Excellent article. Of course, 90 plus percent of American women will be against this. 99 percent of the legal mafia (Judges/Lawyers) will be opposed as well. But this is EXACTLY what us "men" should be striving for. This would truly be "best for the children". Sadly, men have historically been caving in to what is best for women instead of children.
Every time, EVERY SINGLE TIME, the suggestion is raised that women shouldn't be able to freely divorce their husbands, a woman jumps in with "What about 'abuse'??!!", as if all of society and law needs to be oriented around enabling those women who do suffer 'abuse' to divorce their husbands and keep the kids and assets.
But, what is 'abuse', and how often does it occur?
They want to perpetuate the myth that men everywhere are beating their wives and children, and ruling the home as tyrants, while women (everywhere) have innocently found themselves "trapped" in such marriages, and seek only to protect themselves and "their" children.
This myth is reinforced by the government, NGOs, social media, the churches, TV shows and movies, every day.
Recently, I've been following multiple charities, Christian and secular, who are promoting exactly this in their fundraising. Eg. "The domestic violence crisis is escalating, and you can help a woman find safety for her children. DONATE". Every day, from multiple charities. [In Australia]
I've also been binging TV detective shows, going as far back as Columbo in the 1970s, and Agatha Christie's Poirot and Marple from the 1990s, and there is a marked change since ~2015. Previously, female villains and murderers were a minority, but they certainly existed. Since ~2015, almost every show has male "abusers" and female "victims" depicted along feminist lines ie. male "power" under the Duluth Model,
And, as you say, 90% of women want that myth to continue, with its consequences of female power to initiate divorce and call the shots.
The divorce bar makes so very much money off the destruction of families through no-fault divorce they may indeed be the greatest obstacle to this common-sense reform - not the feminists. It is like moving heaven and earth just to make basic tort law reforms that any half-intelligent individual can understand, because the plaintiffs’ bar puts so much money into politics.
"It is like moving heaven.......". I have some experience in organizing and attempting to move the football against the Judges and Lawyers. I have concluded that it is men who are to blame. If you try to organize a small group of men to endorse a simple policy change, most men will refuse. Instead, they want something that specifically affects their individual case. Also, they prefer to complain about their personal case, instead of doing something substantive that will move the football. Nobody is going to do this for us. We are in the concentration camps, and there are no allied forces fighting for us. We must do it. Currently, we are allowing women the entitlement to steal away our kids on a whim. And we allow it because we are too Chicken Poop afraid to say, "the Mom should not be entitled to a frivolous divorce and CUSTODY of HER children, simply because she wants it.
Absolutely correct that presumptive father custody is the place to focus. That would change everything.
In the Sixties, the first thing the feminists advocated for was 'domestic abuse' laws, using the Poor Victim Female scam as usual. That ended with the Duluth Wheel, which stripped ALL authority from men . . . even the ability to disagree with wives. The cops and courts gradually became feminist and adopted Whatever Wimmin Wanted.
That all must be reversed. You likely will need a general male (work etc) strike to budge the PTB.
Suffragettes were terrorists in their own words. They used Arson and repeated law breaking. Never really being punished. Because they thought obtaining a majority vote privilege without conscription was more important than law, order, and common sense.
I don't think it's undoable within the system.
We have pro-women biases ties up in mammalian evolution.
Hence marriage strike, exit the system.
Build new systems that make sense, such as fair trade relationships, commitment measured for her consideration.
The manosphere is producing thought leadership. Redpilled progressivism is a post-post-modern cultural revolution. The widely known 80/20 rule, the female attraction cues for bad boys and supportive betas, this will be widely known by generation alpha.
Even generation Z are learning girl math and female psychology of manipulation, power, and control.
Women tell on themselves by spitting truths and putting chaos on video.
The evil ideology of female supremacist Marxism will be deconstructed by men and women of good faith. There'll be a new covenant since degeneracy doesn't reproduce.
We can with hold taxes. By exchanging loans between contractors. Call it man honor credit. Tax free.
We can invoke martial law. The fighters are all men in the police and army. Replace the executive and demand constitutional governance under penalty prescribed (e.g. death for unconstitutional family court).
Directly burn down family court, social services, and use A.I. by tech bros to detail every corrupt false judgement.
