From the annals of failed satire

I’m not particularly against gay marriage. I’m more in the Peter Griffin camp: “If gays want to get married and be miserable like the rest of us, let them.”

I’d love to see a ‘no hypocrite’ bill though just once that would ban gay marriage, but also do away with no-fault divorce. We could even take it a step further and say it negates subsequent marriages as well

Actually, as much as I hate to say it, No Fault Divorce is not the lynch-pin that many MRA’s claim it is – and it should be noted that I have considered to be so myself.

However, upon reading of the history of the suffragette and 2nd wave movement, it becomes clear that creation of No Fault Divorce was merely society catching up with the court system of the day.

Divorces were always given freely to women who wished to have them, except that it usually had to be done under the “fault” of “Cruelty.” – read “The Case for Father Custody” and/or Belfort Bax’s “The Fraud of Feminism” – basically, according to these gentlemen, before no-fault-divorce, a woman who claimed “cruelty” basically won the right to divorce each and every time under this claim of “fault” whether the man was guilty of cruelty or not – the creation of No Fault Divorce was basically just a way for the courts to stop lying about what they were doing – which was basically the way the courts have always worked: Give the little lady what she wants, which includes placing all the blame on the man.

Granted, the divorce rate skyrocketed in the few years after the creation of No-Fault-Divorce, but in reality, things didn’t change much in regard to things – Women have always left men more than men left women, and the courts have always favoured women over men. (We could go all the way back Joseph and Potiphar’s wife falsely accusing of Rape as an act of vengeance – and getting away with it).

Men will always be held to be more responsible than women because, well, men are more responsible than women. This is why, up until around the 1860′s, assumed father custody was the norm.

This changing of custody from the father to the mother is what started the divorce craze. In fact, “The Case for Father Custody” claims that in the 50 years from 1870 to 1920, the divorce rate rose by over 15 times! Granted, there were only a few thousand divorces a year when men were guaranteed custody of the children born in wedlock – but the numbers don’t lie. The divorce rate started increasing from this point onwards, after remaining relatively constant for thousands of years, and it has risen in a more or less linear fashion ever since up until the present day.

A return to presumed father custody (not that shiboleth “shared parenting”) is far more accurate of a path than no fault. Basically, the only reason women are able to hose men through no-fault divorce is because they have presumed mother custody – in which the most irresponsible parent turns the children into mutilate beggars by virtue of her, and the children, becoming poorer for leaving their husband/slave. Therefore, because the woman has custody of the children, the courts justify taking money from the man to feed these mutilated beggars.

Leave the children with the man, and there are no more mutilated beggars. When women cannot get custody of the kids, they apparently are much more reticent to leaving – especially since without the kids, they have no income they get the courts to steal from the man.

Also, wrt Gay Marriage.

The danger of Gay Marriage to “Traditional Marriage” is that gay marriage dialectically leads to legal polygamous marriages, which completely destroys the concept of family.

For exampe: Canada legalized gay marriage in 2005. Of course, at the time, all those opposing it were intolerant conservative bigots. The gay rights activists also claimed, mockingly, that gay marriage would have absolutely zero affect upon hetersexual families.

However, within two years of legalizing gay marriage, the Province of Ontario had a court case in which they create the first “Three Parent Family.”

Two married lesbians and one sperm-donating man, all three went to court and had themselves all declared “equal parents.” So, there is no a child in Ontario with three legal parents, wheras obviously, for thousands of years before, people would look at you as if you were on glue if you suggested “three parents” of a child instead of two.

Obviously, this dialectically sets the stage for polygamous marriages.

But, marriage is fucked up beyond recognition already, so let the dumb fuckers have it.

What men should be doing is trying to create a subset of “family” (amongst the many “new” families that are appearing in society) that includes “presumed father custody” – and if men were smart, they would come up with a completely new and modern name for it, and then structure it exactly the way things were prior to 1860. Call it whatever you want – just don’t call it patriarchy or father custody, even though it contains all of the elements. Hell, call it lemon meringue pie if you want – what’s in a name, after all?

Many gay activists are blatant Marxists who are claiming they would like to destroy marriage so they can alter society better to their world views. I wish that “normal gays” who aren’t bent on ruining society and forcing their views down everyone’s throats, would tell these Marxists to fuck off and get out of their bedrooms, including ours. (Many gays have this attitude, btw, and are not amused with the politicization of homosexuality – many men were married before, and have ZERO desire to bring heterosexual laws & norms into the gay community – It’s usually the young and the poor gays that are all for marriage laws and cohabitation laws to be extended to gays, but successful gay people are not too inclined to support a situation where their boyfriends can take half their shit when they break up).

Yeah, Rob, I know the Bonecrcker, ZenPriest and Philiantes posts are great, but you obviously should put some of this gold (your writing) on your site too.

Yeah, Rob, I know the Bonecrcker, ZenPriest and Philiantes posts are great, but you obviously should put some of this gold (your writing) on your site too.

