grow up properly to functioning adults.

Starving babies and gang bangers put on the streets by the age of 18 are a social menace. Showing off a baby and demanding society reward a mother for producing it is similar to someone handing their spouse a bag of seeds and dirt in leau of roses.

All that said, I don't mind getting down and dirty provided it's just about me and doesn't violate my wife's privacy.

Tell you all what, if NYMOM and V are interested, I'll even invite my wife here and they can have at her.

Anonymous said...

By private I mean sexual. That's off limits. A simple matter of respect.

R.

PolishKnight said...

I'm not a prude, Richard. I don't mind talking about sexual matters provided they don't violate the "privacy" of my wife.

I find it funny though how V's talking like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Maybe it's a generational thing?

virago said...

"Nuff said, PK. It's different for someone like V, I guess, but one thing I wouldn't do is discuss my private life with my wife to a bunch of misandric strangers on the internet. Because I love her."

I think I'm going to puke. PK was always bragging about his sexual prowess with hookers. That's okay. I brag about my husband's sexual prowess, and it's not? FYI, the majority of men ARE NOT going to be offended if their wives brag about their sexual prowess on the internet. My husband certainly isn't. That offends you Richard? Too bad. I've seen some of those MRA/FRA websites that you and PK like to frequent. I've seen many a conversation complaining "the bitch won't give me any" and "my wife complained about my pre-mature ejaculation problem! How dare she? Wah!" or "My wife just lays there like a wet noodle". You go there and tell them not to talk about their private sex lives with their wives. They'd laugh their asses off and probably ban you from the site. You know it, and I know it. Don't try telling me any different, you hypocrite. What really offends you is that I'm a WOMAN bragging about my husband's sexual prowess. If I was a man, you wouldn't give a shit. That said. I brought it up becuse I'm sick of PK bragging about how he's every career woman's wet dream. That's obviously not the case, or he would be with one right now. He tries to play that false humility crap-"I'm not trying to say I'm a stud". Yet, he clearly thinks that he's one when he was bragging about all the hookers he had to pay for because he couldn't cut the mustard on the dating scene.

"Tell you all what, if NYMOM and V are interested, I'll even invite my wife here and they can have at her."

I'm not interested. She married you to get a green card. More than likely, she'll just tell us what YOU WANT HER TO. There isn't any way to know if those are her true opinions, or if your strong-arming her into it. From what you've said in other posts, I can read between the lines about what kind of man you really are when it comes to women. I'm not interested in playing a part in victimizing your wife just so she can validate your ego.

PolishKnight said...

V, when did I ever brag about "sexual prowness with hookers?" I think I said that it was an emotionally empowering experience for me but this isn't the same as "sexual prowness".

You then go on to put other words into men's mouths: "the bitch won't give me any" and "my wife complained about my pre-mature ejaculation problem! How dare she? Wah!" and "My wife just lays there like a wet noodle".

I never read such things on Glenn's site nor elsewhere. I think these are things you project onto men in order to justify your own sexism and victim entitlements. It's funny that you claim we're whiners but you seem to expect white knight western men will forever hand you things as victims for not winning nobel prizes for squeezing out starving babies.

I never said I was every career woman's wet dream. Hahahaha! I gave myself a _4_ out of 10! This is hardly false humility. My claim that despite me being slightly below average in looks that I could date desperate aging career women is MUCH MORE PLAUSIBLE than your claim to know lots of genuine househusbands and "studies" and that all these men are slackers.

Logic 101 exercise: If my wife married me to get a green card, and she has it, then there's no way I can "strong arm" her. She got what she wanted, yes? On the other hand, you brag about your performing hubby gets you off but you make him pay "child" support to you and have the right to kick him out the door if he gets uppity and your brother is a real tough guy when, provided his wife approves of course, he tells me off through you. Hahaha!

Finally, you regard being a participant in "victimizing my wife" if you read posts from her here? Yep, there are so many ways for women to be victimized. That's the ONE thing you're good at other than squeezing out starving babies!

Anonymous said...

"What really offends you is that I'm a WOMAN bragging about my husband's sexual prowess. If I was a man, you wouldn't give a shit. That said. I brought it up becuse I'm sick of PK bragging about how he's every career woman's wet dream."

V, dear, I'm not offended in the least by any of your "bragging." Brag away. It's simply not something I'd participate in.

Far from being offended, I'm no end amused that you would feel the need to pull out a canned shaming ploy so old that it limped out of Egypt on a cane.

If anyone around here "doesn't understand the male psyche" it's you hands down, otherwise you'd know that the appearance of this particular jab in a discussion communicates nothing to us except an admission of frustration and defeat. And limited intelligence.