Restore discipline and order principles over feminised Ideologies, so instead of punishing victims in school bully cases, let the class sort it, overseen by male hierarchy of competent just teachers.
We'd have with held taxes so welfare spigot would run dry. False domestic abuse orders would have been explicitly ruled unconscitional in virtually all cases.
The vast plantation of single mothers would start to open negotiations with their betrayed husbands.
We'd direct social media to add a moral value to every piece of media. Run against universal morality based on western canon. Outlining and scoring vices and virtues. Like cigarette cancer ads on packets. We'd mark degenerate media and impose massive consequences on the thought leaders racing to the bottom of degeneracy.
Before long, women would be shaming each other into moral behaviour. Taking responsibility for their actions under fear of social penalties.
Men and women would be segregated in education, academia and work.
Jobs would be freed up for men to attract feminine women for office of matrimonium. They'd willingly sign valid new marriage contracts protecting each parties rights. Divorce would be possible but so publicly humiliating that only in the most severe of cases (such as borderline personality disordered wives who get stabbed) would it be justified.
House prices would collapse. Consumer prices would reset. Wages would double. And mothers would take command of the home fulfilling their vocational duties of motherhood, home making, hearth and community.
Men would be fitted with cameras if they reported any sign of typical henpecking at home.
Schools would teach female dating strategy, male dating strategy, Redpill research on paternity discrepancy, body count effects, attraction cues, reported versus observed behaviours and beliefs.
Critical Marxism and postmodernity would be taught in their place as devastating Ideologies signalling the advance of western civilization and mass death they caused.
The spell of female supremacist Marxist division and destruction would be broken and we'd start to stabilise the population collapse.
There's be a new national holiday called western civilization day honouring good men and commiserating the billion souls aborted by feminism, the millions cuckolded by deceitful mothers, and state sponsored two tier injustice and woke nonsense of the 20th and 21st centuries.
As a father who was emasculated by his wife over ten years, I fully endorse the view here that men will endure anything for their children, knowing that the wife will get custody in divorce, and that the consequences for the children will be horrific. I endured, I was emasculated, then discarded anyway - and the consequences for the children were horrific (now, thirty years later).
I've seen it over-and-over, whether the marriage is intact, or is ended - invariably, by the wife.
In social media I sometimes see a man claim that he walked away from an abusive woman, but I've never seen it in real life, where there are children. In real life, I've only see death by a thousand cuts.
Wallerstein’s research on the harm to children posed by no-fault divorce is extremely revealing and, frankly, terrifying. Your situation seems to corroborate her findings about the harsh effects on children.
The harsh effects on children are well-known and irrefutable. But Wallerstein is another who talks out of both sides of her mouth. She reports the undeniable more or less accurately, but then she attacks any effort to remedy it.
Initially I didn't think this strategy would work, due to the impossibility of keeping young men away from women. However the more I think about it, I'm becoming convinced you're right. It would be somewhat akin to Gandhi's strategy for dismantling the British Raj. A passive protest that couldn't help but entice the lamestream's interest. An indirect assault on the wicked regime.
You may be correct, but I am not sure that no state has ever reversed it. One hope is Christianity, which has a remarkable capacity to regenerate decadent societies through religious revivals. So it is possible that of all the points I raise, the ones involving the churches may be the most important. But I agree that today’s churches are useless and give no hints of understanding their duty. The revival that has been going on since roughly the 1960s has so far stopped short of challenging the feminists. This time we may be too far gone, as you suggest.
Hello Stephen, I delivered the remedy for the divorce courts on 2009-11-26. I published that remedy when I was doxed in 2010. It was popular with men and women hated it.
Since women turned down that remedy I was one of the men who first said "don't get married".
Of course women have destroyed my life and fought me every inch of the way. I made my last peacefully offer to them in January this year. They turned it down.
I have officially declared Old Marriage dead. I am the creator of "New Marriage" which I have called Narriage. In 100 years Narriage will be the only offer men make. Women will have to take it or leave it.
Ot was a very big mistake for women to attack me and to use the power of four governments to try and murder me.
BRAVO! 'SIR KING STEPHEN' You should be knighted! Wonderful article Stephen. You should have been the author of "the contract with America" Boy I wish YOU were the President!