No worries, it is coming – on September 9th, I believe.

I have been re-writing some of my old posts, and making some new ones – I am just NOT going to post them to the wind again, like last time… so, my blog will rip up the post counter a bit with others, until I put my effort back into it.

I have put enough effort into this fucking stupid movement, that I shouldn’t have to break my back, once again, just to be taken seriously, and quite frankly, I don’t want to put the effort into writing posts (which generally take me hours, not minutes), simply to amuse people so they can say, “huh, he is posting again!”

My blog has only been up and running again for two months.

I have posts already dating into december. But, I am NOT going to be a fool and crack my brains out on a daily basis for a bunch of asshats who really don’t give two shits and forget what I say two days later anyways.

Rob

Brilliant! The most informed and realistic post on the manosphere I have read to date.

“What men should be doing is trying to create a subset of “family”… and if men were smart, they would come up with a completely new and modern name for it”

If the ship is capsizing, why go down with the ship when there are perfectly suitable life-craft just waiting to be boarded? Give it a hundred years for the liberals to implode and the Christian Western male will be back at the ship’s helm in no time.

Great post, Rob!

Do other cultures and races follow this MRM so much? Is it a global movement, or something isolated to the dwindling white North American male population.

At base, I believe this current manifestation of MRM is tribal in nature, in that we are not fighting over scraps and frivolities. No, the passion in the postings indicate that this is a fight we all have a stake in. Our tribe’s future is at stake.

We all are aware, either overtly or subconsciously, of our tribe’s status, and how various social influences impact it. Seeing the slutification of pop culture, the hiphop/thug emergence etc etc all makes me uneasy.

Enter socialism. This ‘tool’ likely emerged to bypass tribal instincts because their proponents are aware how strong this nigh-biological connection its members have. So race is supplanted by class, and now gender. Some races still think the fight can be won, but most others have long given up, choosing domestic social complacency.

But the fringes are always where the fun stuff happens. I am on it, and so are you. Should you venture back into sheep status once a warm, moist hole comes your way is your business, but for those who cannot divide so easily, I only ask this: respect my desire to protect my tribe, and in this feminized/anti-Christian culture, this will place me further on the fringe.

You guys make it sound like misandry and feminism started in the United States.

Hollenhund,

It came about because of something called the Tender Years Doctrine, I believe. Basically it began to change by the argument that during “the tender years” when a child was very young, it needed to be with its mother. So it worked its way in. There was a time when upon divorce, if there was a baby, sometimes the mother would raise the baby and be forced to turn it over the father at around the age of 6yrs old or something like that.

The suffragettes were the ones that directly lobbied for the change. It is point #8 in the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments – the founding document of the feminist movement.

Lol! Notice in the Declaration of Sentiments that they ripped off the a document written by men? Lol! Just like that “women need men like fish need a bicycle” (by Irina Dunn) was stolen from a german philosopher who said “man needs religion like fish need a bicycle.”

Oh my! I can see the grass huts coming down and all kinds of gleaming glass and steel buildings rising from the earth, what with all of this female ingenuity!

The “great” Susan B. Anthony was also involved in the movement to change custody from father to mother.

Here is a link to The Case for Father Custody and here is one for Belfort Bax’s The Fraud of Feminism

I think perhaps one of the most significant curtain dropping moments I had in understanding this whole mess came after the first time I read Belfort Bax. If you take the trouble to read The Fraud of Feminism, or his other piece, The Legal Subjection of Men you will see that nothing has changed (those were written in 1908 and 1913) except that things are more magnified. Hell, remember that crazy chick Clara Harris (I think that was her name) who drove over her husband with her mercedes and then backed up over him again? Well, Bax has a legal case which he discusses where a wife ran her husband over with a horse and wagon, and then backed up the wagon over him again! There is nothing happening today that was not already happening in the 1800′s and early 1900′s during the time of the suffragettes. The only thing that has really changed is the way that it now completely dominates every aspect of society now. Just like from 1870 when the divorce rate was less than 1%, to 1920 when 1 in 7 ended in divorce (I think that’s the number), today 1 in 2 end in divorce. That is ALL that has changed – how much more these things are occuring today than they were before. The arguments were the same, the tactics were the same, manginas were the same, and so on and so on. I suspect Belfort Bax just might be Angry Harry’s great-great grandpa!

Btw, recreating assumed father custody is not as far fetched as one might think.

In some ways, it already exists – because if you go the surrogacy route, such as the Fifth Horseman always talks about costing $20,000 in India (it costs around $80,000 in the USA), that automatically creates a situation of father custody that no woman can tear assunder. If a man wanted to have a child, this already exists as a means of creating guaranteed father custody until the age of majority, which is as it should be. Get a girlfriend, hell, even let her move in with you – she can’t take the kid as a mutilated beggar if you don’t do something stupid like marry her and let her adopt.

So, in a sense, it still somewhat exists.