And in the end you embarassed yourself for nothing. Your husband's prowess has absofuckinlutely no bearing at all on whether PK is a career woman's wet dream or not.

Richard

virago said...

"V, when did I ever brag about "sexual prowness with hookers?" I think I said that it was an emotionally empowering experience for me but this isn't the same as "sexual prowness"."

So, basically your saying you suck in bed, and you hired hookers to make you feel better about yourself. Well, great, now that we got that established, did it ever occur to you that you don't bring up hookers on a blog about mothers and child custody? They just don't mix. You even told Richard to take his son to one for cripe's sake. WTF? That's the kind of shit you save for the MRA/FRA websites, and don't tell me they don't talk about it. I've seen those types of comments on them. It's been a while since I've looked at them, but I remember them well enough. You whine about the language I use, but I really think you need to be told off. I'm good at it, and it pisses you off. It's a reminder to you that your just an insecure guy who feels inferior to women ESPECIALLY CAREER WOMEN.

"V, dear, I'm not offended in the least by any of your "bragging." Brag away. It's simply not something I'd participate in"

Thanks for permission Richard! *rolls eyes*

PolishKnight said...

Er, what we've established is that you have no evidence of me bragging about sexual prowness meaning that the only one engaging in such conduct on a blog "about mothers and child custody" is YOU. As usual, you engage in the same conduct you claim to be a victim of.

Oh, so now we hear that it's "been a while since you looked at them" but you know what they are writing about presently just as you inaccurately put words into my mouth and then happily engaged in the same conduct. Yeah, that really established your credibility on all the other claims you make about the househusbands you know and the "studies" you have read...

Now you're bragging at being good at telling men who "need" it, off. I don't deny that you can put many submissive men in their place (or at least the place you have for them). I, however, am not one of them.

Sorry, honey, I'm taken.

It also undermines your credibility that you confuse me with Richard. Richard wasn't "whining" about your language but merely said that he found it inappropriate for HIM to engage in such behavior. In other words, he wouldn't wallow around in the mud but if you want to, go ahead.

It's rather difficult for you to accuse me of feeling inferior to career women when you and NYMOM claim they're victims who need chivalrous patronage men to rescue them forever because they're so tramatized by a lack of "human rights" that they can't handle equality full blast. It took me a decade or so to deal with any crap from my childhood. On the other hand, 10,000 years from now women like you will still be damsels in distress like Olive Oil. "Popeye! Saaaave me!"

virago said...

"It took me a decade or so to deal with any crap from my childhood."

Your chauvinistic turd of a father sat you down and told you all the ways you can't trust women while your stupid mother listened from the other room while her husband demeaned her sex to her son. This guy WARPED your views on women. HE is the reason why you couldn't find a decent woman. It had nothing to do with American career women, and EVERYTHING to do with your sexist personality courtesy of your father. Your dealing with the crap from your childhood all right. Your still dealing with it to this day. That's why you couldn't cut the mustard on the dating scene. You think you found Nirvana with your wife. What you found is a woman who didn't have too many options except to marry you. A woman who probably wouldn't have looked at you twice otherwise. You like the idea of her being financially dependant on you because it makes it harder for her to leave you. Also, you mistakenly believe that these foreign women are somehow more submissive and will do whatever you want. When men like you use the word "traditional" that's just code for submissive doormat. Yeah, that's why these women end up getting abused because they weren't as submissive as you guys want them to be. Well, sooner or later, your wife is going to realize exactly what kind of a guy you really are. She'll leave you, and your just going to be another pathetic asshole screaming out to the Hague Convention and the FRA websites that "the bitch took my kids for no reason-Wah!" Well, when it happens, and it will, you can thank DADDY for that.

Anonymous said...

Hey PK, did our resident clairvoyant and amateur psychoanalyst get it right this time?

I don't remember anything you told us about your Dad except that he worked like a dog and told you not to marry anyone with previous marriages and kids and baggage.

Hell, BOTH my parents told me that. Both my wife's parents told her the same. That's common sense.

It's the biggest non-surprise I've ever heard of that V is all about "psychology." From what I've seen most psychologists can't manage their own lives much less tell others how to manage theirs, and they have some of the most screwed up kids around.

My wife got a secondary degree in it as an accompaniment to the degree she actually uses, and she came away from it convinced that the whole field was invented for the sole purpose of giving women seeking their M.R.S. Degrees something to major in.

So when's the final exam in "Psychoanalyzing Complete Strangers On the Internet 101," V?

R.

virago said...