One critique however: Phylis Schlafly was a gyno-centric misandrist and not a MEN'S advocate!
She was extremely gyno-centric! Once Phylis Schlafly said: "w0e-MEN should be exempt from the death penalty" "Because "w0e-MEN are the flowers of life" Her exact words! I believe "He who is without sin cast the 1rst stone" Even if someone deserves it, how can it be fair with gyno-centric attitudes like hers? I'm afraid Schlafly was just another trad/feminist. Otherwise, BRAVO SIR KING STEPHEN!
Thank you for your kind words. I understand what you say about Phyllis Schlafly, but near the end of her life, her son was taken through the divorce wringer. and she came to realize the reality. Because she had dedicated her career to battling the feminists, she immediately understood what they were doing and never again tried to demonize men. She tried valiantly to bring the injustices to public attention and devoted several editions of her famous Newsletter and numerous newspaper columns to publicizing the injustices against fathers. "Some of it ended up in her book, Who Killed the American Family?" She also published my work and invited me to speak at the annual conference of her organization, Eagle Forum. But she encountered huge blowback from within EF, which she herself had founded. Once I watched her at the US Capitol confront Sen. Rick Santorum, who touted himself as a great "family values" man and managed to fool many people. As she tried to tell him what was taking place in family court, his response was to interrupt her and then walk away. He simply brushed off and ignored one of the most highly respected and influential women of the twentieth century. It was then that I fully realized how phony are the "traditional conservatives" with their "family values" and how vicious is the resistance against fathers.
Okay, but why do women choose nursing, medicine, and teaching? They dominate those caring professions.
Also, there's a preference for dolls over cars, amongst female primates.
The apocryphal story is the feminist mother who gave her daughter a fire truck toy. She wrapped it up in a blanket, coddled it, and cooed to "trucky" like a baby doll.
The negative mother is Ursula from the little mermaid. A monster of power and control. That just wants to trap everyone in her matrix dungeon (matrix is Latin for womb). She's the evil consuming mother who won't let children grow up and start their own lives.
Hi Stephen, if you wish to speak to me my public email address is Peter at PeterNolan dot com. I get a lot of spam there so the subject has to stand out. My X is suspended along with many other social media accounts. I will use substak only for business.
Dr. B, your list of societal ills repaired by restoration of at-fault divorce and presumptive father custody is astonishing and representative of conditions found in emerging, rising civilizations. But once the peak has crested and the downward slide begun, no civ that I'm aware of has reversed the trend. Society does what women want and that's probably not going to change.
But we still need to try, and we need especially to ensure young men are aware of the risks that accompany involvement with women.
Well said. Does anyone know where Victor Davis Hanson stands on these issues? He might have some support for it based on his knowledge of the classical civilizations that gave rise to ours.
I am quite sure he does not stand on them at all. He is what Amneus calls a "parlor intellectual", who recites the professional Republican party line and specializes in telling us what we already know.
Parenting and mothering are not synonymous. But neither is parenting and fathering. At first contact, the best-laid plans become excellent waste wipers. However, two caring and committed minds adjusting to the unforeseen challenges that children present to their parents will mediate the extremes for both good and ill. And out of this, magic happens, humans become civilized. Being caring and committed need not be fully fledged, but as history has revealed, the longer the effort, the more the feathers grow to shield the body relationship. And it is the growing of more feathers that the child watches and learns civilized attitudes and behaviors from.
I must take issue with this statement: “Child abuse will be all-but-eliminated, virtually 100% of which takes place in the homes of single mothers or in foster care.” This statement does not accurately reflect my 30-plus years as a psychologist, 20 years of which involved criminal investigations, of which 5 years involved uncovering and investigating child sexploitation—some of the most egregious cases involved two-parent, mom-and-dad homes of seemingly upstanding citizens.
However, all in all, your points of view have merit, and I appreciate your arguments.
You're right they'd be against it due to their incentives.
So we have to think of new starts.
The system is corrupted and captured by woke zealots, activist judges, and an ideology against law and order on principle, with a massive animus towards men and especially fathers (and mothers).
