h/t Wilder
 |
| When the minister asked her "Do you take this man...?" the bride meant it. For everything he had. |
Last Wednesday at Wilder's site, he made the point that the right spouse is the recipe for "Winning!" in the game of life. And that's absolutely 5-star gold-plated advice. Then he made a modest proposal at the end of his post:
I’ll say this again – my Gen X road was easier than the Zoomer and Millennial kids. A young man faces women that are hostile. That turns him into a man that’s not prepared. If I might make a modest proposal, let’s bring back shame for women. And let’s bring back pride for men.
It was in reference to stopping part of the ongoing cultural rot. But as I told him there, it won't work that easily.
Bringing back shame, alone, won't cut it.
If you're bringing back public stocks, pillories, the lash, scarlet letters, head-shaving, and Committees of Vigilance, we can talk.
No, seriously.
Okay, not going to do that? Slackers.
Here's a far easier one: Outlaw no-fault divorce. Ban it outright. Marriage is forever, unless abandonment, abuse, infidelity, or prison step in. And abuse isn't "leaving the toilet seat up", or "buying the wrong brand of corn", or the 3000 silly-ass reasons 50% of married women hork up on command like your cat with a furball, the minute something better comes along, as they leave skidmarks out of their vows and down to the county clerk's office.
Too harsh? We'll water it down even farther.
You can still bail the hell out for nothing, and anything.
But the bank account gets split down the middle the day you file, they toss a coin (literally) to award child custody, the other spouse (of either sex) has to pay a nationwide-fixed amount per child until they turn 18 - no more, and no less - and whenever a marriage is dissolved, neither partner gets to keep anything. No alimony for either partner. Alimony is indentured servitude, and outlawed as such by the 13th Amendment. Any property from before the marriage reverts to its prior owner. Any joint property is liquidated, the partners split 90% of it right down the middle, and the state (or the lawyers) get the other 10%, and that's the end of it. Any state found to be awarding custody to 51% or more of either sex in any year forfeits all tax revenues for that year, and the receipts from same to be divided equally between the 49% wronged.
Oh, and one other thing: abortion requires the consent of the father. No unanimous decision? No unilateral choice. It took two of you to make a baby, so now it takes two of you to abort it, if you're married.
But as another sop to those who cannot keep their legs crossed until marriage, if you keep the kid borne outside marriage against the consent of the father, you - the mother - are also awarded sole financial responsibility for that child's upkeep until its majority. By law. Your body, your choice? Your bill. You can keep any child; you cannot keep any man's wallet. If you bore the child out of wedlock, you made that choice. Now you get to own it, and the bill comes due every mealtime, for decades. And no public child support. We won't need shame when bastardy comes with a financial disincentive. Again.
"Wah! That's not fair to kids!" Make better choices. Uncle is not your Sugar Daddy either. But if you're still worried, you have to name the father in all cases. Still no welfare. All choices are now bilateral. Fair is fair. Now both parties to baby-making have to make better choices. Can't come up with the father's name? It's all on you, sweetheart.
Kids then are no longer bargaining chips, marriages are no longer for-profit institutions for exes and divorce lawyers, and husbands and fathers are no longer cash cows for milking on the feminazi ranch.
Don't like that? Suck it. Welcome to real equality.
It shouldn't be any great hurdle for all those Strong and Brave™ women in society we keep hearing about to know that when they get married, they're choosing a partner for life, not buying a mealticket for life, and the incorporation cannot be dissolved lightly, nor inequitably.
Extra side-benefit?
With virtually no lottery payday worth having in most divorce cases, and only at-fault divorces being litigated, the blood-sucking divorce lawyer industry dries up and blows away, overnight.
Then a lot of lawyers would have to get honest jobs, like used car sales, working in porn, or playing piano in a brothel.
Without those changes, marriage is dead, even if married folks don't know it yet. Take away all the financial incentives for childbirth and abortion, as well as for divorce, infidelity, abuse, etc., and you can have the civilization your grandparents had. Do it not, and things continue to spiral into the ground, gloriously aflame. As they are.
JW also wrote "It's amazing to see the number of criminals with no fathers in their lives."
Know what's not amazing?
To see the number of fathers with no criminals in their lives.
Stop treating husbands and fathers as disposable items, as if they were tissues, and civilization thrives.
Divorce and abortion have treated husbands, fathers, and children as illegal aliens in their own culture, with no rights whatsoever. That has to be undone, drastically and in haste, if civilization is to survive.
Nothing less will suffice.
20 comments:
I don't disagree with you but I did use to work in family law so just to be clear, men can be just as scummy as women. I hated that job. Want to watch grown adults act like children? Let them decide to divorce! Not to mention the sheer damage they do using their kids as pawns.
(Just erasing no fault divorce will help but we as society also need to treat divorcees as pariahs. It needs to be socially unacceptable to get a divorce in anything other than extreme circumstances, like provable abuse, with police reports. Not fake abuse allegations whipped up for the sake of justifying the divorce.)
~Rgea
Andrew, Why is divorce so damned expensive?
