Do Not Marry, Do Not Have Children

[NorthAmericanguy]

I found this article and figured I post it:





"Marriage is a foundation of civilized life. No advanced civilization has ever existed without the married, two-parent family. Those who argue that our civilization needs healthy marriages to survive are not exaggerating.

And yet I cannot, in good conscience, urge young men to marry today. For many men (and some women), marriage has become nothing less than a one-way ticket to jail. Even the New York Times has reported on how easily “the divorce court leads to a jail cell, mostly for men. In fact, if I have one urgent piece of practical advice for young men today it is this: Do not marry and do not have children.

Spreading this message may also, in the long run, be the most effective method of saving marriage as an institution. For until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today challenge by gays. The central problem is the divorce laws.

It is well known that half of all marriages end in divorce. But widespread misconceptions lead many to believe it cannot happen to them. Many conscientious people think they will never be divorced because they do not believe in it. In fact, it is likely to happen to you whether you wish it or not.

First, you do not have to agree to the divorce or commit any legal transgression. Under no fault divorce laws, your spouse can divorce you unilaterally without giving any reasons. The judge will then grant the divorce automatically without any questions.

But further, not only does your spouse incur no penalty for breaking faith; she can actually profit enormously. Simply by filing for divorce, your spouse can take everything you have, also without giving any reasons. First, she will almost certainly get automatic and sole custody of your children and exclude you from them, without having to show that you have done anything wrong. Then any unauthorized contact with your children is a crime. Yes, for seeing your own children you will be subject to arrest.

There is no burden of proof on the court to justify why they are seizing control of your children and allowing your spouse to forcibly keep you from them. The burden of proof (and the financial burden) is on you to show why you should be allowed to see your children.

The divorce industry thus makes it very attractive for your spouse to divorce you and take your children. (All this earns money for lawyers whose bar associations control the careers of judges.) While property divisions and spousal support certainly favor women, the largest windfall comes through the children. With custody, she can then demand “child support that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more of your income. (The amount is set by committees consisting of feminists, lawyers, and enforcement agents all of whom have a vested interest in setting the payments as high as possible.) She may spend it however she wishes. You pay the taxes on it, but she gets the tax deduction.

You could easily be left with monthly income of a few hundreds dollars and be forced to move in with relatives or sleep in your car. Once you have sold everything you own, borrowed from relatives, and maximized your credit cards, they then call you a deadbeat dad and take you away in handcuffs. You are told you have abandoned your children and incarcerated without trial.

Evidence indicates that, as men discover all this, they have already begun an impromptu marriage “strike�: refusing to marry or start families, knowing they can be criminalized if their wife files for divorce. “Have anti-father family court policies led to a men’s marriage strike?� ask Glenn Sacks and Dianna Thompson in the Philadelphia Enquirer. In Britain, fathers tour university campuses warning young men not to start families. In his book, From Courtship to Courtroom, Attorney Jed Abraham concludes that the only protection for men to avoid losing their children and everything else is not to start families in the first place.

Is it wise to disseminate such advice? If people stop marrying, what will become of the family and our civilization?

Marriage is already all but dead, legally speaking, and divorce is the principal reason. The fall in the Western birth rate is directly connected with divorce law.

It is also likely that same-sex marriage is being demanded only because of how heterosexuals have already debased marriage through divorce law. "The world of no-strings heterosexual hookups and 50% divorce rates preceded gay marriage", advocate Andrew Sullivan points out. All homosexuals are saying…is that, under the current definition, there's no reason to exclude us. If you want to return straight marriage to the 1950s, go ahead. But until you do, the exclusion of gays is simply an anomaly and a denial of basic civil equality.

We will not restore marriage by burying our heads in the sand; nor simply by preaching to young people to marry, as the Bush administration government therapy programs now do. The way to restore marriage as an institution in which young people can place their trust, their children, and their lives is to make it an enforceable contract. We urgently need a national debate about divorce, child custody, and the terms under which the government can forcibly sunder the bonds between parents and their children. We owe it to future generations, if there are to be any.



Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D., is assistant professor of government at Patrick Henry College and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. His book, Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family, has just been published by Cumberland House Publishing."



http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/14/do- ... -children/




And as usual, the comments are just as interesting:

•
"i am 56. been married 2 times. both ex's have a great lifestyle...nice homes, lots of friends (need that network of other women don't you know), ability to travel, buy stuff and spend, spend, spend. the house on the lake is gone. well not gone, just gone from me. she has the pontoon, jet skies, neighbors who have the same stuff and all the toys to go with it. so where do you think the kids and grandkids like to hang out? who do you think they believe produced all that "stuff"?

stay single and don't reproduce! ever."




•"How about the loneliness issue as you grow old (unless man gets killed in war). Is the nursing home the only hope we have?"

This issue comes up often among men when they first consider that there's no good reason to marry in America these days, after one does a truthful and accurate cost-benefit analysis.

First of all, even marrying does not protect men from loneliness. It's quite possible to be married and lonely, particularly those men held in marriage through threats and weakness, where the man has become little more than an economic slave to his wife.

Just as importantly one must remember that around 50% of marriages end in divorce, including two-thirds of all new marriages.

So, by marrying in America (or other Western nations), a man STILL stands a significant chance of being divorced and faced with the threat of loneliness.... yet be forced to pay, pay, pay to an ex-wife who no longer provides sex, companionship, or any other comfort to her ex-husband.

The key to avoiding loneliness in old age is no longer "marriage". For modern men, other social structures must be created to replace the companionship and social needs. Friendships with other men are key examples of such social structures.

And believe it or not, since women tend to outlive men anyway, there's never any shortage of older women to provide companionship for surviving older men.

Of course a man can still turn his back on the country that turned ITS back on him - move overseas to a nation where men are treated well, and with the care and caution that Dave emphasizes, choose a wife..... and remain married in that country with her.






•"You don’t have to get married to be destroyed by the courts. They can do everything to a single man, and then some, that they do to a victim of divorce.

The only surefire way to avoid becoming a slave to the state is to stay away from women altogether.

Just try explaining that to a young man in his late teens or twenties.

Every generation wants to pass on their knowledge about how to avoid the pitfalls of life, but few children learn from our experiences, they learn from their own."



•"There is another thing I wanted to mention. To say that modern women are self-destructive would be an epic understatement. WOMEN have completely embraced hedonism in all its forms. WOMEN destroy their own children when they take away their father; I will never believe they don't know this is so. If women can do this to their own children, was it the "patriarchy" all along forcing women to give a damn about children? If that is the case, women are worthless wastes of space. WOMEN debase themselves by pursuing complete sexual freedom. WOMEN carve up their bodies to pursue some ideal self-image.

Women treat men like they hate us, but I believe that really they hate themselves. Such self-destructive behavior indicates only that one possibility. And that is something that men can't fix. Men are prudent to withdraw from such a situation. It is women that need to get their shit together, not men. It is not for men to help women find the truth of this or that. They are on their own, that is what they wanted, and that is as it should be."


•
Folks (med students etc) who act a sperm donors are out of their minds. States are moving in on fertility clinics to force them to divulge donor names so states can collect child support from the donors. Artificial insemination does not in any way breach the long-held tenet ensuring the "right of the child to be supported by both parents".



•
..:Jeff ..The main problem is 40-50 years ago the feminist broke up mens social networks such as the Elks clubs, bowling leagues, ect. ect. with the chant "breaking the patriarchy".

men are now divided and conquered, and are indoctrinated by constant exposure to agit-prop; to keep us seperated and suspicious of each other!!"




•
"Without legal rights within the family there is no authority, without authority within the family there is no manhood. I don’t understand why people seem to miss this very important point. If subjugation is your desire, then by all means get married. You will however be at the mercy of an ill-logical, overly emotional, socially programmed female that most likely hates men."