So if we define the new contract as civil law tied in to precedent and established institutions such as Churches. And create new communities starting with first people. And it works! Then the feminist hive mind will start playing status games with it.
Especially if the resentment oppression ideology of critical Marxism burns down society by demonising motherhood and husbands and sacrificing babies to Baal. Just draw a straight line on the charts to see where that's going.
Voilà we have a wrecked woke system that ran out of gas, and at least this one new idea called "new marriage contract" and new covent suspiciously similar to Genesis.
You're way ahead of the postmodern spirit of the times.
Postmodernity objects to the principle of law and order. And archeic father imago. And rationality. All wrapped up like an intersectional cultural wood chipper.
The critical Marxists went after pillars of culture, Church, education, media, government, law. It took them many decades.
For now, let's focus on moving in the right direction.
Friends don't let male friends get married.
Women are also on motherhood strike.
After liberation of Germany, the old Nazis were banned from public service. There was no way to denazification of individuals who'd drink the cool aid. I think Marxism-Feminism the critical theory hydra is the same.
Think of Greta, a jet setting environmentalist gender equality zealot wearing a hamas flag. She's chasing the dragon of crying in the UN saying how dare you to the leader of the free world. There's no hope for her.
They wouldn't remove souls from the matrix after a certain age because they couldn't adapt.
This crop of humans is doomed to the consequences of their actions based on entrenched beliefs.
But post-progressive marriage will be there when a new crop rises and overcomes the wicked woke cancelling of postmodernity.
I also think tech will help. Like continuous recording of women to stop moral stuntedness of false accusations and even shit testing and emotional incontinence. Plus A.I. to real time decode deceit. And universal $1 full genome sequencing and online apps to find relatives by appearance.
We'll study these dark times as a plague of postmodernism.
Excellent article. Of course, 90 plus percent of American women will be against this. 99 percent of the legal mafia (Judges/Lawyers) will be opposed as well. But this is EXACTLY what us "men" should be striving for. This would truly be "best for the children". Sadly, men have historically been caving in to what is best for women instead of children.
Every time, EVERY SINGLE TIME, the suggestion is raised that women shouldn't be able to freely divorce their husbands, a woman jumps in with "What about 'abuse'??!!", as if all of society and law needs to be oriented around enabling those women who do suffer 'abuse' to divorce their husbands and keep the kids and assets.
But, what is 'abuse', and how often does it occur?
They want to perpetuate the myth that men everywhere are beating their wives and children, and ruling the home as tyrants, while women (everywhere) have innocently found themselves "trapped" in such marriages, and seek only to protect themselves and "their" children.
This myth is reinforced by the government, NGOs, social media, the churches, TV shows and movies, every day.
Recently, I've been following multiple charities, Christian and secular, who are promoting exactly this in their fundraising. Eg. "The domestic violence crisis is escalating, and you can help a woman find safety for her children. DONATE". Every day, from multiple charities. [In Australia]
I've also been binging TV detective shows, going as far back as Columbo in the 1970s, and Agatha Christie's Poirot and Marple from the 1990s, and there is a marked change since ~2015. Previously, female villains and murderers were a minority, but they certainly existed. Since ~2015, almost every show has male "abusers" and female "victims" depicted along feminist lines ie. male "power" under the Duluth Model,
And, as you say, 90% of women want that myth to continue, with its consequences of female power to initiate divorce and call the shots.
The divorce bar makes so very much money off the destruction of families through no-fault divorce they may indeed be the greatest obstacle to this common-sense reform - not the feminists. It is like moving heaven and earth just to make basic tort law reforms that any half-intelligent individual can understand, because the plaintiffs’ bar puts so much money into politics.
"It is like moving heaven.......". I have some experience in organizing and attempting to move the football against the Judges and Lawyers. I have concluded that it is men who are to blame. If you try to organize a small group of men to endorse a simple policy change, most men will refuse. Instead, they want something that specifically affects their individual case. Also, they prefer to complain about their personal case, instead of doing something substantive that will move the football. Nobody is going to do this for us. We are in the concentration camps, and there are no allied forces fighting for us. We must do it. Currently, we are allowing women the entitlement to steal away our kids on a whim. And we allow it because we are too Chicken Poop afraid to say, "the Mom should not be entitled to a frivolous divorce and CUSTODY of HER children, simply because she wants it.