But futher, same sex marriage is creating a whole host of new things regarding surrogacy so that gay married people can have children. Furthermore, when these married gay men with children divorce, the criteria for assigning custody will neccessarily have to change from checking whose got a hairy triangle beneath their skivvies. So, if men are smart, we will watch closely, and even support gays in their plight to have “families,” and we might even encourage them in directions that are mutuatlly beneficial for both homosexual and heterosexual men, and piggy back our way in their politically correct backs. I wouldn’t be a bit suprised if contracts arise stipulating custody at the beginning of a gay marriage, or at least upon choosing surrogacy… so once they have created that, it should not be a stretch to extend to a heterosexual relationship… and really dear, why should I agree to marriage and children if I don’t get custody of the kids?

Father Custody would also re-ignite the “Legitimacy Principle” – fathers are only responsible for legitimate children by law and all others are governed by his moral conscience. Women have complete choice to terminate a pregnancy, so they are never “forced” to have a child, (they can also easily have children of their own) and Father Custody/Legitimacy would also neatly then take care of this whole “paper abortion” argument many MRA’s support – while at the same not giving support to the notion of abortion being morally proper. Men should not get involved with anything as morally filthy as even the word abortion, and the one problem I have with “paper abortion” is that if it is granted, it will support the notion in society that abortion is proper, but it just had to be tweaked a little to make it more “equal.” Legitimacy and Father Custody take care of this neatly. Let women were the bloody scarf of abortion for all eternity and keep ourselves clear of that sin against nature.

Things like “giving a child your name” after getting a woman pregnant meant, quite literally, father custody. The “giving your name” made a child legitimately the father’s. Marriage is loosely an economic contract and not a romantic one, remember. And the economic contract of marriage is based upon property rights, which is theoretically the same as custody. You can still see the vestige of this economic contract and of father custody in the modern day wedding ceremony, where the father “gives away” the bride. You cannot “give” what you do not “own,” and basically, the symbolism of it all is that the custody of the daughter (and the obligation to protect her “honor,” snicker) passes from the father to the husband.

That’s the way it was, and apparently that is what worked. I don’t think everyone was particulary “happy” just because it worked, but, it worked. I think no matter what, this “basis of patriarchy” has to be kept in mind as we try to create something new out of the ashes the fembots have left the world in.

Pretty much, yup.

It works on the premise of the strength of the mother-child bond – which is something that exists everywhere in nature, and by creating a strong legal bond between the child and the father, the mother tends to stay with the father in order to be with the children.

The hierarchy goes like this:

Man –> Woman –> Child

Men care and protect/provide for women and children (but not other men).

Women protect/provide for themselves and children (but certainly not men)

The strong bond that men feel for women in love is greater than the bond that the woman feels for the man. But the bond the woman feels for the child is similar in strength as that which a man feels for woman. Therefore, attaching the child strongly to the man, means the woman has a vested interest in keeping him around if she wishes to maintain her relationship with her children. The legal strength of the father-child relationship is the basic glue that keeps mother in the family, and since she is the “heart” of the family, father custody is the very basic element of family – otherwise we live like animals, where fatherhood is virtually unknown, except perhaps by the alpha of a herd.

It is for this very politically incorrect reason that women are often referred to as “children.” It is not because they are stupid, but more to do with their emotional development not being the same as a man’s in regard to their romantic relationship.

The male-female emotional relationship is much more akin to the relationship between parent and child. Sure, kids love their parents, but the parents no-doubt love their kids more than the kids love them back. Parents will sacrifice their lives for their kids much more often than kids will sacrifice their lives for their parents… just as men will sacrifice their lives more readily for women than women will for men. It’s the way the hierarchy works. (Also, as game illustrates, just as with children needing boundaries which they “test” and are happiest when they know those boundaries are enforced… so are women happy when they shit test and their man passes the test – they are happiest with set boundaries, which is where men have been failing with the rise of feminism.)

It is interesting how views on sexuality have also changed during the 19th Century Victorian era. This is the age when male sexuality began to really come under attack. In the times before this, it was generally thought that female sexuality was more dangerous than male sexuality, and most of society understood quite a bit more about female sexuality, it appears, than they did during the Victorian era.

Masturbation, for example, was thought to be a grave threat to societal structure, and countless devices were created to keep children from masturbating – including such things that sent an electric shock into the penis should an erection occur while sleeping. Plus, the circumcision program came into being during the 19th Century as a way to “cure” masturbation. I have also read that there was a campaign of literature written demonizing male sexuality during this period – all indicating the uncontrollable beast of male sexuality which needed to be civilized by attaching it to the “civilized” and morally superior female.

There was a lot of shit that went on during the time of the suffragettes, and society’s views changed quite dramatically as women rose in social power during this period.

Lol, I can’t get over how you could watch it on mute and still tell they’re a bunch of liberal twits. Some liberals you can’t immediately identify by facial features, but the real twits just jump out at you.