"I don't remember anything you told us about your Dad except that he worked like a dog and told you not to marry anyone with previous marriages and kids and baggage"

Yeah, he said this, and he also said his father told him women were untrustworthy while his mother was listening from another room. He said that. I don't exactly remmember where, but he did say it. He also told us some sob story about his parents dumping him on relatives for two years because they couldn't afford to support him and his sibling(s). In other words, they abandoned their kids. And it was an intact two-parent home too. What a disgrace! I would rather die than give up my kids even if I had to go on welfare. They would still be better off raised my me on welfare than by some relative or a foster home. Apparently, PK's parents didn't think he was worth it.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, I remember that two-year thing. Well, I'll say this much, V: If and when men start treating women like REAL equals and there's no longer any handouts from the "patriarchy" for you gals to exploit, there'll be a heluva lot of you doing the exact same thing if you want to keep your kids out of state custody.

And a heluva lot more who won't think kids are "worth it" if they don't come with a check attached and will go back to waiting to breed until such time as they have a proper home prepared.

"he also said his father told him women were untrustworthy while his mother was listening from another room."

Women ARE untrustworthy, V. So are men. It's a a human quality, not a gendered one. It takes a whole lot of time observing someone in a variety of contexts to decide whether they're a good choice to undertake parenting with. Parents used to perform much of this function for their kids. Now we're all mostly on our own.

That's why there's no excuse for making kids with someone you hardly know, which unfortunately leads to most of the situations which you and NY squawk about here.

PK and I, on the other hand, (or at least I, since I can't really speak for PK) didn't just casually hand over our futures to some nice-looking unknown quantity and then whine because the law wouldn't erase the fall-out of our choices for us. Nor did our wives.

And that by itself accounts for much of the difference between our society's winners and losers.

That's the disgrace, right there.

R.

PolishKnight said...

Damned if we do, Damned if we don't

Recently, Richard, V and NYMOM got chatty again saying you and I weren't contributing positively to this forum and were a distraction.

Now V wants to blabber on about my childhood? It's a neat allegory for how she views men as oppressors for being protective breadwinners and earning more bacon than women, and mere losers on the couch if they aren't.

I ONLY brought up problems with my childhood to address the claim that NYMOM made that women should be excused for their clinging to sexism that supposedly oppresses them because of problems OTHER women had in the past. I was pointing out that ADULTS, at least MEN, are not allowed to make that excuse and her reaction is a perfect example.

All I'm going to say in response to V's grasping cheap shot is, well, if the worst that happened to me was a lecture about the birds and bees from my father, I'd be quite happy. And it wasn't demeaning to women. I was told to be considerate of women's concerns both emotional and physical, that many of them were good hearted and nervous too and I had to keep that in mind during dating rather than just thinking with my hormones, etc.

There's no need for you to say that my wife wouldn't have looked at me otherwise. Er, duh. I already gave myself a 4 out of 10! One of the things my father taught me during fishing was to be patient, but sometimes pick up bait and move on. To be proactive. So I traveled around the world to find a better person than I could locally. I have said that all along. It beats sitting around waiting to "find" someone to come up to them and then griping about their flaws and throwing them out. (Hint)

Note: I never said my wife was submissive and would do whatever I want but YOU have bragged that your husband is in that position and in order to make up for THAT revelation, you gave us a TMI moment. It's not my insecurity that I need to bind women to me financially, but merely the observation that nearly all women INSIST UPON IT including yourself.

You claim to be so tough yet you couldn't accept the offer to face up to her directly here. I'll even go one step further than that: You or NYMOM are invited to come on by for tea and vodka anytime and say hello (Richard too). I'm not hiding nothing.

Regarding odds of my wife divorcing me: The state department's own website reports an 80% marriage success rate (although that mixes in long and short term marriage rates which mean that long term rates are even higher!)

Regarding screaming out to the Hague Convenation: That brings us back to the fact that you're the one arguing for victim entitlements from oppressor sexist men for all time. I grew up. Give it a try sometime.

PolishKnight said...

"Ok Solomon. Cut it up!"

V, your claim that you would rather die than give up your kids and would go on welfare just makes you come across as a psycho domineering BUM. "Abandoning" your kids would be a step UP!

The house wasn't safe after Hurricane Agnes so we stayed with relatives while my parents worked with a LOAN to rebuild. There was nothing open. The schools were all flooded too. We stayed with some very nice relatives and actually had a great time with our cousins.

A good friend of mine from Switzerland sent her kids off, about the same age I was when this happened, to a British boarding school. Not because she didn't love them or want them around but rather she had done this as a child and felt it was a wonderful experience. She had a hard time getting them home after graduation! They loved the horseback riding, outings to the mainland, etc. Her son had women literally lined up to date him with his English accent!