•"From my experience, It seems it's mostly the poor and uneducated that are marrying, and the middle class are having kids at 40 that are coming out with special needs because they waited so long!!

..Can such a society exist very long???"






•
"Men are workaholic? Yes, Jeff..... who do you believe must PAY for those luxuries that the family consumes?

Who pays the lion's share of the bills, who pays for the second SUV, who pays for the children's orthodontics, who pays for the vacations, and who do you believe gets the ax if he actually insists on fiscal responsibility and moderation of spending in the family?

Hate to be the first to break the news to you, Jeff..... but American women are often quite self-obsessed princesses with unshakable belief in their own entitlements and privileges."




•"Do not get married, but if you do BE sure you do not have kids...men, get a vasectomy, do not leave it up to the woman for b/c. When a woman has a baby and if at the time she is working?? First thing she will want to do is quit work.....then she will get pregnant again to LOCK you in. But then again, you need to take care of the b/c thing yourself. You are happy together, sooooon as you add a kid, the marriage is a downhill slide from there on out, your freedom, your money, days off....is gone. That fishing boat you bought, that hunting trip you wanted to take....guess what YOU won't be taking them. You think "Gee how much work can a baby be?" A lot! You work 40 hours a week, the baby gets sick, screams all night....guess what you will be doing the next day....going to g to work dead tired. You have a nice house? Nice car...not for long.....and don't forget you have been warned. Usually the guys do not want to have a vasectomy, so if you don't and she gets pregnant, have fun with that one....signed a female."



Ahh! There was another comment that talked about how America is finished and how South American culture will be a welcome change as they still have a good idea of of how real families are suppose to operate; but I can't find it. It was basically what ladislav and myself were taking about in another post.

[well-informed]

I don't see any of the misandric divorce laws changing anytime soon. The divorce industry rakes in billions of dollars every single year from divorced men. They need men to marry and then get divorced by women. The jobs of lawyers, family court judges, half-ass therapists, social workers, etc are dependant on married men ESPECIALLY if there are children involved.

Also politicians aren't going to reform the misandric laws because they have to keep up with the femanazi's demands and they were probably lawyers themselves as well in their career. That's why feminists keep shaming men into marriage constantly, not because of love but for men to get shafted because eventually they will.

They need manginas to keep getting married and divorced. Only manginas are delusional enough to believe marriage is the same as love.

[boycottamericanwomen]

Just boycott American and western women, and once enough men do this, the feminists will lose out automatically. To win the "battle of the sexes", we simply just don't show up and boycott them. No need to fight, just drop out and let the feminists rot in the hell that they have created for themselves, while men are living happily with foreign and asian wives.

That's why I stress so much to boycott western women and go foreign. Once enough men do this, the feminists will lose.

[skateboardstephen]

the fact that they take you to jail for non payment of child support is a direct violation of the 6th amendment.and p***y whooped men and bitches try to make this whole thing about men not wanting to take care of they're kids this has nothing to do with men not wanting to take care of they're kids nor does it have anything to do with providing justice to kids who can't fend for themselves if so than how is it in the kids best interest for they're father to be A broke or B in jail.

[Mr S]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44376665/ns ... nd_courts/

[newlife]

This crap doesn't happen with foreign women.

The heavy hand of the state only exist in 1st world countries.

This exists in US of Oppression.

[Ghost]

...

[Ghost]

...

[S_Parc]

I know I'm beginning to sound like an auto-play sound system but here's where this is leading to ...

By 2020, the IBM Watson, the Jeopardy-winning machine, which used to occupy an entire room of high end P7 servers in 2010, will fit on a desktop.

What that will do is completely eliminate the current day *machine learning* barriers for automatronic companions. In other words, we will have companion robots, including ones for sex, medical assistance, and good old housekeeping.