Absolutely correct that presumptive father custody is the place to focus. That would change everything.
In the Sixties, the first thing the feminists advocated for was 'domestic abuse' laws, using the Poor Victim Female scam as usual. That ended with the Duluth Wheel, which stripped ALL authority from men . . . even the ability to disagree with wives. The cops and courts gradually became feminist and adopted Whatever Wimmin Wanted.
That all must be reversed. You likely will need a general male (work etc) strike to budge the PTB.
I don't think we can do a general strike.
Suffragettes were terrorists in their own words. They used Arson and repeated law breaking. Never really being punished. Because they thought obtaining a majority vote privilege without conscription was more important than law, order, and common sense.
I don't think it's undoable within the system.
We have pro-women biases ties up in mammalian evolution.
Hence marriage strike, exit the system.
Build new systems that make sense, such as fair trade relationships, commitment measured for her consideration.
The manosphere is producing thought leadership. Redpilled progressivism is a post-post-modern cultural revolution. The widely known 80/20 rule, the female attraction cues for bad boys and supportive betas, this will be widely known by generation alpha.
Even generation Z are learning girl math and female psychology of manipulation, power, and control.
Women tell on themselves by spitting truths and putting chaos on video.
The evil ideology of female supremacist Marxism will be deconstructed by men and women of good faith. There'll be a new covenant since degeneracy doesn't reproduce.
'I don't think we can do a general strike.'
'Hence marriage strike, exit the system.'
You seem somewhat conflicted in your prescription. Though you never stated why 'we' can't do a general strike.
Ok, so let's sketch a general strike.
We = men
We can with hold taxes. By exchanging loans between contractors. Call it man honor credit. Tax free.
We can invoke martial law. The fighters are all men in the police and army. Replace the executive and demand constitutional governance under penalty prescribed (e.g. death for unconstitutional family court).
Directly burn down family court, social services, and use A.I. by tech bros to detail every corrupt false judgement.
Restore discipline and order principles over feminised Ideologies, so instead of punishing victims in school bully cases, let the class sort it, overseen by male hierarchy of competent just teachers.
We'd have with held taxes so welfare spigot would run dry. False domestic abuse orders would have been explicitly ruled unconscitional in virtually all cases.
The vast plantation of single mothers would start to open negotiations with their betrayed husbands.
We'd direct social media to add a moral value to every piece of media. Run against universal morality based on western canon. Outlining and scoring vices and virtues. Like cigarette cancer ads on packets. We'd mark degenerate media and impose massive consequences on the thought leaders racing to the bottom of degeneracy.
Before long, women would be shaming each other into moral behaviour. Taking responsibility for their actions under fear of social penalties.
Men and women would be segregated in education, academia and work.
Jobs would be freed up for men to attract feminine women for office of matrimonium. They'd willingly sign valid new marriage contracts protecting each parties rights. Divorce would be possible but so publicly humiliating that only in the most severe of cases (such as borderline personality disordered wives who get stabbed) would it be justified.
House prices would collapse. Consumer prices would reset. Wages would double. And mothers would take command of the home fulfilling their vocational duties of motherhood, home making, hearth and community.
Men would be fitted with cameras if they reported any sign of typical henpecking at home.
Schools would teach female dating strategy, male dating strategy, Redpill research on paternity discrepancy, body count effects, attraction cues, reported versus observed behaviours and beliefs.
Critical Marxism and postmodernity would be taught in their place as devastating Ideologies signalling the advance of western civilization and mass death they caused.
The spell of female supremacist Marxist division and destruction would be broken and we'd start to stabilise the population collapse.
There's be a new national holiday called western civilization day honouring good men and commiserating the billion souls aborted by feminism, the millions cuckolded by deceitful mothers, and state sponsored two tier injustice and woke nonsense of the 20th and 21st centuries.
Or a Manhattan project to develop artificial wombs, robotic home help, and artificial intelligence girl friends.
As a father who was emasculated by his wife over ten years, I fully endorse the view here that men will endure anything for their children, knowing that the wife will get custody in divorce, and that the consequences for the children will be horrific. I endured, I was emasculated, then discarded anyway - and the consequences for the children were horrific (now, thirty years later).