We never thought twice about staying with our relatives as being a hardship. Our main concern was seeing our home rebuilt.

Sheesh. You remind me of those "moms" in the 80's who put leases on their kids...

PolishKnight said...

Richard says: "Women ARE untrustworthy, V. So are men."

I think my parents were harder on my sister's suitors than they were on mine. Perhaps because I brought home some incredible women: One was an auto mechanic (and they had 4 cars so she was REAL welcome!) Another I brought home at the age of 22 was an associate professor.

Have I blown BOTH of your minds yet?

So you must be wondering why I'm such a raging sexist. Tell you what, I have an answer for that but I don't want V griping that I'm boring her and wasting her time, blah blah blah. I'll email you Richard with the info. If V wants it, she'll have to ask. Not nicely, just ask.

Anonymous said...

I love how V thinks we like women to be financially dependent because it "makes it harder for them to leave us."

When that's EXACTLY the kind of female who'll walk out with a guy's kids and assets and two decades worth of chilimony, bill him for the court costs, and then pass herself off as a poor helpless damsel in distress to hook the next sucker.

If V's ever actually read any of the MRA blogs that she's so vocal about she'd know that most of those guys no longer want financially dependent wives for that very reason.

If they take the plunge at all they prefer women who can at the very least support themselves if they crap out on the vows, and let them get on with their own lives.

Imagine how much worse it would have been for your friend with the drinking and driving wife if she HADN'T been a near equal earner?

And I have to say that when figuring your own way out of a financial difficulty is held up as a "disgrace" compared with living off the taxpayers, we've reached a new high in low.

How does V think people got through hard times before the misguided government created welfare as a multigenerational career choice?

R.

PolishKnight said...

Richard, it's worth reminding you that equality and high income careers are not necessary for people to not be financially dependent and to demonstrate a work ethic. Didja ever see King of the Hill?

On the other hand, I know a lot of professionals, men and women both, who have a hard time making ends meet because they don't understand the simple equation: Earnings greater than expenses.

The notion of a woman not "having" to work or a man keeping a "traditional" woman at home is largely confined to here in the states due to socialist legislation I mentioned previously or Islamic cultures. The rest of the world has EVERYONE around the house doing their best to contribute including the children where it's legal or expected.

virago said...

"So you must be wondering why I'm such a raging sexist. Tell you what, I have an answer for that but I don't want V griping that I'm boring her and wasting her time, blah blah blah. I'll email you Richard with the info. If V wants it, she'll have to ask. Not nicely, just ask."

No thanks, I'm not interested.

PolishKnight said...

V, considering your fascination with my personal life and motivations above, that statement seems rather implausible.

But hey, that's ok with me. Until you change your mind, of course.

virago said...

"V, considering your fascination with my personal life and motivations above, that statement seems rather implausible."

I commented on personal information that you VOLUNTARILY posted on a PUBLIC BLOG that is in direct conflict with your own sexist beliefs. Anything and everything you say is open season as far as I'm concerned. You knew the risks when you posted that stuff. It's like putting your garbage on the curb. Anyone can go through it. Don't whine when someone does. After all, I don't recall ever asking you about any of that stuff, and I'm not going to start now. You posted enough info. about yourself for me to get a pretty good idea how you became this way. I don't need to be fed some bullshit in a private email. Btw, who's fascinated with who? Your nuts if you think I'm going to give you my private email just so you can tell me how you became a "raging sexist".

"But hey, that's ok with me. Until you change your mind, of course."

No, I won't change my mind. I really don't care.

PolishKnight said...

V, if you rummage repeatedly through trash left on the street and then spread it around then it doesn't make sense for you to "whine" that people litter.

Hey, feel free to "not care about me" all you like. You'd make a great publicity agent!

FYI: I never required you to offer me your private email. I merely said I would send the info to Richard through email to avoid dumping it in public. You jumped to a conclusion that wasn't supported by the facts and don't want to hear differently.

virago said...

Whatever PK. It doesn't matter. I'm not interested. End of story.

virago said...

"V, if you rummage repeatedly through trash left on the street and then spread it around then it doesn't make sense for you to "whine" that people litter."

Not quite. Your like a suspect to a crime that throws away incriminating evidence. Then when the police detectives go through the trash and find that evidence, they manage to piece together what really happened. Of course, the suspect than tries to have the evidence thrown out of court by claiming that police violated his "privacy" because they went through his trash. Yet, the evidence is deemed admissible in court because the suspect put out the trash (with all the evidence) in a public place (the curb) that is accessible to anyone. This actually happened. It's the perfect analogy as far as I'm concerned. So, like that suspect, you shouldn't "whine" when the police detectives (moi)find incriminating evidence in trash that you threw out on the public curb (this blog). Comprende?