I don't suspect that anything between western men and women will change in the next ten years, however, I'm rather confident in the on-going advances in IT/computing, material science, and robotics. So, blend in a decline in marriage's longevity with the ability for technology to create even greater isolation and you'll have a western (& plausibly east Asia, as well) world where men will be boinking robots & women will be lesbians, serving one another with strap-on dildos, along with a Roy-'bot for a menage-a-trois.

[HappyGuy]

By 2020, the IBM Watson, the Jeopardy-winning machine, which used to occupy an entire room of high end P7 servers in 2010, will fit on a desktop.

What that will do is completely eliminate the current day *machine learning* barriers for automatronic companions. In other words, we will have companion robots, including ones for sex, medical assistance, and good old housekeeping.

It's a good thing 2020 is still a long way away. I wonder what @S_Parc's wife thinks about his obsession with sex robots

[MrMan]

A lot of the arguments do not apply to men who marry and live abroad. They only apply to the legal systems of certain countries. Is giving up social institutions that hold society together and enable us to have responsible offspring for the next generation the way to go?

How about if we start political organizations that back politicians in favor of changing divorce laws and father-friendly judges? What if we men started promoting laws that require judges to favor the victim of the no-fault divorce for custody of the children? Alimony is not as big of a financial threat as it used to be, but child support is. If women who file no-fault divorces lost the children, the financial incentive would be gone. It makes sense that someone who would file a divorce for not good reason (a.k.a. no fault) might marry again and divorce again, putting the child through more upheaval. Statute could also require judges to consider adultery as a heavy negative against getting child custody. There could also be some legal mechanisms for child support to be quickly adjusted based on changes to employment or income.

Much of what judges decides comes from precedents from other judges. Statutory law has a lot of gaps that are filled in with case law, but statutes trump case law. Back around 1900, divorce rates were low. If a couple divorced, the judge usually gave the father custody because the father could afford to raise the child. In the previous century, that changed, with male judges setting precedents that a child needs its mother. Now there are a lot of female family law judges.

An organization that provided judges with education on the negative impact of children being raised by mothers' alone versus by father's alone. I heard one of Warren Farrell's talks on this. I haven't read the research, but he has a Ph.D. from a good university and seems qualified enough to understand and explain the statistics. (His is in PoliSci, not marriage and family, but that's good enough for understanding the data, IMO.) There are a number of behavioral and success criteria on which both boys and girls tend to do more poorly in a mother-only home as opposed to a father-only home. Putting together evidence-based programs and getting them approved as continuing education for judges and politicians should help. The organization would have to be not too controversial and fly under the radar, so SPLC will not give it the badge of honor of being a 'hate group' for not being left-wing enough.

We also need to see more men acting as judges in family law courts, not male feminists, but men aware of men's issues going through law school with a goal to handle family law issues, which our organizations could prepare and support in these roles.

There are judges who will refer men over to feminist organizations for anti-abuse training based on a court order. I saw a clip of one of those trainings, where some feminists were spouting some foul philosophy about the reason for violence is because a man does not respect female power. It was very radical feminist bunk, and it was sad to see men spouting back their rhetoric. There need to be sound programs for these things to counter any weird feminist propaganda program out there. There also need to be decent programs for women who are violent. Police need to be trained to recognize when the abuser or instigator is female and how to handle that.

On the community level, many of the domestic violence centers are run by feminists. I read through some of the literature once for one of these charities. It said if a man abuses you once, he may abuse you again and again. Once an abuser always an abuser. I've seen an 'abuse wheel' model where some very innocuous behavior that runs against radical feminist philosophy can be seen as 'abuse.' There are a lot of these programs out there, and judges, even those who aren't leftists themselves, may have a very one-sided set of feminist programs to choose from. I've read that the 'Duluth Model' that some DV centers use is based on extrapolating the personality traits of a very violent individual onto all men. There is also the idea among some feminists that all men are potential abusers, and potential rapists.

There is a lot that can be done on the college front in that regard, also, but that is a different topic.