I've seen it over-and-over, whether the marriage is intact, or is ended - invariably, by the wife.
In social media I sometimes see a man claim that he walked away from an abusive woman, but I've never seen it in real life, where there are children. In real life, I've only see death by a thousand cuts.
Wallerstein’s research on the harm to children posed by no-fault divorce is extremely revealing and, frankly, terrifying. Your situation seems to corroborate her findings about the harsh effects on children.
The harsh effects on children are well-known and irrefutable. But Wallerstein is another who talks out of both sides of her mouth. She reports the undeniable more or less accurately, but then she attacks any effort to remedy it.
Initially I didn't think this strategy would work, due to the impossibility of keeping young men away from women. However the more I think about it, I'm becoming convinced you're right. It would be somewhat akin to Gandhi's strategy for dismantling the British Raj. A passive protest that couldn't help but entice the lamestream's interest. An indirect assault on the wicked regime.
You may be correct, but I am not sure that no state has ever reversed it. One hope is Christianity, which has a remarkable capacity to regenerate decadent societies through religious revivals. So it is possible that of all the points I raise, the ones involving the churches may be the most important. But I agree that today’s churches are useless and give no hints of understanding their duty. The revival that has been going on since roughly the 1960s has so far stopped short of challenging the feminists. This time we may be too far gone, as you suggest.
Hello Stephen, I delivered the remedy for the divorce courts on 2009-11-26. I published that remedy when I was doxed in 2010. It was popular with men and women hated it.
Since women turned down that remedy I was one of the men who first said "don't get married".
Of course women have destroyed my life and fought me every inch of the way. I made my last peacefully offer to them in January this year. They turned it down.
I have officially declared Old Marriage dead. I am the creator of "New Marriage" which I have called Narriage. In 100 years Narriage will be the only offer men make. Women will have to take it or leave it.
Ot was a very big mistake for women to attack me and to use the power of four governments to try and murder me.
BRAVO! 'SIR KING STEPHEN' You should be knighted! Wonderful article Stephen. You should have been the author of "the contract with America" Boy I wish YOU were the President!
One critique however: Phylis Schlafly was a gyno-centric misandrist and not a MEN'S advocate!
She was extremely gyno-centric! Once Phylis Schlafly said: "w0e-MEN should be exempt from the death penalty" "Because "w0e-MEN are the flowers of life" Her exact words! I believe "He who is without sin cast the 1rst stone" Even if someone deserves it, how can it be fair with gyno-centric attitudes like hers? I'm afraid Schlafly was just another trad/feminist. Otherwise, BRAVO SIR KING STEPHEN!
Thank you for your kind words. I understand what you say about Phyllis Schlafly, but near the end of her life, her son was taken through the divorce wringer. and she came to realize the reality. Because she had dedicated her career to battling the feminists, she immediately understood what they were doing and never again tried to demonize men. She tried valiantly to bring the injustices to public attention and devoted several editions of her famous Newsletter and numerous newspaper columns to publicizing the injustices against fathers. "Some of it ended up in her book, Who Killed the American Family?" She also published my work and invited me to speak at the annual conference of her organization, Eagle Forum. But she encountered huge blowback from within EF, which she herself had founded. Once I watched her at the US Capitol confront Sen. Rick Santorum, who touted himself as a great "family values" man and managed to fool many people. As she tried to tell him what was taking place in family court, his response was to interrupt her and then walk away. He simply brushed off and ignored one of the most highly respected and influential women of the twentieth century. It was then that I fully realized how phony are the "traditional conservatives" with their "family values" and how vicious is the resistance against fathers.
Ok, thanks for that update, I didn't know that. Nice to know. Hopefully she evolved into a fuller understanding of the conundrum.
I agree. Stephen is the man!
Okay, but why do women choose nursing, medicine, and teaching? They dominate those caring professions.
Also, there's a preference for dolls over cars, amongst female primates.
The apocryphal story is the feminist mother who gave her daughter a fire truck toy. She wrapped it up in a blanket, coddled it, and cooed to "trucky" like a baby doll.