PolishKnight said...

Er, V, logic 101: I'm hardly "whining" about you being obsessed with my personal life when I'm offering you MORE of it.

You're like the classical teenage girl who screams: "I don't care WHAT you think!" and slams the door, and then comes back again and screams some more.

Anonymous said...

Well I'M whining about her being obseessed with your personal life. It's got nothing to do with any of NY's issues and it doesn't negate a single point you've made.

R.

virago said...

PK screams, "I'm absolutely dying to tell V why I'm such a sexist, and she won't play nice and ask!" WWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!

PK stomps feet and holds breath.

Richard whines, "I'm not getting any attention! It's not fair! WWWWAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!"

Richard falls on floor kicking and screaming.

Anonymous said...

Attention, V?

You've got a lot to learn about the "male psyche," little girl. Better get to your class. A logic class wouldn't hurt either.

R.

PolishKnight said...

V sure sounds tough in her imagination...

virago said...

You two are so full of shit! PK whines that I'm "obsessed" with his personal life, and Richard whines because my so-called "obsession" takes away from NYMOM's issues. Yet, the first chance you guys get, PK runs over to that other post on parental abductions and makes some comment about my "allegations and prejudices" because he married a foreign woman, and Richard feeds right into it with his own comment. And of course, dumb and dumber totally over look the fact that I didn't mention PK's personal life ONE TIME throughout that entire post. He's the one who calls attention to it, and I'm obsessed? Bullshit! You complain when I bring it up, but secretly, you love all the attention! That's why you went out of your way to bring it up on the other post-BECAUSE I DIDN'T. And btw, Richard, I haven't commented on this post for a while. For all your whining about "NYMOM's issues", you sure haven't posted anything new concerning this post in the time I've been away. That's because you didn't have anything to say! Next time, you want to whine about someone getting off the issues, make sure you have something to say first, jackass. Maybe you guys don't think I know anything about the "male psyche", but I sure as hell understand YOURS. And it's exactly what I said it was-Richard whining for attention, and PK whining because I don't give a fuck about why he became a "raging sexist". You both are a couple of hypocrites! I think what really bugs you-especially PK- is that I can tell you off, and NYMOM doesn't respond to your demands when you whine to her about it. Yet, NYMOM deletes your posts and tells you to take it somewhere else if you don't like it! That really pisses you off! Well, tough shit! You aren't going to shut me up, and your not going to get rid of me. So, I'm going to give you both a royal FUCK OFF, and a reminder that I'm not going to suck your dicks for you. You can go to Glenn Sacks for that treatment. In the meantime, you can both just stick your heads back up your asses and inhale your shit 'til you suffocate. Believe me! The world will be a better place.

Anonymous said...

Kicking, screaming everywhere, and not one word of substance. Sigh...

R.

PolishKnight said...

Wow! There's nothing I need to say in response to that outburst that I haven't already said before. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

virago said...

"Wow! There's nothing I need to say in response to that outburst that I haven't already said before"

There's not a whole hell of a lot you can say because you know damn well that I'M RIGHT. And there was more than enough substance to get Richard pretty pissed off too judging from that rant on the other post. OH, well. There's a reason I call myself Virago. It has two definitions. The oldest definition means strong, warrior woman. That's how I see myself. The second definition means a shrew, termagant, loud, scolding woman, in other words, a bitch. This is how the trolls see me. Mission accomplished.:-)

Anonymous said...

That's how you see yourself? ROFLMAO! Splendid. Add "tantrumming teenager" and you've got it.

Mission accomplished? Is the mission making us see YOU in some certain way? I thought the mission was to discuss gender issues related to motherhood. How is YOUR appearance of any significance?

R.

PolishKnight said...

Richard, "Warrior Woman" is a perfect example of what I wrote elsewhere about the distinction between "women as mothers" versus women _being_ mothers. For V, children are chattel, men traditional resources to provide for her, and society is supposed to regard her as a Victim (with a capital V) to excuse her own double standard sexism.

Then she constantly calls us "whiners". Hilarious. "Warrior woman" indeed! It's a total absurdity. Only via chivalrous patronage can such an illusion have a modicum of plausibility.

Anonymous said...

A real "warrior woman" would spit on the handouts and perks and protections of the evil patriarchy and go to Umoja!

It's the same way teeny-boppers posture about how big and bad and independent they are but "don't forget my allowance and I'm hungry, what's for dinner?"

But if her mission is in her image, then at least it's obvious who's desperate for attention here. Thanks, V.

R.