[Shemp]

Is giving up social institutions that hold society together and enable us to have responsible offspring for the next generation the way to go?

Yes, because a man's first responsibility is to himself, not society. If you must have children to be happy, then leave the USA. Otherwise, if the desire for children is weak, as it is in most men, then just suppress it. If you want something cute to love, get a dog, cat, rabbit, etc.

Trying to force change to the system is hopeless. System will change by itself in 50 years or so, as western governments go bankrupt. In the meantime, only reason to work for change is because you enjoy the political process itself, not because you expect your efforts to actually be successful.

It's a good thing 2020 is still a long way away. I wonder what @S_Parc's wife thinks about his obsession with sex robots

You must be new here. S_Parc's wife used to be a lesbian. She would hug S_Parc while he f***ed his RealDoll® brand sex doll. Later, she converted to being heterosexual and so presumably has sex with S_Parc now, though he didn't give details. He left the forum in a huff, calling us a bunch of losers on the way out.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

What man in his right mind wants to be LEGALLY tethered to some woman of ever declining sexual market value just because the feminist "experts" on CNN, Oprah, and Dr. Phil say so?

Societies are saved by wholesale, transformative shifts of personal will. A handful of blue pill, dupes who vow to marry in order to "save society" are kidding themselves into lives of opportunities missed and early graves.

Live life to the fullest and just let the "duped ones" do what they will regret later in life.

[Cornfed]

Is giving up social institutions that hold society together and enable us to have responsible offspring for the next generation the way to go?

Yes, because a man's first responsibility is to himself, not society. If you must have children to be happy, then leave the USA. Otherwise, if the desire for children is weak, as it is in most men, then just suppress it. If you want something cute to love, get a dog, cat, rabbit, etc.

If everyone thought in this way, would the human race exist right now? If not, are you not the human equivalent of a cancer cell?

[MrMan]

Is giving up social institutions that hold society together and enable us to have responsible offspring for the next generation the way to go?

Yes, because a man's first responsibility is to himself, not society. If you must have children to be happy, then leave the USA. Otherwise, if the desire for children is weak, as it is in most men, then just suppress it. If you want something cute to love, get a dog, cat, rabbit, etc.

Trying to force change to the system is hopeless. System will change by itself in 50 years or so, as western governments go bankrupt. In the meantime, only reason to work for change is because you enjoy the political process itself, not because you expect your efforts to actually be successful.

If all American men (USonian men, I mean) followed your advice, then after a generation or so when things correct themselves, the Mexicans and Canadians (if they do not follow your advice) could come in and fill up the empty land for us. Or we could have a nation full of bastards (literally) raised without much input from fathers, and see how that plays out for the crime rate, government stability, and our role on the national scene. The situation where the mother has custody of the kids, either because of divorce or because he is a 'baby daddy', can limit a man's ability to act properly as father in a child's life. My guess is the baby daddy's position is much weaker.

I don't expect a legal system that disadvantages males to last forever. I expect things will be corrected eventually. But I don't live my life based on the disadvantages of the legal system. Some men may think of themselves as ping pong balls bounced around by legal forces. If half of marriages in the US end in divorce, then the other half do not. A man can make wise decisions to mitigate his losses. If he wants to marry an American girl and have children, he shouldn't let these statistics combined with fear keep him from living out his life. On average, we can expect to get in a car crash every 17.9 years. Does that mean we shouldn't drive? One thing I don't get about MGTOW pundits is if they are into men going their own way, why does the pundit insist men go his own way and not their own way? Some men want to marry and have kids. Why would a man like this care one whit about fulfilling MGTOW philosophy? I think some men are weak-minded and allow themselves to be name-called into accepting the MGTOW solutions to a real set of problems facing men.

The chances of being divorced and being bled financially may be lower if you marry a foreigner and bring her back, and maybe lower if you live in her country, depending on what that country is. But statistically, there are lower-risk women. And an individual need not be defined by statistical trends either.