Because it is worth every damned dollar to get away.
Off topic question,
California had record breaking rains, floods, and mudslides, but the US Drought Monitor says 99% of California is still abnormally dry, and 85% is in moderate or severe drought. Is it that bad still?
RD
I agree 100%!!!!!
Could not have said it any better myself. Silly me. I actually believed her when she said "Til death do us part." Older, sadder, and wiser.
Spot on.
LOL! NONE of what you propose is ever going to happen. Might as well strike at the root of the problem. BAN SUFFERAGE. No more votes for females. With RARE exception they don't think. They emote. And emoting is not what you should base voting choices on. Nearly all the negative societal changes we have seen in the past century arose because women were allowed to vote. But ending sufferage is just as likely to happen as what you propose....meaning it's NEVER going to happen. Burning it all down and starting from scratch is the only way to end the insanity. And THAT might just happen.
Bring back shame - for men AND women.
Men *don't* need to screw everything that moves. Women don't need to sleep with everyone.
Child out of wedlock? Shame for BOTH. Takes two to tango.
Want those divorced to be pariahs? Fine - if BOTH are pariahs.
Not all woman are the "bad guys" when it comes to marital breakdowns. There are plenty of crappy men out there too.
Sign me, female, married for 44 years this coming April. Yes, it takes hard work and compromise, from both of us. But it's worth it. I doubt that grass is greener on the other side.
Father's agreement for abortion will be problematic. If the Mother is unmarried,or charged with adultery, making the claim means decades of child support..Good luck. If the abortion is really about saving the life of the Mother, who cares what the supposed Father wants? ( I knowl of two). You know, these situations always come up at 3-4 AM. The Woman and her physician choose. Always.
Don't forget that they take away your drivers license if you get behind in child support AND that once you catch up on payments the bureaucracy is so complex that they can't figure it out so you still don't get your license back. I question the legality of taking away a drivers license for failure to pay a debt' Could your credit card company do that?
Quite pleased you decided to tackle this cultural issue. I agree with all of it.
@Mike-SMO,
It's not problematic at all.
If we're going to let women arrogate the privilege of unilateral action, they must be accept the burden of sole financial responsibility.
One gets the other. No discussion. Take it or leave it.
Anytime the answer is *I'm* keeping the baby" rather than "We're keeping the baby", the burden that goes with it is "Then you'll bloody well pay for it all by yourself, too."
If neither dad nor baby gets a vote in that decision, then Mommy owns the whole kit and kaboodle, cradle to adulthood.
No taxation without representation.
@Dan,
"Burning it all down"?
As noted, it's already gloriously aflame.
The 19th Amendment won't be renewed after the meltdown.
In fact, the whole progressive Grand Slam - the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Amendments - were the nail in the coffin of the republic.
Everything that's happened since then has simply been gravity, working.
Without the 19th Amendment, the last Democrat president ever would have been Woodrow Wilson. That alone is grounds to repeal the entire idea.
What they're going to get next time around is treated as chattel goods, in a dystopia far worse than what they've got after 50 years of whinging about "the patriarchy".
Had a discussion with a coworker about such just last week.
I mentioned a previous conversation where I made a point about women using hyphenated married names generally being something I disagree with. Reason being that there is really no obligation or negative involved for a woman when she marries, and there is plenty of negative for the man - I feel that the least the woman can do is commit to changing her name.
My coworker said that his wife kept her own name. I asked if it was because she had some sort of professional name - author, actor, or the like where that would make sense (as well as be something where she'd probably insist upon a pre-nup to protect her stuff)?
He said no. He said his wife felt that changing her name back was too much of a pain to bother changing it to begin with.
After asking him to repeat that to me - I asked him if he was aware his wife admitted to him - before they even were married - that she was already planning her exit from the marriage.
When that idea finally clicked in his head he visibly paled.
Poor, dumb, bastard.
Nice list. I would include one however -- All children at birth have a DNA sample taken. Now I recognize there are dangers in doing this, but there is already one in NOT doing it. It is projected that nearly a quarter of husbands are raising some other Chads offspring. Determination of paternity or the expectation of same will, shall we say, cool the ardor of promiscuous behavior.
Some states also take away any business licenses and any sportsman license you might have.
They had a good thing, they wanted more, and in the process screwed the pooch for everyone.
They will only regret it if they live long enough; in my experience many of these women don't have enough skills to hack it in a tougher/ lower tech situation than we have now (many men won't either, but at least they have the potential for musculature).
1) the grass isn't greener on the other side, it's just different grass... 2) and it seems greener because "you" aren't over there fucking it up. After 30 years 4 kids 6 grandkids, wife left for a younger man and is learning both of those...
from a 'man going his own way' - Original Grandpa
Excellent, excellent stuff. It will be enacted, one way or another.
There's an excellent book about the wars in former Yugoslavia, "SHTF Survival Stories: Memories from the Balkan War," by Selco Begovic.
It's an excellent book all around about what living through the war was like. A couple of incidents he describes makes it clear what a woman's fundamental worth is when society collapses. Same as it ever was.
Post a Comment