The negative mother is Ursula from the little mermaid. A monster of power and control. That just wants to trap everyone in her matrix dungeon (matrix is Latin for womb). She's the evil consuming mother who won't let children grow up and start their own lives.
Hi Stephen, if you wish to speak to me my public email address is Peter at PeterNolan dot com. I get a lot of spam there so the subject has to stand out. My X is suspended along with many other social media accounts. I will use substak only for business.
👏👏👏🏆💯🙏
Dr. B, your list of societal ills repaired by restoration of at-fault divorce and presumptive father custody is astonishing and representative of conditions found in emerging, rising civilizations. But once the peak has crested and the downward slide begun, no civ that I'm aware of has reversed the trend. Society does what women want and that's probably not going to change.
But we still need to try, and we need especially to ensure young men are aware of the risks that accompany involvement with women.
Well said. Does anyone know where Victor Davis Hanson stands on these issues? He might have some support for it based on his knowledge of the classical civilizations that gave rise to ours.
I am quite sure he does not stand on them at all. He is what Amneus calls a "parlor intellectual", who recites the professional Republican party line and specializes in telling us what we already know.
Aim higher.
Grant men immunity to unconstitutional courts.
Create an organisation like ICE to take down seditious family court operatives.
The only limit is imagination.
Parenting and mothering are not synonymous. But neither is parenting and fathering. At first contact, the best-laid plans become excellent waste wipers. However, two caring and committed minds adjusting to the unforeseen challenges that children present to their parents will mediate the extremes for both good and ill. And out of this, magic happens, humans become civilized. Being caring and committed need not be fully fledged, but as history has revealed, the longer the effort, the more the feathers grow to shield the body relationship. And it is the growing of more feathers that the child watches and learns civilized attitudes and behaviors from.
I must take issue with this statement: “Child abuse will be all-but-eliminated, virtually 100% of which takes place in the homes of single mothers or in foster care.” This statement does not accurately reflect my 30-plus years as a psychologist, 20 years of which involved criminal investigations, of which 5 years involved uncovering and investigating child sexploitation—some of the most egregious cases involved two-parent, mom-and-dad homes of seemingly upstanding citizens.
However, all in all, your points of view have merit, and I appreciate your arguments.
You're right they'd be against it due to their incentives.
So we have to think of new starts.
The system is corrupted and captured by woke zealots, activist judges, and an ideology against law and order on principle, with a massive animus towards men and especially fathers (and mothers).
So if we define the new contract as civil law tied in to precedent and established institutions such as Churches. And create new communities starting with first people. And it works! Then the feminist hive mind will start playing status games with it.
Especially if the resentment oppression ideology of critical Marxism burns down society by demonising motherhood and husbands and sacrificing babies to Baal. Just draw a straight line on the charts to see where that's going.
Voilà we have a wrecked woke system that ran out of gas, and at least this one new idea called "new marriage contract" and new covent suspiciously similar to Genesis.
Great thinking.
You're way ahead of the postmodern spirit of the times.
Postmodernity objects to the principle of law and order. And archeic father imago. And rationality. All wrapped up like an intersectional cultural wood chipper.
The critical Marxists went after pillars of culture, Church, education, media, government, law. It took them many decades.
For now, let's focus on moving in the right direction.
Friends don't let male friends get married.
Women are also on motherhood strike.
After liberation of Germany, the old Nazis were banned from public service. There was no way to denazification of individuals who'd drink the cool aid. I think Marxism-Feminism the critical theory hydra is the same.
Think of Greta, a jet setting environmentalist gender equality zealot wearing a hamas flag. She's chasing the dragon of crying in the UN saying how dare you to the leader of the free world. There's no hope for her.
They wouldn't remove souls from the matrix after a certain age because they couldn't adapt.
This crop of humans is doomed to the consequences of their actions based on entrenched beliefs.
But post-progressive marriage will be there when a new crop rises and overcomes the wicked woke cancelling of postmodernity.
I also think tech will help. Like continuous recording of women to stop moral stuntedness of false accusations and even shit testing and emotional incontinence. Plus A.I. to real time decode deceit. And universal $1 full genome sequencing and online apps to find relatives by appearance.
We'll study these dark times as a plague of postmodernism.
I liked the part about the woodchipper. More woodchipper, I say.